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)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: No answer yet. I'll go to the OIRS of the SEGEGOB during this week if they found the answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: any progress? Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly nope. I'll go personally to the OIRS of the SEGOB next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:28, 20 May 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)
Ping Jameslwoodward. ~riley (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced that we should restore it, but I am too involved in the discussion to be the one to close it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Because the rule of the shorter term would demand that a US court rule on the law of many countries, with many different legal systems, in many different languages. That's outside their competence. Because just determining the appropriate jurisdiction is hard; in this case, it's hard to prove there wasn't a US release, but we know there was a Polish release; how we do know that wasn't first, and thus the appropriate source nation? Or a release at a French film festival? Lastly, whenever a country increases their copyright duration by 20 years, they get up to 20 more years of sales in foreign countries with the rule of the shorter term, and if they have it, they may not to increase foreign durations in many cases. Win-win for extending copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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) 16:18, 29 April 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)
  • Soviet and Russian official signs (including stamps, money, postcards etc.) are not in public domain («общественное достояние»). They are exempt from copyright («не являются объектами авторских прав»). They are not copyrightable. No one can legally can claim copyright over them, just like no one can claim copyright over a circle. In Russian law, the concept of public domain applies only to copyrightable works, and is somewhat limited, because non-pecuniary rights are still protected. Reasoning for making money and postage signs exempt from copyright is simple: first, no one can legally challenge their official use and distribution (for example, by making request to state their name on every copy — an unalienable right under Russian law), second, copying them is already a crime or an administrative delict. Our ability to scan such objects and legally use their electronic copies as illustrations is just a (maybe unintended) side effect. Copyrighted images can be legally incorporated in such non-copyrightable items only if copyright holder agrees to that or there is a law that allows confiscation of rights. We can safely assume that such permission was given in all cases with Soviet and Russian postal signs (or such law existed back in early history of Soviet state) — there is no sound reason to challenge that. However, we cannot assume that permission wasn't limited — maybe copyright holder had renounced their claims for the image when it used as a postal sign, but still has rights for any other use of an image. We cannot even assume that artists who were hired specifically for the creation of the design of a postage sign renounced all of their exclusive rights. Therefore, we can safely use scans of Soviet and Russian postage signs only 'as is'. We cannot make derivative works out of them (except, perhaps, some digital enhancement). Technically, that means «freedom to make changes and improvements» clause of definition of "Free Cultural Works" is violated. But there is a long-standing consensus that «public domain» stamps are allowed on Commons. They have very high cultural value, and it's perfectly legal to use them 'as is'. There are literally tens of thousands files that should be deleted if we deny the possibility of hosting «exempt from copyright» items on Commons. The issue is not limited to Soviet and Russian stamps: all stamps from post-Soviet states, Albania, Romania and Finland (pre-1990) are also 'non-copyrightable' and have the same issues. That must be a site-wide decision — if such files are no longer allowed, there are a lot of policies that should be amended and there must be a transitional period to allow to move the files to another host (as it's perfectly legal to distribute them without modification). --Grebenkov (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Grebenkov, for the help and clarification. I tried to find texts on the internet explaining that, but it's not so easy to find. I guess, my big mistake was to create a "Creator page" for Peter Emilevich Bendel and to use it to fill in the creator line of his works. Usually, the {{PD-RU-exempt}} items only show e.g. "soviet post" or "USSR post" in the creator line. My filling in of a person's creator page seems to have caused this avalanche, I'm feel very sorry about it. If this is the problem, I would be very glad if the works of Bendel would be undeleted and his name removed from the creator line, just to avoid confusion. As I wrote earlier, my father in law asked me to honor him, that's why I came to this idea to show his name in the creator line. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The flawed understanding of Russian stamp and postal stationery copyright has been going on for quite some time as can be seen by a number of nominations that I reference above but most of them were kept and those that were deleted should be restored. This issue keeps raising it head because deleting admins don't get the Russian situation which is quite different to our understanding of stamp copyright in most other countries, as I've also pointed out. Here is another one Kept nomination and a second Kept nomination whose details should clarify the issue for those who don't get it.
