Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:19, 29 September 2024

Current requests

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.

Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.

In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

@Yann: Undelete File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg. Published in Izvestiya, 1 September 1937. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kges1901: Please add relevant information in the file description. Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

File:Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Conference Setup - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bmsw-logo-short-rgb-b.jpg

In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--Rocky187 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

Arguments against deletion were again not taken into account.

The photo depicts a portable metal board of a travel office, with many similar leaflets containing large color titles in Russian (suppossed to be simple non-literary texts, without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface) and illustrative photos of the destinations offered (indistinct due to the proportions in the whole composition and resolution of the photo, apparently De minimis par excellence). The subject of the photograph is the fact that the Bohemian city of Karlovy Vary is partially Russian-language. This is an encyclopedically significant fact and the photos documenting this fact are in scope of Commons.

Yann argued "These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text." He ignored the arguments, that the texts (titles of the leaflets) have not sufficiently creative authorship and that the included photos are small, indistinct, de minimis. He did not specify which elements or aspects of the leaflets he considered copyrightable and why he disagree with the contention that the included photographs, given the size, composition, resolution and subject matter of the overall photograph, are "De minimis".

Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope." This reasoning does not respond to my arguments. My argument was that the headlines of the leaflets are non-creative PD-Texts, and the photographs contained in the leaflets are "de minimis" in relation to the whole composition and subject of the photography. The composition of individual leaflets also cannot be considered an original creative work either.

Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights." Again, an argument based on a false premise. The subject of the photo is the distinct headings of the leaflets, especially the language used, which is in scope as the subject of the photo. The headings are claimed to be not copyrightable, as simple texts without sufficiently creative authorship, in a general typeface. The only thing that could be copyrightable on those leaflets are the illustrative photos of the destinations, which are so small and indistinct in the overall composition that exactly correspond to the principle "de minimis", par excellence. (Btw., the rack itself could be also in scope.) --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't read the language, but there appear to be enough legible words there to have a copyright in the USA -- which only takes a single sentence or two. Also, many of the photographs are large enough so that they cannot be called de minimis. As I said, there is nothing in this image that is interesting that does not have a copyright as text or photos or both. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дмитров1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Дмитров1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: this may be a test UNDEL case. Deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дмитров1.jpg, on the grounds that it contained one component image that was a violation of NoFoP-Russia for copyrighted public monuments.

RG72 gave an interesting case though, in 2019–20 concerning a postcard set, one of the constituent postcards contained an image of a monument in Yekaterinburg whose sculptor filed a copyright complaint (see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#NoFoP should be amended). The case reached the Russian Supreme Court, which denied the sculptor's complaint (essentially dismissed), because the involved monument was only depicted in one of the postcards of the set (the set is considered the entire reproduction, and the monument is not the main object of the whole reproduction because it was only depicted in one of the postcards). Perhaps while the original images should stay deleted, the montages or collages where those deleted images were being used should be restored, in light with this slightly-lenient ruling by the Russian court narrowing sculptors' economic rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping other participants of that CRT/Russia talkpage thread @Alexander Davronov@Alex Spade. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (on June 25, 2024) the Yekaterinburg case and some similar cases were subject of trial in the Russian Constitutional Court (the highest court of the RF, higher than the Russian Supreme Court). See discussions in ru-community: 1st+2nd ones on Commons and 1st+2nd ones in Ru-wiki.
In short: the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade how about the possibility of the montages/collages being lawful based on the court ruling, since the monuments themselves are not the main objects of the collages/montages. Similar analogy to the court ruling itself that concerns a set of postcards, even if one of the postcards unambiguously shows the monument itself as its sole depiction, the entire postcard set is lawful (the monument is not the main object of the entire postcard set) and the sculptor's claims dismissed, if I can understand RG72's comment in the CRT talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This is interesting PoV (suggestion), but Jim's point below (We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons) is too strong. Alex Spade (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a simple answer to this. We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons, freely licensed. We do this in order that we can check the copyright status of each image. Obviously, the offending image in a situation like this cannot be present separately on Commons, so we can't keep a montage containing it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Firstly the author of the image expressly freely licensed his image to the Commons. Secondly, according to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [8] and [9]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple fair use, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some PD-Myanmar files

File:1962 Rangoon University Protests6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:1962 Rangoon University Protests7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:1962 Rangoon University Protests8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Since the photo were taken in 1962, which are now in public domain per Myanmar's 2019 copyright law. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 06:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They were not public domain in 1996 as photographs would have been creation plus 50 years under the old British law which means pre-1946 photos. These would have entered the public domain only in 2013. So URAA applies. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Gobernación del Estado Zulia (2021-2025).jpg

Hi Administrators, please restore this image, this are public domain in the last paragraph of license in Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Named source has explicit copyright notice and no free license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No reason given. As noted, has at least a URAA copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowd Checks Out Clean Coal at Missouri State Fair (6072555381).jpg

I would like to use this picture to illustrate the advocacy activities of the fossil fuel industry in the article Carbon capture and storage. I agree it is promotional in intent. That is the reason I want to use it - promotion happens in the real world and we should cover that phenomenon encyclopedically. Clayoquot (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even if put on Flickr with promotional intent, seems reasonably in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm

It is important to America and also it is history that cannot be deleted.Also, i would like to investigate it but I can’t. Please get it ASAP.Thank you. 42.98.226.90 06:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm. Yann (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an important historic American film, but as en:Zapruder film says it is copyrighted and thus cannot be hosted on Commons yet. I am not opposed to fair use of the film, which would have to be locally hosted on English Wikipedia. There is no fair use on Commons (I was the closing administrator on that DR). Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg was closed rather quickly today, and I was halfway through typing out a keep for it at the time: I think it's a good illustration of a person genuinely engaged in editing a video on a home computer, to the point where I would have used it at en:Video editing#Home video editing, or even in the lead there. The concern that the photo is a social-media style "selfie" seems misplaced, as the subject is facing away from the camera.

As someone who's had to fake a screen onto a similar stock photo before, decent photos of people doing something specific on a computer, where the photo emphasises the act of work more than the person as an individual, can be quite rare. --Belbury (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Belbury. Definitely not "rubbish" as the speedy deletion nominator had said, and a good illustration of someone using editing software. This is not some social media selfie. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Oppose: "Someone using iMovie" is different than a picture that could illustrate that use. The screen is blurry, and since it is a free software, anyone can create a useful picture or video. This is not one of them. If anything, this could illustrate a teenager's desktop, but nothing else. Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very busy, low quality image. The screen is out of focus. The half cup on the right should be cropped, also some of the left.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:19, 29 September 2024

