Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

[edit]

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG

[edit]

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

  • Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
  • This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.
The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:
1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
(snip)
4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(b) ...
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.
Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.
It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.
When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.
I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by a number of people that festival scarecrows are not sculptures. Storye book (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you make that claim without any evidence. The copyright rules are very broadly interpreted -- a computer program is "literature" and sculptures made of butter, ice, and sand, as well as more traditional media all have copyrights. Why, somehow, does a festival scarecrow not have one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that certain people do interpret copyright rules broadly. But in law, words do have to be defined.
For example: toys. Toys are defined as human-designed objects originally intended as toys. Thus a plastic water pistol in the shape of a gun is a toy gun, but a real gun is not a toy. If a toddler takes his mother's real gun out of her handbag (purse) and has fun playing with it and ends up shooting her with it (as has happened, sadly), the real gun has been misused as a plaything but has never been a toy. From that we can see that an object used as a plaything but originally intended for another purpose is not a toy as defined in law. The manufacturer of the deceased mother's gun will not be prosecuted for creating a lethal toy.
Similarly, if a villager creates a straw-stuffed scarecrow bee for their scarecrow-festival tableau, the bee is an effigy for temporary exhibition purposes. It is not a toy (even if the kid next door grabs it and kicks it around as a football) and it is not a sculpture, because it was not designed as a toy or sculpture.
The law in the UK and the US both take original intention into consideration. Killing is a good example of intention being taken into consideration. The serial killer with his known modus operandi (MO) and his car-full of gaffer tape, poisons, ropes, hunting knives and guns may fairly be accused of intention to kill. But the horrified mother who has accidentally backed her car over her child when witnesses confirm that she believed the child was inside the house, is unlikely to be accused of intention to kill.
Therefore, to answer your question, if a sculptor creates an ice sculpture for the ice festival in Ottawa, then that is his intention, and that is a sculpture. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, before eating it, it is not a sculpture. That is because the sculptor is intending to made a sculpture, but the kid is using his food as a plaything, or as a way of winding up his mother. Regarding the issue here, if a villager makes a scarecrow effigy, that scarecrow by definition is supposed to be a badly-made effigy because that is what a scarecrow is. The whole point of a scarecrow is that it is not intended to be a sculpture or any other kind of art, and it is certainly not intended to be a toy. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you keep making the claim that they are not sculptures, but have not and cannot cite either statute or case law to prove your point. Carl would you comment here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any written law which cites what things are not. There would be an infinite list of nots if they tried. Anyway, aren't you bringing this discussion off the point? The above two files were deleted on the grounds of being toys. Any argument for deletion or undeletion of those files ought to be about that. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Ticket #2024052210003759

[edit]

All those files have to be restored, as there's no copyright involved (old architecture) or it's no "art" (eg organ console). The deleting admin "krd" knew that, as I had wrote him (besides that everyone can see that at one glance). The permission itself by the author is there since weeks. --Subbass1 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no permission was confirmed within one month after it was received, hence the deletion (which is quasi-automatic after that time). This looks like there was a problem with the permission. Someone with access to Ticket:2024052210003759 might want to have a look. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of russia 1856.png

[edit]

Could you all undelete the coat of arms that I uploaded since unlike other people say it wasnt traced and its a original photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTGonYT (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:Witold Frydrych.jpg File:Mieczysław_Hańderek.jpg

[edit]

Both these pictures are retirved from official documents of Kraków Academy of Fine Arts. As it is state Academy the content of the documents including pictures are in public domain based on polish law. According to Article 4, case 2 of the Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 (Dz. U. z 2022 r. poz. 2509 with later changes) "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights".

Polimerek (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marek Mietelski - Rabka 1935.jpg

[edit]

This picture seems to be PD, as it was taken by owner of "Photo Janina" worhshop from Rabka Zdrój, Poland, who according to the information of Museum of Photography in Kraków, died before 1945: https://zbiory.mufo.krakow.pl/artist/foto-janina/ Polimerek (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oropher.jpg

[edit]

Hello👋,

I would like this AI image to be restored because it brings a utility for the Oropher page on French Wikipedia. As described, it was created only on Tolkien's description since no images of Oropher exist.