There are two discussion on the {{PD-RU-exempt}} template talk page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Clarify that PD-RU-exempt works can incorporate existing material that is copyright restricted when separated.3F and also further up the page under the heading stamps that make it quite clear some copyright material may appear on stamps but they are still PD. Another section further down the page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Postcards clarifies the difference between the postal cards (and postal stationery) produced by the postal authorities that have pre-printed indicia and other design elements and are PD, as opposed to postcard, which are not always PD. There was also a court case in Ukraine, a legal successor state of the RSFSR and USSR, whose laws are virtually identical to Russia when it comes to stamps. This case specifically confirms (last paragraph) what the philatelists, and some others, have been saying about Russian stamps all along, no matter the content, they are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, postal signs are not public domain (PD). They are not 'freely licensed'. They are 'exempt from copyright'. That's three different things. Basically, with public domain works everyone can do everything: copy, modify, derive from them etc. With freely licensed works you only can do things that are allowed by license, but no less than use, study, copy as a whole and in part, derive and redistribute derivatives. With exempt from copyright works like postage signs, it's not obvious that we can do all those things freely, in particular, copying in part, deriving and redistributing derivatives. Take this stamp as an example (painting in question is {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but let's assume it's still protected). If we crop the image to include just the lemons, the resulting image won't be a postage sign any longer (it will not contain the required elements). Will it still be 'exempt from copyright'? Even more difficult case: some artist takes the stamp and draws full-size oil painting based on it (which, for all intents and purposes, will be plagiarising the original work of art) and proceeds to sell it. Will he be able to get away with it just because he used 'exempt from copyright' postage sign and not the original painting to make his copy? It's highly unlikely that we can answer 'yes' to these question. There is an opinion from professional lawyers that we can use the image of the postage stamp, but not the image on the postage stamp. That applies to all postage signs, by the way, even if the image was created specifically to be used on them. Thus, we have only limited rights in relation to postage signs. This all boils down to three alternatives: 1) continue to host images of Soviet, Russian and other countries 'exempt from copyright' postage signs, but warn of the limitations with relation to derivative works; 2) amend the policies and delete all images (except where {{PD-old}} applies), possibly, moving them to local wikis (as was the case with NoFoP images from Russia); 3) pretend to ignore the problem, occasionaly dealing with drive-by deletions on case by case basis. IMHO, third way is the worst. --Grebenkov (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Even though we use a template the includes the term PD, as Grebenkov says Russian stamps are "exempt from copyright." Essentially the extraction of a copyright image from a Russian stamp could be considered somewhat analogous to the de minimis concept in so far as extracting a copyright images from a larger image is a copyright violation, so extracting an image from a Russian stamp is assumed to be considered a copyright violation, but in both case the original images are not copyright violations. Grebenkov also mentions the opinion of professional lawyers which seems pretty clear to me even using Google translate. Correct me if I'm wrong here but considering that all stamps are designed by an artist, be they identified or not, and we are questioning the copyright law of the country, then, if it is decided that the artist's death is the determining factor, which in some countries like France, it is, then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps, assuming 70 years pma. This would involve 33 years of stamps from the US alone, even though all government work stamps were PD until 1978 and 20 years of UK and its former colony and territory stamps amongst others, such as UK and Ireland which have 50 year terms specifically for government works, and additionally many other stamps whose artists died within the last 70 years or are still alive. That's not even mentioning stamps from most countries listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Then try to find all the artists and their death dates. This is not a decision to be taken lightly or even in this forum as its implications are vast. I have no idea how many stamps might be affected but in the the German case alone it is in the region of 9-10,000 stamps and that has been going on so far for 4 years and is not near its end. We really don't need to give ourselves another big headache if we can avoid it. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your statement “then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps.” Exactly! This is what I was talking about several days ago (please change "earlier" for "later" there), although I was reproached for using "ridiculous" to describe this complicated situation. Please also take note that {{PD-old-50}} is applicable to stamps of Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Malawi, Manchukuo, Namibia, North Korea, Panama, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates, among others. ALL post-1945 stamps would total an enormous amount of images to be deleted. And this would apply not only to the stamps themselves, but also to images of postal stationery, covers, postal cards, etc., that bear those stamps. Just a massive deletion event! --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started.
— User:Storkk 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do! (If it's the only way or the best way to move on with this discussion (?) ) --ScriWi (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the section above: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt, where Butko and ~riley request undeletion of the stamps (sorry for my duplicate undeletion request, earlier they were separated for stamps and postal cards). --ScriWi (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the re-upload of the stamp by Steelwool
apparently caused by the deletion of File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
which proves that this deletion and discussion procedure makes users getting desparate. --ScriWi (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was interesting and detailed and comprehensive, but it seems to be ignored by people deciding about this.
So what are the next steps? Who is in charge?
The deletion of the files is quickly and easily done. The undeletion seems much more difficult, if not impossible. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For stamps, please note the section above Commons:Undeletion_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt

Must be restored. File was deleted ignoring {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR and arguments on DR
— User:Butko 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging closing admin of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel - Jcb.
— User:~riley Revision as of 00:29, 9 May 2016

I think it's time to undelete. Can we now have those files back, please? --ScriWi (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently extremely busy, and will continue to be for a few days. Since it requires actual thought, I have not started the discussion on COM:VPC yet. You are welcome to do so. Apologies I could not do it when I said I would. Storkk (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Understandable, of course (sorry). But thanks for your feedback. The beginner I am, I don't really know how thinks at COM:VPC are handled, but I may start it and just point to the discussion here. Otherwise, I'm a little worried the whole discussion has to be repeated. --ScriWi (talk) 11:19, 11 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, répondeur téléphonique, Wikimédia 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 case?case=16561484084843992349&hl=en&as sdt=6&as vis=1&oi=scholarr 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 minimis&diff=193301859&oldid=193225476 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)
If File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is inserted in an article about the pyramid, then the picture of the pyramid is not 'incidentally' included in the article about the pyramid ("other material"). On the other hand, if File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is inserted in an article about the Louvre main building which doesn't mention the pyramid at all, then the picture of the pyramid may have been incidentally included in the article about the Louvre main building.
I believe that you need to check for incidental inclusion in several steps:
  1. The pyramid is included in a photograph. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the photograph.
  2. The photograph including the pyramid may be included in an article. In that case, the pyramid is included in the article. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the article.
  3. The article including the photograph including the pyramid might have been collected in a book. In that case, the pyramid is included in the book. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the book.
In these cases, "other material" can refer to any of the photograph, the article and the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
When determining a derivative work, usually the text is a completely separate work, and I would think would have no bearing on whether the photograph itself is a derivative work or not. If the photograph itself is incidental (your point 1), and can be straight-up sold as a postcard or something like that, then I fail to see how including that same image in an article could affect the photograph's status just by changing the wording in an article. The expression is unrelated. Do you have any court examples anything like you say? Or any legal opinion to that effect? To the best of my knowledge, literary works can never be derivative of graphical works and vice versa, as there is no copyrightable expression duplicated either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Carl, I believe your statement is reasonable. However Commons:De minimis#Guidelines states otherwise, making it possible to amend categorization or the textual description attached to an image and change the copyright status of the same image. Unless there is strong legal support for the way those guidelines within the de minimis policy are written, it would be great to have them removed. -- (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Carl, you are using the words 'derivative work', which is a concept in United States copyright law, so maybe you are thinking of something in United States law? In Sweden, you would determine if the material you have used constitutes a 'copy' of a work. For example, a building on the street constitutes a copy of an architectural work. A photograph of the building also constitutes a copy of the architectural work. A book which contains the photograph also constitutes a copy of the architectural work.
In NJA 2010 p. 135, someone had taken a screenshot of a website which he had designed, [2]. This screenshot was then included on another website to be used on a page with examples of websites designed by him, [3]. A photographer who had taken two of the photographs in the screenshot sued the website owner for copyright violation. You can see the two photographs here and here, and they are also annotated with arrows in the PDF file. The Supreme Court noted:
“J.R:s fotografier är visserligen små men de utgör inte en oansenlig del av bilden (dvs. skärmdumpen). Fotografierna har en särskild funktion såsom exempel på Kabelkulturs förmåga att kombinera text och bilder, även om de i och för sig inte har något innehållsmässigt syfte (jfr NJA 1981 s. 313). Sammantaget kan fotografierna inte anses utgöra en oväsentlig del av bilden. P.-A.U. har därför gjort sig skyldig till intrång i J.R:s ensamrätt genom otillåten exemplarframställning då han framställt skärmdumpen och infogat den på Kabelkulturs webbplats. Although J.R's photographs are small, they do not constitute an insignificant part of the image (i.e., the screenshot). The photographs have a special function as examples of Kabelkultur's ability to combine text and images, although they actually do not have any contextual purpose (cf. NJA 1981 p. 313). In total, the photographs can't be assumed to constitute an insignificant part of the image. P.-A.U. is therefore guilty for infringement of J.R's exclusive right by illegally producing copies when he produced the screenshot and included it on Kabelkultur's website.
The whole idea that it is relevant that the photographs have a 'special function' seems very contextual to me. If you use the same screenshot in a completely different situation, then I'm not so sure that the photographs would have that special function.
Note that the InfoSoc Directive only lists optional exceptions, not mandatory exceptions (although no countries may use exceptions which do not exist in the directive). It's therefore possible that some European countries may have implemented the de minimis exception differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure... the screenshot was not incidental, which makes sense to me. (It would probably be the same in the U.S., as the author of the screenshot was under full control of the elements of the screenshot, so they would not be incidental either -- de minimis would be the only argument.) What you are saying though is if the photos were in fact ruled incidental in the screenshot, you could then put that screenshot in an article or website, and just by the wording of the text elsewhere on the page, make that screenshot suddenly non-incidental and an infringement. If it's legal to sell a postcard of a photo, even though it prominently contains a building as part of a larger scene, I don't see how including that same photo in an article and mentioning the building in the text would suddenly be infringing on the architectural copyright. It does not change the photo itself, which is what was being copied. The above case was akin to when the photo itself was infringing in the first place, which is not the situation I'm asking about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
A company asked the web designer to create a website for the company, and the company gave the web designer a few images to put on the website. The company then granted the web designer permission to use one or a few screenshots on the web designer's website. Later on, the company was sued by the photographer who took some of the photos, and a court ruled that the company's website was violating the photographer's copyright. The photographer then sued the web designer whose website contained a screenshot of the company's website which happened to contain two of the affected photographs, and the web designer was fined for hosting this screenshot.
Note that the de minimis exception does not consider by whom the screenshot was made, so there should not be any difference between screenshots taken by you, by me or by the web designer, at least not under its Swedish implementation. In this situation, the way the screenshot was used (illustrating how text and images were combined on the web designer's website) was very important, so it wasn't de minimis. Let's say that someone would instead use the same screenshot for the purpose of discussing the most prominently shown picture. "Hey! See what a nice photo I found on this website!" In this case, it would seem that the situation would be completely different: the screenshot would no longer have the purpose of displaying how the website shows text and images. Instead, the images to the right would only have been included because the person who took the screenshot was too lazy to crop it. In that situation (when the screenshot is used in a completely different context), I think that you would have a much greater chance of claiming de minimis for the four small photos to the right. A court would then probably only require permission for the largest photo (that is, the one being discussed). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, but that is still copyright violations all the way through. It's possible that a particular use of the screenshot is de minimis, but that is not what I am talking about. If a particular photo is ruled to be incidental of an underlying work, I fail to see how using that photo (given a license from the photographer) could ever be a problem -- the photo is and remains incidental. Sure, if the photo itself is infringing (like the screenshot above) it's quite possible that further uses of the photo are also problems. But if the photo itself is fine, I do not see how including that photo on a website could create a problem. The case above is not at all about that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 9 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)