Contents

Current requests

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

File:Bmsw-logo-short-rgb-b.jpg

File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

File:Дмитров1.jpg

some PD-Myanmar files

File:Logo Gobernación del Estado Zulia (2021-2025).jpg

File:Crowd Checks Out Clean Coal at Missouri State Fair (6072555381).jpg

File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm

File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg

Navigation menu

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=
+<noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
-{{Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests/Header}}
 <!--
 PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IN NEW SECTIONS AND LEAVE THIS SECTION ALONE
+You can add a new section by going to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Undeletion_requests
 Also, please prefix images with a colon (:), this will
 make it easier for administrators to undelete the image.
-Example: [[:File:Deleted image.jpg]] instead of
+Example: [[:File:Deleted image.jpg]] instead of [[File:Deleted image.jpg]]
-[[File:Deleted image.jpg]]
 -->
+==[[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin]]==
-== [[:File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG]] ==
+Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
-* {{il|Lettera Boratto p2.JPG}}
-Please compare to [[:File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG]] which still exists on the commons. [[User:Evrik|Evrik]] ([[User talk:Evrik|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
-*{{Comment}} You are right, there is a dissymetry of treatment. I renominated [[:File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG]] for deletion to have a community discussion on the neighbouring rights. Should the file be deleted, we would have to also delete [[Lettera di Boratto per guasto Alfa di Mussolini]]. Should it be kept, we should IMO undelete this one. <span style="font-size:0.9em;letter-spacing:0.1em">&#8212;&#x202F;'''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''&#x202F;[[User talk:Racconish|<sup>&#128172;</sup>]]</span> 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
-*{{Comment}}  I lean towards supporting undeletion here.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} The [[:fr:Ercole Boratto|author]] died in 1970. So I suppose it is under a copyright until 2041. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
+{{o}} As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-== Files uploaded by Tontonyua ==
+:We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, [[:File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg]], is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
+::Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --[[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - Axis.jpg]]
+:::[[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - Chaofu Avenue.jpg]]
+::::These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - Grid.jpg]]
+::::''Carl Lindberg'' is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - Heat Source.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - High-end Industry Areas.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Beijing 12th Five-year Plan - Natrual Gas Source.jpg]]
-* [[:File:北京中心城控制性详细规划 - 中心城整体空间形态分析图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京中心城控制性详细规划 - 中心城空间结构图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京中心城控制性详细规划 - 片区街区划分图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 中心城功能结构规划图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 中心城用地规划图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 北京旧城文物保护单位及历史文化保护区规划图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 区域空间结构规划示意图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 市域城镇体系规划图.JPG]]
-* [[:File:北京城市总体规划（2004年—2020年） - 市域用地规划图.JPG]]
-* {{Il|1=老城传统空间格局保护示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=科技创新空间布局保障示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=核心区空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=文化中心空间布局保障示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域风貌分区示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域绿色空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区功能分区示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区市级绿道系统规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域轨道交通2021年规划示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域用地功能规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域干线公路网及公路主枢纽规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区蓝网系统规划图,jpg.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区通风廊道规划示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=中心城区道路网系统规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=京津冀区域空间格局示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域客运枢纽体系规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=北京城市副中心与中心城区、东部地区关系示意图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=北京城市副中心空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=北京城市副中心绿色空间结构规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域两线三区规划图.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=市域历史文化名城保护结构规划图.jpg}}
-Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of ''[http://bjghw.gov.cn/web/ztgh/ztgh011.html Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035)]'' and ''[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN023930.pdf Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)]'' announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of ''Copyright Law of People's Republic of China'', as well as Article 9 of ''Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China'' ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? [[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
-*{{ping|Shizhao|Jcb}} Pinging sysops concerned. --[[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
-**{{o}} - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{tl|PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
-* <del>{{o}}</del> How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-** {{ping|Jcb|Gone Postal}} Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --[[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-*** Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhDhnkXwDc</ref>, so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-**** In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to '''all people''' are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter ''[http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2017-09/27/content_5227992.htm Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)"]'', the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --[[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-*****I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-*****I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:''[http://bjghw.gov.cn/web/ztgh/ztgh011.html Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035)]'' and ''[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN023930.pdf Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)]''), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. [[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-******{{s}} This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
-******copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [http://zhengwu.beijing.gov.cn/zwzt/ZWZT/CSZL/CSZTGH/t1504108.html]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头，30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。"，很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD（特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品）--[[User:Shizhao|shizhao]] ([[User talk:Shizhao|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
-*******或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看，此类大型规划，政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标，同时也一定会拨给一定款项，所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--[[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
-* {{comment}} Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process.  They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
-{{talk reflist}}
+::::: I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin".  The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely.  It would only matter in a country ''outside'' those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved.  Not sure I know of any, anywhere.  But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows.  Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now.  One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia.  Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different).  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
-== [[:File:印军越界现场照片（一）.png]] ==
+:::::: I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.<br>Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
+::::::: Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works.  The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty.  In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication).  But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
-* {{Il|1=印军越界地点示意图.png}}
+{{od}} Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this [https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_24229029_98887307.pdf academic article about Russian copyright law], it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be [[:ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское право#Закон о сиротских произведениях|considered published]]. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
-* {{Il|1=印军越界现场照片（二）.png}}
+* Term ''publication'' (''обнародование'' or ''опубликование'' in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of [https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_64629/ca5bad21533745bc8f4ad6f42607820dd60a1436/ article 1268 of the Civil Code]. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)<br>At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of [https://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=34159 article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code]. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
-* {{Il|1=印军越界现场照片（一）.png}}
+:*In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of ''обнародование'' because the term contains a broader meaning than simply ''опубликование'', and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from ''обнародование'' and not ''опубликование'' of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as ''обнародование'' while not ''опубликование'' in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
-Reason: These files are all inseparable part of ''[https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/P020170802541371281020.pdf The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position]''(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界
+::Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example [https://ru.bidspirit.com/ui/lotPage/oldpaper/source/search/auction/23834/lot/124507/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%88%D0%B5-%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A1-18?lang=ru this photograph] was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
-进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China.  According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. [[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
+:: In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this [http://militera.org/books/pdf/memo/sb_boi-u-kalhin-gola1940.pdf 1940 book without mention of his name]. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24948736 this example] would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=5159614], [https://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/2354115],  [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049932], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049936], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049935], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049933], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049929]. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
-*{{s}} per nom. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
+::* Yes, ''обнародование''  is wider than ''опубликование'', but the fact (and the date) of ''обнародование'' must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
-*{{o}}. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--[[User:Shizhao|shizhao]] ([[User talk:Shizhao|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
-** It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --[[User:WQL|WQL]] ([[User talk:WQL|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
+::* Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
+===Undeletion of individual photographs===
-*** It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --[[User:Whym|whym]] ([[User talk:Whym|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
+*{{ping|Yann}} Undelete [[:File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg]]. [https://imgur.com/a/91wI1oi Published in Izvestiya], 1 September 1937. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
-*{{s}}. Pictures are obviously captured *in* the official statement, which is a part of a PDF, instead of from a website that segments of "statement" and "non-statement" cannot be clearly devided. Statements are not text-only. --<span style="color:black ; text-shadow: 0pt 1px 2px black;">[[User:Techyan|Techyan]]</span>（[[User Talk:Techyan|Talk]]） 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
-:{{question}} which license template should be applicable if undeleted? [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
+:*{{d}} {{ping|Kges1901}} Please add relevant information in the file description. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
-::{{Ping|WQL|Techyan|Jeff G.}} Any hints? If none appropriate exists, it should be discussed in [[COM:VPC]] before coming here. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{re|Ankry}} {{t2|PD-ROC-official}}. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{re|Jeff G.}} Definitely not. ROC != People's Republic of China. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::{{re|Ankry}} Sorry, I meant {{t2|PD-PRC-exempt}}. A diplomatic statement by an organ of the PRC state government appears to qualify as a decision or news thereof. I agree with your proposal below of restore and DR, as there is no mention of "text-only" in that template. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{re|Ankry}} {{t2|PD-PRC-exempt}} is what they are getting at. However, the argument against using this license template is that it only applies to textual documents but not images, and for numerous times in the past here in Commons, the admins have agreed with such an argument. A few examples here:
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg]]
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:HONGKOU+River.jpg]]
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-天天.jpg]]
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hu Jintao Embassy.jpg]]
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/Portraits of PRC politicians with PD-PRC-exempt]]
-::::*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:中国公路徽标.svg]]
-::::--[[User:Wcam|Wcam]] ([[User talk:Wcam|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-::{{Ping|Wcam}} Indeed, some of the above cases make me doubt. However, I would {{s}} restoring and starting a DR to test whether the PDF document mentioned above should be considered covered by this template as a whole, or only its textual part. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Ankry}} If in doubt, maybe [[COM:PRP]] should be considered? --[[User:Wcam|Wcam]] ([[User talk:Wcam|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::Maybe it should, maybe not. I refrain from taking final decision here as I do not speak Chinese and the douubt seems to be language / translation related. I just thing that DR is a better place where Chinese speakers can present their opinion in this matter. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
+== Russian department awards ==
-== [[:File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm]] and so on ==
+Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
-I request to undelete these files:
-*[[:File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm]]