Thank you 🙏,

Alexandar au Arcos (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't French Wikipedia ban AI images? I seem to remember something like that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:月雲よるs.jpg

[edit]

この写真は、私が撮影した写真であり、著作権はカメラマンである私自身が所有しております。 また、肖像権を所有する月雲よる本人より、ウィキペディアの作成依頼を受けており、著作権のみではなく肖像権に関しても許諾を得ております。

File:ᱚᱧᱡᱚᱲᱤ ᱠᱤᱥᱠᱩ - ᱥᱟᱶᱦᱮᱫ ᱟᱠᱟᱫᱮᱢᱤ ᱥᱤᱨᱯᱷᱟᱹ ᱦᱟᱢᱮᱴᱤᱭᱟᱹᱣᱟᱜ ᱥᱮᱢᱞᱮᱫ.jpg

[edit]

ᱯᱨᱚᱯᱷᱮᱥᱥᱚᱨ (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from Facebook. Please upload the original image with EXIF data, or ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amirhooshang Karimi1.jpg

[edit]

This photo belongs to me and the photographer is Neda Yaganeh. and all rights and licenses are permitted. Amirhooshangkarimi (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Out of scope personal picture. Wikimedia is not a social media, and we do not accept personal images unless people contribute somehow. Yann (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: out of scope personal photo. --Bedivere (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arvind Kejriwal Janlokpal.JPG

[edit]

Hi, I don't see any reason to believe this is not own work by the uploader. It has EXIF data, and was taken by a Sony Cyber-shot camera, and there is nothing official about it. It was certainly taken by one of the party member, like other pictures by this user. And this IP claim in the DR is wild speculation not based on facts. Yann (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Makes sense to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nitiraj.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded this pic for a supposed Wikipedia page I’m going to create, but it was deleted before I was able to publish the pic. We will publish the page in 2-3 days but I request to undelete the picture please. Thank you, Nitiraj NitirajKulkarni (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Out of scope image. Wikimedia is not a social media, and we do not accept personal images unless people contribute somehow. Yann (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shin Seul-ki Singles Korea.png

[edit]

Hello! I would like to have the media file File:Shin Seul-ki Singles Korea.png to be restored. I have read and understood that the owner of the media says, I can use part of the video as photo/screenshot as long as provide the URL of the video or the source of the screenshot which is on Singles Korea's Youtube channel. Link for the said video is here and the permission is stated under the video description. I believe I have provided the source/URL when I uploaded the media earlier.

I hope you can help me with this or let me know what I can do further to prevent my upload from being deleted in the future. Thank you.

--FutureLove (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. No purported {{Cc-by-3.0}} license, or any other free license, at that source. To the extent uploader/requestor refers to the comment "Sharing this video on other platforms is prohibited. When you share captured images, please reveal the URL of the video or 'Singles YouTube'", that is neither a license nor acceptable permission. Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --Bedivere (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Asim Masoom Zubair (Diana Award Holder).jpg

[edit]

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file "Asim Masoom Zubair (Diana Award Holder).jpg," which was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors).

Justification for Undeletion:

Significant Public Interest and Notability:

Muhammad Asim Masoom Zubair is a highly recognized individual who was awarded the prestigious Diana Award for his exceptional contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic. He produced and distributed over 5,000 bottles of hand sanitizer to help mitigate the spread of the virus in his community. This notable act has been widely reported and recognized in various news outlets and by reputable organizations such as The Express Tribune, Daily Times, and Parhlo​ (The Express Tribune)​​ (Daily Times)​​ (Parhlo)​. Asim has also represented Pakistan at international platforms, including the United Nations, showcasing his contributions and enhancing Pakistan's image globally​ (Islamia University)​​ (Educations.pk)​. Educational and Inspirational Value:

The image in question serves an educational purpose, illustrating the achievements of a young Pakistani who has made significant contributions to public health and humanitarian efforts. Asim's story is an inspiration to many, encouraging youth involvement in community service and public health initiatives.

Given these points, the image does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion as it holds substantial educational, inspirational, and public interest value. Furthermore, it adheres to Wikimedia Commons' mission of providing educational media content to the public.

I kindly request the undeletion of the file to preserve the educational and inspirational value it holds. If additional documentation or permission is required, please let me know, and I will provide it promptly.

Thank you for considering this request.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimbwp (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: file is out of scope. --Bedivere (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WBDT 2024.svg

[edit]

New logo style now being used on website Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: . --Bedivere (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=889458938"