The distinction may just be because I'm coming from a US perspective, not EU. The EU directive does allow "incidental" use without being a copyright violation; they do not mention de minimis specifically. However that probably covers de minimis as well as what I'm talking about above. So in the EU the differences are probably glossed over, because they deal with "incidental" to start with, not de minimis specifically, but it may mean that COM:DM (despite the title) tends to cover more than the strict concept of de minimis but rather the EU definition (which US courts have also used to decide on derivative works, even if not exactly the de minimis doctrine). The rule of thumb seems reasonable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of the discussion of incidental use and 'de minimis above. Neither can possibly apply here. The only thing in the image that is in focus is the plush toy which occupies the left third of the image. The Manhattan skyline is in the background, out of focus. The toy cannot possibly be dm', hence the file name. It is well established that toys are copyrighted, so unless it can be shown that the toy's copyright has expired or we have a license from the creator, this image cannot be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)
The discussion is how to apply the decision to keep or delete these types of images consistently and whether the Commons de minimis policy is clear enough or needs more guidance added. The existing DR decisions to keep, seem mostly based on value judgements rather than any copyright rationale.
The clear consensus here so far, is that all of the listed images appear to fail to meet de minimis, apart from the group photograph where there may be an argument under French and American copyright law that the toys are ancillary to the purpose of the photograph and were not deliberately arranged by the photographer. This rationale seems to stretch de minimis but may well be valid on Commons but could be country specific, for example such an "ancillary" rationale might fail in UK courts for otherwise non-de minimis photographs of copyrighted objects.
P.S. the group WikiCon photo was actually taken in Germany, so some more work would be needed even on that photo to check if the interpretation that exists in French law can be applied there. -- (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion morphed a bit more into why I think just File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg might/should be OK. The other ones, including the main subject image, I don't think are OK unless there is some sort of Wikimedia-event exception. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, though UNDEL may not be the most targeted forum, this has been a useful exploration by some experienced Commonsists who have a history of applying the copyright related projects policies. Actions that I'll take away and implement when there's time, will be to:

  1. propose an adjustment to the text of the de minimis policy, highlighting the relevant EU and USA law/case law.
  2. propose that the guidelines within the de minimis policy that make it appear that simple text changes on an image page can change the copyright status of a photograph should be removed or heavily trimmed, on the basis that if this is true then photographs with these qualities should not be hosted on Commons as they are literally not free for reuse and so out of scope.
  3. contest the list of kept images above, probably by raising new deletion requests, once policy proposals are in place or rejected, as the consensus here is that all but one should be deleted.

Thanks -- (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal now at Commons talk:De minimis#Proposal to clarify de minimis policy with respect to "ancillary" or "incidental" reproduction of copyrighted works -- (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Temporary regional processing centre in Manus Island (8205490576).jpg[edit]

This file was deleted within a short time span at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Temporary regional processing centre in Manus Island (8205490576).jpg.

The photo is not a "private image"; it is a photo by the Australian Department of Immigration of the Manus Regional Processing Centre. The reason the faces are "masked" is to protect the privacy of the asylum seekers. It could easily be categorised into Category:Manus Island Detention Centre.

The claim it is not educationally useful can easily be rebutted by doing a Google news search of Manus Island from even the last month. The Australian government policies as they relate to asylum seekers, and their rendition to either Manus Island or Nauru is always in the news.

DIAC no longer has a presence on Flickr due to the department now being renamed "Border Force" (or some other laughable name like this). 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to find any news items with this particular photo. There are many touching news photos related to the Manus Island centre but this isn't one of them. Similar photos from the same category, 1, 2, 3 or 4, are not in use in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson you don't need to find news items using this particular photo. The DR was started on the basis of being out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is an image repository of files which have an educational purpose. The photo which is now unable to be seen shows a 3 or 4 individuals (including a couple of children) sitting around a table, with a caption provided by DIAC saying how they are "settling in" to their Manus Island prison. That there are 2 or 3 other photos isn't the end of what should be hosted. Search for "childen asylum australia detention"; any of the news or scholar articles could use that photo. The silly thing is, that particular photo is already taking up room on WMF servers (even though it's deleted), so is there any reason why it shouldn't be available for use? This is even more important given that DIAC have deleted their Flickr account and that photo is unlikely to be available elsewhere. It actually harms the Commons mission to have it deleted. 21:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2012 08 JV-SEAL-OFFICIAL-300x231.jpg[edit]