-*[[:File:2018高考福建省福州三中考点 校门 考试前夜.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018洪秀柱云南大学演讲.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018洪秀柱云南大学演讲 帘后.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018洪秀柱云南大学演讲 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018洪秀柱云南大学演讲 帘后 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018年6月6日长安山麓望物光篮球场.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Tian Jiabing Building & Chuangxin Building, Jinshan Campus, FAFU.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Wetland Park, taken on the top of Mingde Building.jpg]]
-* [[:File:On the top of Mingde Building, FAFU, faced to Min River.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠乞土圣地.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠正殿前.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠戟座.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠碑石.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠后房.jpg]]
-* [[:File:闽王祠拜剑台遗址.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Si with Flour.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Si without Flour.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Si with Oranges.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆长安山公园门口.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大外国语学院导引牌.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆外国语学院大门近摄.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区宣传牌.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆外国语学院大门.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区宣传凉亭.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区宣传花圃.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区宣传板.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区文科楼宣传板.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区路灯宣传牌.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区路灯宣传牌2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆仓山校区文科楼.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉紫色2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉紫色3.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉紫色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉青色3.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉素色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉青色2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉青色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉绿色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉蓝色2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉蓝色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉橘色2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆图书馆前喷泉橘色.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福建师范大学庆祝建校110周年招待会蛋糕.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福建师范大学庆祝建校110周年招待会蛋糕食毕残局.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福建师范大学110周年校庆聚星园午餐券.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉组图5.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉组图4.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉组图2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉组图3.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福师大110周年校庆音乐喷泉组图.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福建师范大学110周年校庆桃李园午餐券.jpg]]
-* [[:File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg]]
-* [[:File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg]]
-* [[:File:华南优教研究所内.jpg]]
-* [[:File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg]]
-* [[:File:高盖山公园大门.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon in the West Lake, Fuzhou.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Before Typhoon Maria 台风玛利亚来临之前的福州 07.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018高考福建省福州三中考点 学生志愿者牌.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon and the Mars Before Eclipse in 20180727, Fuzhou.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Before Eclipse in 20180727, Fuzhou 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Before Eclipse in 20180727, Fuzhou 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Eclipse in 20180728, Fuzhou (First Contact) 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Eclipse in 20180728, Fuzhou (First Contact) 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Eclipse in 20180728, Fuzhou (First Contact) 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Moon Eclipse in 20180728, Fuzhou (First Contact) 04 (camera).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Typhoon Maria laned. 颱風瑪利亞登陸福州 福州大學旗山校區 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Typhoon Maria laned. 颱風瑪利亞登陸福州 福州大學旗山校區 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Typhoon Maria laned. 颱風瑪利亞登陸福州 福州大學旗山校區 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Typhoon Maria laned. 颱風瑪利亞登陸福州 福州大學旗山校區 04.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Typhoon Maria laned. 颱風瑪利亞登陸福州 福州大學旗山校區 05.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018高考福建省福州三中考点 考场内悬挂的横幅 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:2018高考福建省福州三中考点 考场准备.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Qingming Guo 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Qingming Guo 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Qingming Guo 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区 20180316 04.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区操场 20180316 06.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区操场 20180316 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区操场 20180316 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区 20180316 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区 20180316 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区 20180316 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:锅里的拗九粥.jpg]]
-* [[:File:雨中的福建中医药大学20180315 05.jpg]]
-* [[:File:雨中的福建中医药大学20180315 04.jpg]]
-* [[:File:雨中的福建中医药大学20180315 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:雨中的福建中医药大学20180315 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:雨中的福建中医药大学20180315 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区教学楼.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区教室里正在上课的学生.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区励志楼.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区操场.jpg]]
-* [[:File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg]]
+'''Closed DR discussions'''
-My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons '''first''', so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be '''later then Commons'''.
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Rostekhnadzor]]
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Rostekhnadzor]]
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Sport (Russia)]]
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia]]
+'''Current DR discussions'''
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Russian Federation Investigative Committee medals]]
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Transport (Russia)]]
+Yes, they are not state awards, but they are '''state symbols''' ({{tl|PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective '''official documents of state government agencies''' (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the [[:en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation]] ([http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&link_id=16&nd=102040280 point 3 subpoint 4]). [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
+:{{?}} Any opinion about this? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
+== Two ConventionExtension screenshots ==
-Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
+* {{il|Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png}}
-One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
+* {{il|Conference Setup - ConventionExtension.png}}
+These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{tl|MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+/refs/heads/master Git repository] of the [[mw:Extension:ConventionExtension|MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of]] doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files ({{u|Chughakshay16}}) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see [[mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension]], [[git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log]]) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.
-:<s>{{tl|support}}</s> nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-::Go away with your clueless personal attacks! [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::Factual observations are not personal attacks. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:{{o}} - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Davidzdh}} is this true? Are you not the author? - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}}Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:{{ping|4nn1l2}} at least [[:File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg]] from the list was uploaded by [[User:Cyclohexane233|Cyclohexane233]]. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Moon with the Mars in Huqian, Fuzhou.jpg|this DR]]. Any comment? - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}}, please see [[Special:diff/328083588]]. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is {{w|WeChat}} or {{w|Tencent QQ|QQ}}. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|4nn1l2}} thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors ''did'' send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now ''impossible'' to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-::::This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}} I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only {{support}} undeletion of [[:File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg]], [[:File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg]], [[:File:华南优教研究所内.jpg]], [[:File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg]], and [[:File:高盖山公园大门.jpg]] per [[Ticket:2017043010001331]]  which has been processed by [[User:Taiwania Justo]] and partially by [[User:Wong128hk]]. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3A%E9%AB%98%E7%9B%96%E5%B1%B1%E5%85%AC%E5%9B%AD%E5%A4%A7%E9%97%A8.jpg&timestamp=20170721131542&diff=prev example]).
-::::Regrading your question, [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kutai3.jpg|as I had already told you]], OTRS agents ''do'' accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
-::::Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with {{w|Great Firewall}}, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&user=Thibaut120094&page=User%3A4nn1l2&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= suffered] and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission{{@}}wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{tl|George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at [[COM:OTRSN]]. Feel free to ping me there. [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::{{reply|4nn1l2}} I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::{{Ping|4nn1l2}}The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
-:::::*Ticket#: 2018081210002114
-:::::*Ticket#: 2018081210002098
-:::::*Ticket#: 2018081210002892
-:::::*Ticket#: 2018081310006494
-:::::*Ticket#: 2018081210005988
-:::::*Ticket#: 2017071410005022
-:::::If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-::::::{{ping|Davidzdh}} I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully:  [[:File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg]].
-::::::Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at [[COM:OTRSN]]. [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::::{{Re|4nn1l2}}What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
-::::::::{{ping|Davidzdh}} It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::::::{{Re|4nn1l2}}Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-::::::::::No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.
+At [[User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?]], the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as {{tq|likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex}}; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).
-Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.
+All the best, --[[User:A smart kitten|A smart kitten]] ([[User talk:A smart kitten|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
-In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.
+:{{?}} Any opinion about this? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
+== [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)]] ==
-These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.
+those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that [[COM:GRAFFITI]] applies. Template {{tl|Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in [[:Category:Non-free graffiti]]. -- [[User:geagea|Geagea]] ([[User talk:geagea|talk]])  13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
-Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.
+:{{com}} Documentation of [[Template:Non-free graffiti]] states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". [[User:Günther Frager|Günther Frager]] ([[User talk:Günther Frager|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
-Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.
+::that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked [[COM:GRAFFITI]] and we have a lots of files in [[:Category:Non-free graffiti]]. -- [[User:geagea|Geagea]] ([[User talk:geagea|talk]])  18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
+:{{o}} But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] ([[User talk:Thuresson|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
-P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
+::So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in [[COM:GRAFFITI]]. -- [[User:geagea|Geagea]] ([[User talk:geagea|talk]])  20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
-:Skipping the [[COM:OTRS|OTRS]] process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at [[Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?]], you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: ''"I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons."''. If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
+:: For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale.  If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
-::{{Ping|Jcb}}Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my '''own''' email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
+== [[:File:Bmsw-logo-short-rgb-b.jpg]] ==
-:::{{re|Davidzdh}} You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via [[OTRS]]. Have them carbon copy you on their messages. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-::::{{Ping|Jcb}}Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, '''only I''' send emails stating that the original author is authorized is '''not enough''', and I must have the '''original authors' email''' to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::{{re|Davidzdh}} Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::: {{re|Jeff G.}}I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-:::::::{{re|Davidzdh}} Yes. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small> 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to [[COM:OTRS|OTRS]] and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
-:Thank you for telling me. - <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">[[Special:Contributions/Davidzdh|<font color="#2E8B57">'''I '''</font>]][[User talk:Davidzdh|<font color="#008B8B">'''am '''</font>]][[User:Davidzdh|<font color="#4169E1">'''Davidzdh'''</font>]]'''.'''</span> 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
-* {{comment}} Looks like OTRS is starting to process some of these tickets.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
-::In that case this undeletion request should be closed and we should let OTRS do its job. --[[User:Wcam|Wcam]] ([[User talk:Wcam|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
+In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--[[User:Rocky187|Rocky187]] ([[User talk:Rocky187|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
-== Uploads by Accipite7 ==
-=== [[:File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png]] ===
+== [[:File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg]] ==
-Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? {{unsigned2|11:29, 18 November 2018|Accipite7}}