Trying to copy w:File:Jurupa Valley City Seal.jpg to Commons, I got an error message saying that a copy of the file, File:2012 08 JV-SEAL-OFFICIAL-300x231.jpg, previously has been deleted. If that is the same file, then the deletion rationale looks odd; seals like this seem to be {{PD-CAGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a work of the state of California? Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support PD-CAGov applies to works "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" (my emphasis). De728631 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How's the State of California in any way involved in the process of the logo creation? Quote: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The template says that the work is 'involved in the governmental process', not that the State of California is involved in this process. City seals seem to be involved in the governmental process because cities use them for identification. There are 111 similar images in Category:County and City seals of California which I presume use the same arguing. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


This file was deleted as part of a mass deletion of files in Category:Google Doodle, archived here. The reasoning given was "Contains original art, subject to copyright.", however the file in question does not fit that criteria as it is an original free image of a depiction of a Google Doodle on the wall of a conference room at Google. The nominator appears to have predicted the possibility that a file would accidentally not fit the criteria of the nomination, as he wrote — "If any of these were actually produced by the uploader, rather than simply screenshots, I apologize for the nomination.". Can this file please be readded, as it was the header image for the Google Doodle article and is sorely missed there. I am the original uploader and was notified of the nom via Talk Page on Commons, but rarely visit Commons and did not see the notice in time. Thank you. Crumpled Fire (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How is this not a derivative work of the doodle pictured on the wall? I do not believe it is de minimis, especially as without the depiction of the doodle, there would be little point in the photo. Storkk (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe it depicts how Google Doodles are an important part of the Google culture at large, with the Doodle being framed and placed on the wall of a company conference room. I'd agree with your derivative argument if it were just in any room or gallery unrelated to Google's facilities or culture. Crumpled Fire (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not believe that obviates the doodle's copyright. Storkk (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


The archive is object of the same law of File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg, who was deleted with this request and restored with this request Jose8122 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubai Parks and Resorts - continued discussion[edit]

The uploader wishes to release photos of buildings in a country without freedom of panorama where buildings are copyrighted.

Previous discussion is in these places -

Previously @Rybkovich, Jameslwoodward, Ronhjones, Storkk, Prosfilaes: participated in some of these discussions.

There is consensus that it is necessary to establish that free licenses can be applied to both the photo and the depiction of the building. Previous discussion confirmed that appropriate release of the photos has been made. The new development is that now the "Senior Executive Manager - Legal" and "Head- Contracts, Procurement and Contracts Department" of the company attempting to share photos have reviewed the matter and clarified which copyrights the company manages. I think it is a demonstration that they understand the matter because they distinguish who owns copyright of the design of the buildings, and then say that they have extensive copyright licenses except for owning the designs themselves. The wording that they use is "DPR is granted an extensive license of the copyright under the design contract and the consultant owns the copyright in the design." I interpret this to mean that they manage copyright for the buildings, except for the design of the buildings themselves.

They manage the copyright for the LEGO structures in their theme park. They do not have copyright for LEGO photos which might have been sourced elsewhere, and particularly say that a picture of people at the end of a water slide are not theirs. I think that at least one of these pictures shows a LEGO gate or main entrance. The depictions of the theme park are to be released.

    • Update Delete all of these. They all seem to be referenced in the release as being sourced from elsewhere. I do not see the LEGO gate image which they say they uploaded, and for which they do own copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

For the other buildings and images, the company is asserting the right to release photos on the basis of having copyright to the images and the copyright to the works depicted in the images. These are requested for undeletion -

I do not intend to cite authority, but I wanted to share more information to offer options to get expert opinions about longer term development of a safe, conservative way to manage copyright releases of buildings in these circumstances. I talked with some Wikipedia contributors who are also architects at the en:Syracuse University School of Architecture and en:Metropolitan Museum of Art. They said that it would be routine for large companies that commission major architecture projects to attempt to secure copyright for everything except the design of buildings. Their opinion was that companies which commission buildings routinely hold copyright to make releases, but not always, and that it would be uncommon for the architect to transfer the design of the building and the right to construct an identical building elsewhere. I think that is what is being said by the legal counsel in this case. For any Wikipedian who want to explore more deeply or get feedback from experts to set policy, architects at that university or museum are likely willing to answer questions or help guide Wikipedia practice. meta:Wikimedia New York City might help arrange to get expert opinions, if anyone has questions that could help guide best practices for requesting the right information in building photo uploads.

Thoughts? Can anyone identify a barrier to undeletion at this point? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Symbol support vote.svg Support I would expect something like theme parks to be careful about the copyright of themed structures. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit I'm not copyright expert (not that I was involved in the deletion), I've temporarily undeleted these files so the non-admin experts like Carl and others can see. Reping.. @Rybkovich, Jameslwoodward, Ronhjones, Storkk, Prosfilaes:. ~riley (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume you pinged me because I nominated Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DPR_2016. At the time, it appeared that the permission was insufficient. If more or better information has come to light, then by all means they should be restored. @~riley: One of us has misunderstood Bluerasberry, though... I'm not sure why you temporarily restored the Legoland images... is there anything there to discuss? Storkk (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
"one of us" definitely me! Only meant to restore the second group. Bluerasberry pinged the whole lot above but there was no response, so was just repinging. I cannot open the .eml file in the OTRS ticket, so I'm leaving it for another admin. ~riley (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Fritz Böhm in 2015.jpg[edit]

I own the copyright to this photo.--Othermovielover78 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The photo was deleted because a wider crop was published on imdb before. If you are the photographer, you could upload the original, uncropped, full-size, photograph to Wikimedia Commons. That's the easiest way to prove that you made that photo. If you aren't the photographer, how did you come to be the copyright owner? --rimshottalk 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Othermovielover78 Poké95 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Graham Moore.jpg[edit]

I have authorization from Graham Moore to publish this picture on the wikipedia site.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chays77 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please have him go through the process at COM:OTRS (which involves a permission email). Please note that images must be licensed for anyone (not just Wikipedia), and even in commercial use (though just the copyright to the photo; publicity rights of the subject do not need to be licensed at all). People are often not aware of these requirements when asked if a photo can be put on Wikipedia, so we need to be explicit to be sure. Additionally, if someone else took the picture of Mr. Moore, the photographer might be the copyright owner and might be the one to license the image instead of Mr. Moore. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Chays77 Poké95 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Neabsco Iron Works Marker.jpg incorrectley deleted[edit]

I did include copyright permissions as required by:

Neabsco Iron Works Marker Photo,
By Kevin White, August 24, 2007

I have contacted the and the Author Kevin White to get a clarification for a possible repost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Veax (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commercial use is limited, and their license doesn't say anything about derivative works. -- Poké95 09:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Himno Apurimac.jpg[edit]

The content is a public domain, it is the hymn of the Department of Apurimac Peru, published by the Regional Government of Apurimac Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipeape (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think the lyrics are public domain? Why do you submit lyrics as JPEG? Thuresson (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ipeape Poké95 09:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


It's a logo I've created, for a notable service in France as you can see here and on the press revue page here I also sent an email to [Ticket#2016052410023874] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolphe31 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Neither Video-en-Poche nor videoenpoche is mentioned in French Wikipedia. I think, that Wikipedia has nothing to do with the logo. Taivo (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:TM10000 LED 10gosya.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is taked by me 08:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if you're the photographer of the image, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevoably agree to release your image under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, Poké95 09:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright File:Deniz Toprak Kizilozn 01.jpg[edit]