-: Note: this may be derived from [[:file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png]]. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-: Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then [[#Discussion|further claims by Accipite7]] dismissed, as coming from an untrustworthy source. But if the deleted map has no obvious third-party source, then the file should be undeleted. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
-::Actually these two maps are very different in design and extensiveness of the depicted information. Also, the map by Accipite7 did not claim any third-party sources but only "own work". [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
+* [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg]]
-=== [[:File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png]] ===
+* [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-09#File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg]]
+Arguments against deletion were again not taken into account.
+The photo depicts a portable metal board of a travel office, with many similar leaflets containing large color titles in Russian (suppossed to be simple non-literary texts, without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface) and illustrative photos of the destinations offered (indistinct due to the proportions in the whole composition and resolution of the photo, apparently [[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]] par excellence). The subject of the photograph is the fact that the Bohemian city of Karlovy Vary is partially Russian-language. This is an encyclopedically significant fact and the photos documenting this fact are in scope of Commons.
-Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? {{unsigned2|11:30, 18 November 2018|Accipite7}}
-* {{ping|Accipite7}} Здравствуйте, причина указана на [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7]]. Файлы не выглядели как что-то созданное лично вами без использования чужих работ. Вам необходимо указать источники. Есть потенциальная вероятность, что данный файл находится в общественном достоянии, или хотя бы мы сможем расчитать дату, когда его можно будет восстановить. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 05:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
+* [[user:Yann|Yann]] argued "These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text." He ignored the arguments, that the texts (titles of the leaflets) have not sufficiently creative authorship and that the included photos are small, indistinct, de minimis. He did not specify which elements or aspects of the leaflets he considered copyrightable and why he disagree with the contention that the included photographs, given the size, composition, resolution and subject matter of the overall photograph, are "[[Commons:De minimis|De minimis]]".
-=== Discussion ===
-See [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7]]. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn''' <del>all</del> this burst of paranoia, restore files and redirects. Look [[#_DSC1171.jpg|above]]&nbsp;– {{u|Steinsplitter}} may not be trusted with deletions when the pretext is own/not_own. Similar nominations by {{u|Christian Ferrer}} should be watched, too. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-* Hi, i received a ping. There was doubt about the autorship of the maps, therefore the files has been deleted as per [[COM:PCP]]. As per [[COM:PS]] ([[COM:EVID]]) the user has to provide evidence, the user did not participated in the relevant DR such as confirming that the file has not been taken from a book. Especially the first one lookes like a [[COM:DW]] (scan) from a book (a professionaly drawn map). Please note that the user uploaded [[:File:Холмская губ..jpg]] claiming ''own work'', which has been taken from [http://bre.mkrf.ru/domestic_history/text/4695808 here]. As far i can see the user just asked why the map has been deleted, if it is indeed his own work as claimed i am fine with having it restored and would thank him for those hig ql contribuations. Best--[[User:Steinsplitter|Steinsplitter]] ([[User talk:Steinsplitter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-*: Convinced about Холмская_губ..jpg&nbsp;– the server date for http://bre.mkrf.ru/media/2017/11/19/1238436794/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1..jpg is November, 2017, earlier than the Commons upload. Such things should be documented on deletion '''requests''', not here. Yes, this episode damages {{u|Accipite7}}’s standing, <span style="font-family:serif">I</span> can’t now state that this user possesses a reputation any better than of these two sysops. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить. {{unsigned2|20:41, 10 December 2018|Accipite7}}
+* [[user:Jameslwoodward|Jameslwoodward]] wrote: "If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope." This reasoning does not respond to my arguments. My argument was that the headlines of the leaflets are non-creative PD-Texts, and the photographs contained in the leaflets are "de minimis" in relation to the whole composition and subject of the photography. The composition of individual leaflets also cannot be considered an original creative work either.
-== Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream ==
+* [[user:Jameslwoodward|Jameslwoodward]] wrote: "If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights." Again, an argument based on a false premise. The subject of the photo is the distinct headings of the leaflets, especially the language used, which is in scope as the subject of the photo. The headings are claimed to be not copyrightable, as simple texts without sufficiently creative authorship, in a general typeface. The only thing that could be copyrightable on those leaflets are the illustrative photos of the destinations, which are so small and indistinct in the overall composition that exactly correspond to the principle "de minimis", par excellence. (Btw., the rack itself could be also in scope.) --[[User:ŠJů|ŠJů]] ([[User talk:ŠJů|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
-[[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream]]
+{{o}} I don't read the language, but there appear to be enough legible words there to have a copyright in the USA -- which only takes a single sentence or two. Also, many of the photographs are large enough so that they cannot be called ''de minimis''.  As I said, there is nothing in this image that is interesting that does not have a copyright as text or photos or both. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
-{{collapse top|List of files}}
-* [[:File:*DAILY PHOTO* - A (8547414913).jpg]]
-* [[:File:*TODAYS PHOTO* - Kirsty (8543976907).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A (8022764006).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A (8158631384).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A (8324927127).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A (8333377910).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A (8349796604).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Birds Eye View Of A Birds Eye View (21418054604).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Bitterly Cold Sunrise At Old Harry Rocks (21509693774).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Fathers Love (10447279325).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Golden Sunset (22864793042).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Lone Horse Under a Salmon Sky (15630636024).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Pink Sunrise Disturbs The Quiet Of The Blue Hour (22044664881).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Sense Of Calm (22893188726).jpg]]
-* [[:File:A Thousand Deadly Shadows (15685377056).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Abbey (6294954122).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (8702764528).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (8706192771).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (8710503477).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (8750432549).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (8750855724).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (9535159263).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (9709322473).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (9721303212).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ais (9725917923).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Alexa (10560272463).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Allea (9740999213).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Alleged Burial Site of King Arthur (6337078108).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amsterdam (15469894945).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amsterdam (5274298633).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amsterdam - the Canal Ring (8652262148).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amsterdam Park (6431382279).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amsterdam Square (6358004511).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amy (8145256635).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amy (8147773134).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Amy (8325722008).jpg]]
-* [[:File:And a Film One of Rosie - Fuji 400H (15310703568).jpg]]
-* [[:File:And Now For Something Vile...-). (11588254114).jpg]]
-* [[:File:And One More... (15483073707).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Angelic Courtney.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Angelique (8574764782).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Angelique (8754815022).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Angelique topless model.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Another View (16071364889).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Anthony (15466848291).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Anthony in Toulouse (6405843053).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Art nude.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Article - Adding Intimacy to an Image (16237157931).jpg]]
-* [[:File:At That Moment (22356810076).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Away With The Pixies (24496980351).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Beautiful Bokeh (16055643535).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Becci (7831190788).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Caerphilly Castle (6390834983).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Camilla Rose Henley (6425147663).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Camilla-Rose Henley (5378645089).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Camilla-Rose Henley (5379245914).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Canary Wharf, London (6418087139).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Candid and Uncontrived (15665924112).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Canon 5d Mkiii sharpness and tones (14345431676).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Canon 5Dsr vs Sony A7RII Image Quality Comparison (21939424236).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carcassonne (15283192530).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carcassonne (15283269818).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carcassonne (15283341957).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carla - Art Nude.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carla - Lies Thru a Lens Photography.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Carla the nude model in a purple cloak.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Cassie (9567145814).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Cassie in the Autumn (19955605509).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Chloe (13039565475).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Christmas Day at Colmer's Hill - Just Hit 50 Million Views -). (16154422735).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Colmer's Hill.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Colmers Hill, Dorset (16068578606).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Comer's Hill, Dorset (15665240433).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe (15104929564).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle (15741527975).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle (5353967561).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle on Velvia 50 35mm (15958219822).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle Panorama - Isle of Purbeck in the English county of Dorset.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle Station (15531632869).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Corfe Castle Station (15537882308).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (21904634439).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (22033418781).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 10.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 11.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 12.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 2.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 3.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 5.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 6.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 8.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Courtney (model) 9.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Crazy Man Atop Durdle Door (22054976862).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Dancers in Kings Cross (6348955342).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Danrocha.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Dawn Over Tower Bridge (8044315528).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Dawn Pours Down (15030715003).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Do You Like What You See? (8450912058).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Do You See Me (22752732101).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Durdle Door Sunrise (20997809969).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Durdle Dor (8490586026).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elan Reservoir, Wales (20670688192).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10275329754).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10933500833).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10949056753).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10951217086).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10966604896).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10982673886).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (10984949086).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (11009552566).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (14983318958).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (15489033558).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (15519815056).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (15951480837).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (20321062208).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (7719203014).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8658399011).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8659318489).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8662541477).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8665617710).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8665935870).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8678694748).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8680761991).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8680814855).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8684816767).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8711407922).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (8722444947).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (9273625977).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Elizabeth (9301161821).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (5271477120).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (5278012840).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (5280307282).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6234449060).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6257392241).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6261219241).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6261219243).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6261820204).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6262973719).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6264591670).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6264734704).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6424299019).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6478743191).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6802685159).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (6816198732).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (7180986507).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (7181054825).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (7181714469).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (7368310798).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (8116941372).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose (8127027798).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose - EXPLORE 221.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ellie-Rose - EXPLORE.jpeg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (10097385355).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (14757726264).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (15159030666).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (15280381533).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (15755661795).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (16066216678).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (7683851816).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8584202096).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8585402919).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8588654599).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8589312116).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8589590879).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8591095044).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8595334939).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8596828255).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8600377244).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8616544783).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8624744656).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (8640086553).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (9313956908).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma (9870997635).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma - Lighting Tutorial on Website (13704562474).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Emma - Natural Light.jpg]]
-* [[:File:EXPLORE 206 - Sony A7R Sharpness - ISO 320 (11563696813).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Father and Son (6330243602).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16082621894).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16497459927).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16526588509).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16563905938).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16711952962).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie (16748879586).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Final Images of Rosie - April 2014.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Fingertips (15193795353).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Fire Looms Over Abandoned Railway (15888477221).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Flower in the Window (15216488313).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Follow Me... (15602524789).jpg]]
-* [[:File:For The Love Of Light (21845670394).jpg]]
-* [[:File:For You, Em ). (9632402312).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Forgotten Rosie Images (19965329556).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Francesca (15038262210).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Francesca Sophia (11681746556).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Francesca Sophia (11735043684).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Freckles (14052401039).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Freckles - The Rotherham Cow Whisperer (13968128718).jpg]]
-* [[:File:From Below (22326899680).jpg]]
-* [[:File:From The Darkness Comes Light (22039766816).jpg]]
-* [[:File:From the End of the Bed (15763092376).jpg]]
-* [[:File:From the Other Side (15178053353).jpg]]
-* [[:File:From This Dark, Cold Hotel Room (21741349043).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (10025437214).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (10101130743).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (10523439864).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11038347295).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11132733144).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11236537986).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11252956635).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11495411873).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11499055374).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (11591566776).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (12465838243).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (12728998524).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (12975444373).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13893055574).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13900815406).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13916773624).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13921257335).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13937086976).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (13938561104).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (14034032981).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (14725219451).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (19814967100).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (21146060931).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8136487859).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8141844277).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8151063478).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8172703449).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8318664188).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8323643084).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8350620946).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8351084998).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8444888292).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8447630638).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8448682888).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8513555961).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8514017726).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8516179803).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8518171385).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8526914903).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8534975692).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8647299173).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (8840153728).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma (9673015633).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma - In Film (Ilford Delta 100 Pro) (8550249052).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma - In Film (Ilford Delta 100 Pro) (8551636576).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma - ISO 6400 (11344270706).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma - New Shoot.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma - Retro (8311741164).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gemma Overlooking Birmingham.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Georgina Anneliese (15789770648).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Glastonbury (15284410267).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Glastonbury Tor (7243617228).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7188886819).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7189067005).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7189682911).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7189985343).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7189996189).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7375237112).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloria (7393106038).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Gloucester Cathedral (6395505539).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Hanna (16159241198).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Hannah (15744070383).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Hannah (16187418189).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Hayley (8648925273).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Hayley (8649242970).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Houses of Parliament - Old Style (6359395433).jpg]]
-* [[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]]
-* [[:File:In Another World (21628989891).jpg]]
-* [[:File:In Black and White... (14192377223).jpg]]
-* [[:File:In Memory Of Those Fallen (22037889838).jpg]]
-* [[:File:In The Shadow of Durdle Door (15407541477).jpg]]
-* [[:File:In The Style Of Fuji (21903472721).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta (6258471788).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta (7309071576).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta (7310467284).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta (7314073412).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (5361621882).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (5361622220).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (5388121439).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (5388718726).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (6249617456).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (6254665085).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Iveta Rosslerova (6255098690).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (13012309024).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (15397452736).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8112214783).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8113479714).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8124895754).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8689945264).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8690562512).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8695688093).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8697508524).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8698494949).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jade (8714870443).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (16485788947).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (16505732740).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (17010409069).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19637904798).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19695546520).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19754014363).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19779797339).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19780229551).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19783568163).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (19866549575).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (20078216754).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (20458921696).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo Louise (21247600920).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (15619448688).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (15691807357).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (16205316216).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (18592901312).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (19586443758).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (19619014330).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (19797046042).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (20228491101).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (20233239486).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (8607016752).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise (8608966885).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Jo-Louise on 35mm Fuji 400H (15912716626).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Just Getting Up For A Shower... (20271418412).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Karolina (16470934772).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Katie Williams (5271020373).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Katie Williams (5282348049).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kirsty (8435275390).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kirsty (8446136464).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kirsty (8469432810).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kirsty (8552749470).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kirsty (8634309369) (2).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (20009127710).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (20221479352).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8735371661).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8739553890).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8740945669).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8741314202).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8748713012).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (8806526548).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Kristina (9539123436).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ladybower Reservoir (15503792349).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Ladybower Reservoir (8063924948).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Laid Flat (15616415630).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lake Placid (16145154600).jpg]]
-* [[:File:LANDSCAPE TUTORIAL (16186049017).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Latest Art Nude Shoot (15693380966).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Laying in Wait (15806309413).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Leading Lines (15720531163).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Leah (14024368905).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Leah (14335664703).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Light and Shade (9696161984).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Local Church...Again (6397275707).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Angry Pigeon (7387597144).jpg]]
-* [[:File:London Docklands (6767084199).jpg]]
-* [[:File:London Eye (7389445038).jpg]]
-* [[:File:London Lovers (6339181648).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lone Photographer Watching Sunrise Over Old Harry Rocks (21627483940).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lonely Planet, Lonely Life (21286673702).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lost in Thought (8463398442).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lower Slaughter (5274609033).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Luissa (8376724667).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Luissa (8378048088).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Luissa (8384887674).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lulworth Cove (20410444475).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lying In Wait (23056290345).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Lyme Regis (20254149496).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Machynlleth (15552139115).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Man of War (15864400738).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Man on Phone (6912643885).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Memoirs of a Geisha (8320666953).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Mercy (8728569137).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Mercy (8730579931).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Mercy (8732217630).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Middle Barton Farm - Oxfordshire, England.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Millennium Bridge, St Pauls (7997733877).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Misery (6918462523).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Misty Monochrome Valley (15717137988).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Mollie (15329269391).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Morning Falls in Shards Over a Smoking Corfe (15088519574).jpg]]