This pictures is a snapshot on iPhone I don't know why people deleting pictures on wikipedia for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah London (talk • contribs)

@Abdullah London: Hello, if you are the copyright holder of this image, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release your image under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Please note that this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Thanks, Poké95 10:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Eylem Kaftan.jpg[edit]

Some people deleting my work and i don't know why this pictures and her bio is belong to her no one else. i don't know why people spending more time then on real time to delete some peoples work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah London (talk • contribs)

@Abdullah London: Hello, if you are the copyright holder of this image, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release your image under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Please note that Facebook's license is incompatible with our licensing policy, so that's why we deleted images that comes from Facebook. Thanks, Poké95 10:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


Permission in OTRS ticket:2016041210008843. --Rrburke (talk) 11:40, 25 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:Fat girl and thin girl.PNG[edit]

There is a doubt about the uploader.But the video is not stolen --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The screenshot comes from 0:42 of the original video which was uploaded to Youtube in 2012 and has the standard Youtube license. In March 2016 it was copied and uploaded to a different account with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Forbidden Society.jpg[edit]


--Tactical (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tactical: Hello, please ask the photographer (not Jindrich Brejcha) to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the photographer/copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their image under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Poké95 23:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:The Life Story of a Viennese Whore, as Told by Herself.pdf[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Life Story of a Viennese Whore, as Told by Herself.pdf it was determined the author died in 1945, It is now 2016, and if it still exists the file could ideally be restored as it should be PD based on the details in the deletion request disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirming request from alternate account. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It's at Wikisource: s:en:Index:The Life Story of a Viennese Whore, as Told by Herself.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Now PD in Austria. -- Poké95 00:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Salten presumably wrote in German. Who is the translator? Thuresson (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Rod Parsley (2015).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image asset named "File:Rod Parsley (2015).jpg" was intended to be released to commons under the target license and to be listed on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The content is approved for Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia posting, including the public licensing (CC-BY-SA-4.0, to support the undeletion request). Licensing info is available on our website here: Whcwebmaster (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Whcwebmaster: Hello, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you and your team irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, Poké95 23:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The license is CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0, which is incompatible with Commons' licensing. See COM:L. Please change it to either CC-BY-SA-4.0 or CC-BY-4.0 if you want this file to be undeleted. Thanks, Poké95 01:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: License updated to CC-BY-SA-4.0 per your request, to fulfill our contribution. Whcwebmaster (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Jouvenile howler monkey picking a berry in costa rica.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took the picture, and marked it public domain. 01:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release your image under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, Poké95 01:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The image can be found at flickr with all rights reserved, which is why it was deleted. If this is your flickr account, changing the license there would make undeletion much easier. If you want to give up all rights completely, you can choose CC0 (public domain). If you want to retain the right to be mentioned as author and derivative works to be also freely licensed, you can choose the Attribution-ShareAlike License. See [4] for an overview. Keep in mind that both the NonCommercial and NoDerivs restriction are not compatible with Commons' licensing policy. --rimshottalk 06:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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


Text of deletion request was "No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. Permission may have been given by the subject (though not documented), but the photographer is not identified."

The file is marked Template:PD-1996 and Template:PD-Faroe Islands50 at fo:File:HansJH.jpg. So, there is no need that the photographer is identified.

Thus, the deletion request did not warrant a deletion. 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the File:HansJH.jpg that was deleted was a photograph taken in 2008, and only coincidentally shares a name with fo:File:HansJH.jpg. Before copying the other file over here, please make sure it has a credible date of first publication so that the PD-status can be verified, or it will be deleted, too. Storkk (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
"was a photograph taken in 2008" - how do you know that? 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Since you asked a valid question before Martin closed this undeletion request, I'll answer, but if you have further questions please ask on my talk page. The 2008 date came from the Exif data, which there is no reason to disbelieve; it's a modern portrait. Storkk (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done , fo:File:HansJH.jpg (Hans Jacob Højgaard) and File:HansJH.jpg (Dr. Herrmann) are not the same, no valid reason here. --Martin H. (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)