-* [[:File:My Family from 1914 (8494194275).jpg]]
-* [[:File:My Favourite Portrait - EVER! (that Ive ever taken). (8738696326).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natasha (10580635455).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natasha (10873706095).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natasha (11071933365).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natasha (11243435086).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natasha (13632516044).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Natural Light Portrait of Rosie (20710648621).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Near Cerne Abbas (18239208839).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Near Cerne Abbas (18417647749).jpg]]
-* [[:File:New Group - I Shoot Nikon! (7621245270).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nicole (13452147995).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nicole (13733712674).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nicole (14011191445).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nicole (21188972918).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nothing To See Here (22221433565).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Alexa in black and white.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white 03.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white 04.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white half-length 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white half-length.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white silhouette.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha black and white.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha color 01.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model Natasha color 02.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model-Natasha.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Nude model-Oona.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Of All The Stones I've Thrown (16365006266).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Old Harry Rocks (21352135233).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Old London - EXPLORE.jpeg]]
-* [[:File:Old Photos "AveburyFields" (6339171422).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Old Photos "If Only it Took Missiles" (6339171418).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Only Fingertips (15822250212).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Or In Colour...? (19725547104).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Outdoor nude.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Penny for your Thoughts (9527836013).jpg]]
-* [[:File:People so busy, make me feel dizzy... (6339181646).jpg]]
-* [[:File:People So Busy...Make Me Feel Dizzy (15342530787).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Photographer Photographing the Photographer Photographing the Photographer...I Think (15526236397).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Post Box in London (7850752948).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford (6263271240).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Radiant Lulu.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca (6803817239).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca (7256381492).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca Pomfrett (5273537749).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca Pomfrett (5277459785).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca Pomfrett (5278284040).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rebecca Pomfrett (6468574055).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Red Sun Versus Blue Sea (22565812538).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Roseanne (7415379842).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Roseanne (7604549976).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Roseanne (7608501118).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Roseanne (8086409135).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Roseanne (8105341329).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (13916816957).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (13945183107).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (13972903230).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14036339347).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14059352976).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14066167027).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14072002461).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14080121191).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14091321434).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14097165015).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14109210053).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14113482925).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14121589657).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14145218167).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14156717956).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14177906777).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14178034212).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14221617792).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14251993403).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14260061514).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14274393393).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14282101480).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14331565926).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14332416805).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14348490086).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14362048885).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14409905471).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14425279912).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14489441995).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14504823541).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14522282961).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14541836621).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14544857606).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14556257891).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14579662494).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14602219653).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14676065487).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14886165843).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14895674806).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14929879585).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (14972368332).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15016711121).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15032487022).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15072280941).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15117074266).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15201012915).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15247905216).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15298726785).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15304105611).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15340267789).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15346499849).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15414938586).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15762781291).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15877346088).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (15982500042).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (16853410129).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (19568216219).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (21624539559).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (21920587120).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie (22030770346).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie - at her house... (14143702731).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie in the Window (14629182595).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Portrait (14523334766).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (14498766363).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (15951676316).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (16409947793).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (16840886790).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (19557891608).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie Robinson (19979392721).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Rosie...Two of Them! (14427820155).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (7439174452).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (7509210740).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (7513636138).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (7577060278) (2).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (7603179212).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sally (8105794766).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sarah (8138460669).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sarah-Louise (8418762213).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sarah-Louise (8419446005).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sarah-Louise (8428517902).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sarah-Louise the topless model.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Schoonheid.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Secret Window (16853597419).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (10361028763).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (10652494454).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (10656419844).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (10746505575).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (13272380765).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (13767136323).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (13782238123).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (15539062300).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (15990659101).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (21362162576).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (8913941813).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (8915842090).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (8928848995).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shelby (9672577842).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Shortcomings of the Canon 5Dsr (20556005642).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Signs of Attraction (15479733158).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Simple Boudoir (21679648475).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Single Image, No Sharpening, Dynamic Range Test (18606561624).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Soft (15995931398).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Softer Than Silk (15887173786).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sony A7R - First Thoughts (11228129185).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Southbank, London (7992383408).jpg]]
-* [[:File:St George Wharf - London 8 September 2012.jpg]]
-* [[:File:St Georges Wharf (7992436704).jpg]]
-* [[:File:St Pancras (6767046481).jpg]]
-* [[:File:St Pauls Vintage Shot (7916396738).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Stourhead (22407949778).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Summer's Window (15950036660).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sun Through the Window (14136461221).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sunday Morning (22123122933).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sunrise Over Corfe Castle (22528907591).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sunset At Durdle Door (22376693076).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sunset Over the London Aquarium (8839675861).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Symmetry (16112385641).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Sympathy for the Devil - EXPLORE.jpeg]]
-* [[:File:Tackley Church (6307061612).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Boats That Line the Canal... (8653400142).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Colour of the Man of War (15488349879).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Colours of Amsterdam (8654556257).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Crumbling Steps (26615265262).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Eye of Passion (15774199095).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Golden Sands of Durdle Door (16317744002).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Jurassic Coast (15600952203).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Kiss of Morning Sun (15780773382).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Lonely Road (15402444703).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Myth Of Perceived Perfection (22454214189).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The New Canon 5DsR (16405599685).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Orange Skies At Ladram Bay (24166553763).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Outside Looking In (15414554654).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Play of Light and Mist (15560152024).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Portal Back In Time That Is Corfe Station (20971625750).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Purple Haze of a Dying Sun (15602018982).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Serenity Of Morning (22243779194).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Shall I, Shan't I Moment... (16242613641).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Steps to the Cove (15600284042).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Stone Guardian (15711240565).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Thunderous Ocean (16380402151).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Valley of Cloud (16231394115).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Wedding Of Paul And Anna (22495542016).jpg]]
-* [[:File:The Yellow Fields (15493767219).jpg]]
-* [[:File:TIna (9826852795).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Tina (9839008253).jpg]]
-* [[:File:To The End Of Everywhere (22501803897).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Toulouse (15283195230).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Toulouse Museum (6295029096).jpg]]
-* [[:File:TUTORIAL - How To Make Your Portraits Look Natural (16219178909).jpg]]
-* [[:File:TUTORIAL - Working with Models (16287452915).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Two Sides To Every Landscape (20468593748).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Unusual Perspective (15696955187).jpg]]
-* [[:File:View from a Window (15892974239).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Vintage Rosie... (14060229348).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Waiting at Autumn's Doorstep (15587975029).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Waiting for my Lover... (15753134808).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Waiting For You (16456448738).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Waiting Through the Doorway (14849872974).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Wareham (England) banner A Pink Sunrise Disturbs The Quiet Of The Blue Hour.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Well This Doesn't Happen Every Day (15754223901).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Westminster in Winter Mist (9332210971).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Whats She Looking At? (8466069186).jpg]]
-* [[:File:When Resolution Becomes Counter Productive (15656626036).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Winchester (6287998111).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Winchester Cathedral Under a Purple Dawn (15633292286).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Window Flower (16209673537).jpg]]
-* [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Zara (10072934226).jpg]]
-* [[:File:Zeiss 85mm f-1.4 Plannar vs Zeiss 135mm f-1.8 Sonnar (13995968381).jpg]]
-{{collapse bottom}}
+== [[:File:Дмитров1.jpg]] ==
-=== Discussion ===
-Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-:{{pinging|BevinKacon|Gone Postal|Incnis Mrsi|Jcb|Slowking4}} {{pinging|Tm|Tuvalkin|Yann}} - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-:{{vk}}{{comment}} This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).
-Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:
-*Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
-*On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
-*[[:File:Emma (8584202096).jpg]]  is in [https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/emma-imagem-royalty-free/169694479 Getty Images is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography], the same the guy that had an website * http://www.danbowenphotography.com/ that Yann claims is a forger. More proof of authorship, can be seen in the website http://liesthrualens.com/, as archived by the [https://web.archive.org/web/20131216102630/http://liesthrualens.com/ Internet Archive], in the section "Powerfull images, licensed by Getty Images". In the same link, in the section "Vibrant scenes, awashed in colour", is [https://www.gettyimages.pt/license/173150992 atributted in Getty Images to the same author].
-*This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in [https://web.archive.org/web/20130531231522/http://liesthrualens.com/ the internet archive], where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".
-*Please remember the interview that he gave in https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview. Remember that from at least January 10, 2016 [https://web.archive.org/web/20160110185311/http://www.liesthrualens.com www.liesthrualens.com] redirected to [https://web.archive.org/web/20151219074256/http://thenarratographer.com:80/ thenarratographer.com], and some images from the flickr stream https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha/ ["The Narratographer incategory:"Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream" are atributed in Commons to The Narratographer] and link in source to https://www.flickr.com/people/44133834@N02 or https://www.flickr.com/people/danrocha.
-Another proof that image [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.
-*See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
-*Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
-*[[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]], Taken with a NIKON D700, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/you-talking-to-me-imagem-royalty-free/167434842
-*[[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], Taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138
-*[[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]], Taken with a NIKON D700, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/you-talking-to-me-imagem-royalty-free/167434842
-*About the image [[:File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg]], was also taken with an Nikon D3s, with metadata Dan Mullan/Pinnacle.
-*So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
-*Cameras
-*As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.
-*He review several cameras like the [https://web.archive.org/web/20151224162520/http://thenarratographer.com/sony-a7rii-review/ Sony A7R MkII],[https://web.archive.org/web/20160110133953/http://thenarratographer.com:80/sony-a7s-mark-ii-review/ Sony A7S MkII], [https://web.archive.org/web/20150824101202/http://liesthrualens.com:80/canon-5dsr-review like the Canon 5Dsr], and took several images with said cameras
-*He  owned the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38 Canon 400D], [https://web.archive.org/web/20150809065101/http://liesthrualens.com:80/equipment-i-use/ Canon 5Dsr (again) and Canon 5d Mark iii], [https://web.archive.org/web/20130902230757/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=302 Nikon D800E, D3s, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D700, Nikon D7000 and the Nikon D90 ], [https://web.archive.org/web/20150111185951/http://liesthrualens.com:80/2014/03/31/sony-a7r-usability/ Sony A7R]
-Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "[https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946/ Dan Bowen] from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and  http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.
-So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.  Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-::A link to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=309561763 the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers]. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-*So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person?  That's a tough pill to swallow.  Then again, [http://support.jegtheme.com/forums/users/danbowen/replies/] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [http://youarenotaphotographer.com/forums/topic/flickr-help/] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha.  But I'm not seeing any evidence that [https://twitter.com/dan_mullan?lang=en Dan Mullan] is these people.  But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography?  --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-**{{comment}} Jesus Christ, read again the links. Starting by the fact that you have the same name Dan Mullan, in the metadata with images, the same Dan Mullan that worked to [https://www.ppauk.com/ Pinnacle Photo Agency], an sports photo agency, as atested by the metadata of [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]] and [[:File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg]] where the metadata read: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK. So, the twitter [https://twitter.com/dan_mullan?lang=en Dan Mullan]  is the same person as the others, as the links below will show again.
-*But also, the file [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], before being deleted had metadata that said "Dan Mullan/Pinnacle". The same image, [https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138 is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography]. So "Dan Mullan is the same as Dan Bowen. The image [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]] is shown in https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, as an interview to The Narratographer, where he says "'''Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony'''. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. '''I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world'''". Well this Anthony is the person depicted in [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]].
-**But there is more images of this Anthony:
-**[[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]], Taken with a NIKON D700, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/you-talking-to-me-imagem-royalty-free/167434842
-**[[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], Taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138
-**[[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]], Taken with a NIKON D700, attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/you-talking-to-me-imagem-royalty-free/167434842
-***And the Pinnacle that is used in some metadata on the deleted images? No other than [https://www.ppauk.com/ Pinnacle Photo Agency], an sports photo agency. And Lies Thru a Lens is the same Narratographer, that gives the interview linked above, as the Lies Thru a Lense can be ssen in [[:File:Angelic Courtney.jpg]] that gives its source as https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha/23699452799/ and author as The Narratographer, linking to https://www.flickr.com/people/44133834@N02 the same flickr id as Lies Thru Lenses as can be seen in now deleted [[:Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream]].
-**Also,before this DR the initial reason to delete the files, were given as two links. https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157659599164704/ where an flickr user "colossal growth" complains of having its image stolen. If you click on the profile, it links to https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha/, the same link that Yann claims was uploading copyright violations. So someone, on url https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha, complains in https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157659599164704of having its images stolen and Yann deletes the images linking that complain, but after says that https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha is stealing said images.
-***The other link http://youarenotaphotographer.com/forums/topic/flickr-help/, given as an excuse to delete the 1231 image, has several users saying that the flickr profile is the same as Dan Rocha in http://liesthrualens.com/. So you have [http://youarenotaphotographer.com/forums/topic/flickr-help/#post-12879 someone saying it was Dan Rocha\Dan Mullan\The Narrathographer\Lies Thru a Lense, that was being stollen], as stated above.
-***And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?
-***[[:File:Emma (8584202096).jpg]]  in [https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/emma-imagem-royalty-free/169694479 Getty Images is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography], the guy that had an website * http://www.danbowenphotography.com/ [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_from_Lies_Thru_a_Lens_Flickr_stream&oldid=309560641 that Yann claims is a of an forger]. More proof of authorship, can be seen in the website http://liesthrualens.com/, as archived by the [https://web.archive.org/web/20131216102630/http://liesthrualens.com/ Internet Archive], in the section "Powerfull images, licensed by Getty Images". In the same link, in the section "Vibrant scenes, awashed in colour", is [https://www.gettyimages.pt/license/173150992 atributted in Getty Images to the same author]. Well [[:File:Amsterdam - the Canal Ring (8652262148).jpg]] is the same exact photo. Need more proof {{ping|B}}.
-***The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in [https://web.archive.org/web/20130531231522/http://liesthrualens.com/ the internet archive], where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above
-***Also in the link provided in http://youarenotaphotographer.com/forums/topic/flickr-help/, more exactly http://youarenotaphotographer.com/forums/topic/flickr-help/page/2/#post-12911 you can see that Dan Rocha wrote "Hey everyone, Saw this post linked from my Flickr account and thought Id have a look. Im the photographer for this image, so no idea why its showing up on [http://www.lord-parker.co.uk/boudoir-photography/ Lord whats his face] or that [https://www.visualpassion.me/bombshell-boudoir-giveaway/ boudoir guy who is claiming that its one of his] :). Whats the big deal with the image anyway?
-Dan". [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-****Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos.  This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-mullan-a9b01548].  "[https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview The Narratographer]" is unquestionably [https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/search/photographer?family=creative&photographer=dan%20bowen%20photography&sort=best#license Dan Bowen].  http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the [https://www.flickr.com/photos/danrocha Dan Rocha] Flickr page.  So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen.  That seems completely indisputable.     The EXIF data from the former [[:File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg]] (viewable at [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3EvSLbT6-vMJ:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo.  That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories.  Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{o}} - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per [[COM:PCP]]. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single ''administrator'' has stated that these files could be kept. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-**{{ping|Jcb}} That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-***That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-****Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all.  But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-*****{{comment}} JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
-*****But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  [[COM:PCP]]. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
-*****So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and  GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
-*****My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers  and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-*'''comment''' i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. <font face="Vijaya">[[User:Slowking4| Slowking4]] § [[User_talk:Slowking4|Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge]] </font> 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-*As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be '''undeleted''' to allow this to happen. Otherwise, ''then'' a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--[[User:BevinKacon|BevinKacon]] ([[User talk:BevinKacon|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-**I think that this makes the most sense - '''undelete all''' (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen.  So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep.  Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data    may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot.  But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-***Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-****{{ping|Yann}} The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license.  If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value.  If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations?  From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-*****As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-******{{comment}}{{ping|Yann}} No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in [[Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help]], that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
-****** You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used [[:File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg]] and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
-******Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.
-******You have a serie of images of the same person, besides [[:File:New Group - I Shoot Nikon! (7621245270).jpg]] and [[:File:Anthony in Toulouse (6405843053).jpg]], that i dont have acess to.
-******[[:File:Anthony (15466848291).jpg]]. Taken with an NIKON D300S in 2 July 2010.
-******[[:File:I Dont Know What to Call This... (8455760157).jpg]]. [https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/you-talking-to-me-imagem-royalty-free/167434842 The same image, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in Getty Images]. Taken with a NIKON D700 in 16 October 2010.
-******[[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK. [https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138 The same image is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in Getty Images]. Image taken with a NIKON D3S, in 2 February 2013.
-******Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
-******But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer [https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview gave an interview] were he says the following " '''I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it'''". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably '''the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with'''. The last time I saw him, '''he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it'''. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of [[:File:WTF (8439080666).jpg]], as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 [https://web.archive.org/web/20160110185311/http://www.liesthrualens.com www.liesthrualens.com] redirected to [https://web.archive.org/web/20151219074256/http://thenarratographer.com:80/ thenarratographer.com].
-******So will you continue to say that "the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted"? [[User:Tm|Tm]] ([[User talk:Tm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-::::::{{ping|Yann}} How is it convoluted?  It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person.  I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
-::::::# At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/coming-at-you-royalty-free-image/167436138]
-::::::# This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
-::::::So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-: {{s}} undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B.  This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
-: {{s}} I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
-::{{{ping|Gone Postal}} This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
-::: Agreed.  Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs.  They can err from time to time, as they are human after all.  UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
-::: {{ping|B}} I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
-== [[:File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm]] ==
-the user JuTa said at the DR :"The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed." However, it has [http://archive.li/39nzl archived page] and [https://imgur.com/a/PkLIN9K license info html screenshot]. so I open undeletion request here. [[User:Puramyun31|Puramyun31]] ([[User talk:Puramyun31|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
-:I was going to contact {{U|JuTa}} about this closure as well. The [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-06#File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm|initial undeletion request]], which was linked in the [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm|deletion request]], addressed the license concern as it was archived and is visible in the page's source code. This discussion was ultimately about whether [[:en:performer rights|performer rights]] was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. [[User:Explicit|<font color="Indigo">'''ℯ'''</font>]][[User talk:Explicit|<font color="DarkSlateBlue">xplicit</font>]] 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
-:<del>{{s}} undeletion and reopening the DR as I see no further deletion rationale besides "There is no chance ever to get it confirmed" that may be false. Especially, as no input from {{U|JuTa}} here.</del> [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
-::My response you can see [[User_talk:JuTa/Archive_44#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:“홍대거리가_마비”_..._유앤비,_성공적인_버스킹_-UNB_(디패짤).webm|here]]. --[[User:JuTa|Ju]][[User talk:JuTa|Ta]] 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{Ping|JuTa}} Thanks. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{Ping|Ankry}} Just deleting of the video on the specific website such as Youtube does not necessarily mean the cc license is invalid (There is [http://archive.li/39nzl archived page] and [https://imgur.com/a/PkLIN9K license info html code screenshot]). and there is a user at this discussion ([[user:Explicit]]) who seems to be aware of this. also CC license is irrevocable. [[User:Puramyun31|Puramyun31]] ([[User talk:Puramyun31|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::{{Ping|Puramyun31}} I do not oppose undeletion; I just do not support it. The deletion at the origilnal site constitutes a "reasonable doubt" (per [[COM:PCP]]) here: we do not know the deletion reason (maybe the original uploader realized that they have not rights to freely license the video?) nor I think we can reliably prove the free license in case of a third party claim (and one of our goals is to protect reusers against such claims). However, if another admin disagrees with me, I will not oppose undeletion. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::When I uploaded the video, I removed the sound of the video. the youtube user's behavior does not blanketly affect here.[[User:Puramyun31|Puramyun31]] ([[User talk:Puramyun31|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
-:As for over 2 weeks nobody declares to review the license on this rationale, I suggest closing this section as '''not done'''. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Roland Tisljár psyhologist from Hungary.jpg]] ==
-According to the Hungarian description the photo is taken from a 2009 book. And there's OTRS ticket [[ticket:2012013110010674]] freely licensing this book for Wikisource. Are there any doubts here? {{Ping|Regasterios}} was yuor nomination related some way to this ticket? More photos from this book can be found, eg. [[:File:Imre Sándor (1877-1945) pedagógus, államtitkár.jpg]]. I assume this one photo was just missing the OTRS ticket link. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
-{{ping|Ankry}} It's thinkable that this photo is from the book titled ''A lélektan 80 éves története a szegedi egyetemen 1929-2009''. See similar photos [https://hu.wikisource.org/wiki/VII._fejezet_A_Pszichol%C3%B3giai_Int%C3%A9zet_oktat%C3%B3i_%C3%A9s_munkat%C3%A1rsai_a_2008-2009._tan%C3%A9v_tavaszi_szemeszter%C3%A9ben here], some photos with OTRS template, some photos without this. --[[User:Regasterios|Regasterios]] ([[User talk:Regasterios|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
-IMO, it is clearly stated by the uploader that the photo is from this book: "Saját könyvből való kép: A lélektan 80 éves története, szerk. Szokolszky Ágnes, Pataki Márta et al. Szeged, 2009.
-. p."
-{{translated|Picture from my own book: The 80 Year History of Psychology, ed. Ágnes Szokolszky, Márta Pataki et al. Szeged, 2009
-p.|Google translate via [[User:Ankry|Ankry]]}}
-(however, the information is misplaced: it is in the Author field instead of the Source field; but I do not think it is a problem). I think, the only doubt here is whether the ticket covers the whole book (with all images), or some explicitely specified images only. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
-Ágnes Szokolszky explicitly gave us permission for the text and the pictures: “''Hozzájárulok, hogy a szöveg ''[text]'' és a képek ''[pictures]'' a Wikimédia-projektek oldalain a "Creative Commons Nevezd meg! - Így add tovább! 3.0" szabad licenc alatt kerüljön közzétételre''”. My problem is that 1) this is a forwarded permission 2) I do not find any evidence about that Ágnes (who truly is the [http://nektar.oszk.hu/hu/manifestation/2872874 editor] [szerk. in Hungarian] of this book) took these photos (or she is the copyright holder). [[User:Bencemac|Bencemac]] ([[User talk:Bencemac|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{Ping|Bencemac}} restored. Could you, please add the ticket info to the file as you are the authorized OTRS agent? [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
-::{{Reply to|Ankry}} As I wrote, I am not sure about that we can accept the permission (“''we are unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Please ask the copyright holder to e-mail us directly''”). [[User:Bencemac|Bencemac]] ([[User talk:Bencemac|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{Ping|Bencemac}} Feel free to renominate/speedy if you think the permission should be considered invalid. I cannot help you to take the decision. AFAIR, we in some rare cases accepted forwarded permission. Unsure if this is the case. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
-== Multiple images to be undeleted ==
-{{s}} A few of my images have been deleted. All were sourced and the correct licence was used for all. The administrator who deleted the images said that they were deleted for 'Copyright violation' as I had used the PD-UK-unknown licence, without giving a reason that the administrator found acceptable.
-However, I explained that the majority of these images came from a company called Bassano Ltd, or companies that were affiliated with Bassano, and that Bassano had closed in the 1960's. Therefore it is near enough impossible to find the photographer for these images, as if the National Portrait Galley, which has one of the largest collections in the world, does not know the name of the original author then unfortunately it has been lost to time.[http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp08062/bassano-ltd?search=sas&sText=bassano+ltd]
-I showed the deleting administrator (Jcb) evidence, that supported my using of the PD-UK-unknown licence, including these previously unsuccessful deletion requests surrounding Bassano Ltd photos: [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colin_Gregory_1932.jpg]] & [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Reginald_Ruggles_Gates_Portrait.jpg]], which had been kept by the administrators @[[User:Yann|Yann]] & @[[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]], as the original uploaders of those images had demonstrated that npg.org.uk is one of the most accurate and detailed image databases and if they don't know the author, of the Bassano work, then it is not known.
-The images that I was hoping could be undeleted and re-added are:
-* [[File:Lord Lithinglow.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Caldecotee.jpg]]
-* [[File:The Lord Snell.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Cooper of Colross.jpg]]
-* [[File:George hicks.jpg]]
-* [[File:Chuter Ede.jpg]]
-* [[File:Sir Ben Smith.jpg]]
-* [[File:Isaac Foot.jpg]]
-* [[File:William Whiteley.jpg]]
-* [[File:Wilfred Paling.jpg]]
-* [[File:Richard Pilkington.jpg]]
-* [[File:Sir Charles Edwards.jpg]]
-* [[File:Hugh Macmillan, Baron Macmillan.jpg]]
-* [[File:Thomas Dugdale, 1st Baron Crathorne.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Suffolk.jpg]]
-* [[File:Frederick Smith, 2nd Earl of Birkenhead.jpg]]
-* [[File:Sir Ronald Cross, 1st Baronet.jpg]]
-* [[File:Charles Kerr, 1st Baron Teviot.jpg]]
-* [[File:Viscount Hudson.jpg]]
-* [[File:Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury.jpg]]
-* [[File:Harold Balfour, 1st Baron Balfour of Inchrye.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Devonshire.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Marchwood.jpg]]
-* [[File:Stafford Cripps MP.jpg]]
-* [[File:Clement Atlee MP.jpg]]
-* [[File:J. R. Clynes MP.jpg]]
-* [[File:Austin Chamberlain MP.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Rugby.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord ankey.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Lithinglow.jpg]]
-* [[File:Viscount Astor.jpg]]
-* [[File:Lord Somers.jpg]]
-* [[File:John Henry Hayes MP.jpg]]
-* [[File:Ernest Turtle.jpg]]
-[[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{s}} as PicMonkies. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{o}} - I really doubt that the authors of all these works would be unknown, that would be extraordinary. The bare fact that an organization did not document is does not make them unknown. These works are way too recent to ''assume'' PD. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-:*That may seem extraordinary to you, but it is a fact, well documented by a notable institution. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-::*Agree with Yann, if the National Portrait Galley does not know who the photographer is, even though they would have looked through countless archives and done a huge amount of research, then no one will. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{s}} A very clear case this time. PRP means that if a reasonable doubt exists we delete, not that we delete when no reasonable person would doubt the public domain claim. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{question}} do we no longer care for US copyright status that would be 95 years since initial publication or 120 years from creation for works of unknown authors? (see [[COM:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]]) [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{s}} These apparently would fall under PD-UK-unknown.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
-*{{question}} What about the URAA and US copyright? Should it be more enforced? Shall we need another DR discussion? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:*We don't need another DR discussion as there is a clear consensus, from multiple administrators and editors, for supporting my stance at having the images re-added. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-::* Please explain why you think US copyright is either expired or not relevant. Wikimedia Commons expects content to be free to use in both the US and its source country. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-*{{s}} These images fall under PD-UK-unknown. [[Special:Contributions/82.29.185.75|82.29.185.75]] 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-*{{o}} for any photographs <s>not older than 95 years</s> created after 1925, as these are still under copyright in the US. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] ([[User talk:Rrburke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:*@[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] surely they would be [[:Template:PD-1996|<nowiki>{{PD-1996}}</nowiki>]] since they were in the public domain before 1996. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{re|PicMonkies}} Please see the United Kingdom in the table at [[:w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]]. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] ([[User talk:Rrburke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::: @[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] PD-1996 states:
-* It was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) - All of these image were
-* It was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States - All of these images were published before the UK established copyright relations with the United States.
-* It was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). - All of these images, as far as we can tell due to lack of information regarding Bassano Ltd, were in the public domain before 1996.
-[[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{re|PicMonkies}} [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/made The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995] revived the copyright of works whose copyright had previously expired and which were less than 70 years old (in the case of works of unknown authorship). That revival took place on January 1, 1996. PD-1996 requires the work "was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996)." On January 1, 1996, works of unknown authorship by Bassano Ltd that were less than 70 years old were copyrighted in the UK, their copyright having been revived on that day. If you have a look at the '''[[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]]''' under the heading '''Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad''', and under the subheading '''Works Published Abroad Before 1978''', you'll see for works published 1924 through 1977 that were "[s]olely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", the US copyright term is "95 years after publication date". Therefore, any Bassano Ltd file from 1926 or later is copyrighted in the US for 95 years after its publication date. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] ([[User talk:Rrburke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-: {{ping|Rrburke}} pre-1926 photographs with unknown photographers in the UK are {{tl|PD-1996}}.  But a mere allegation that URAA applies cannot be the only reason to delete. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-::I agree that the pre-1926 files are probably fine. But it's not clear to me what's being distinguished here from a "mere allegation". At any rate, my overarching point would be that I've yet to hear an argument for why the later files should be considered PD in the US. [[COM:EVID]] is pretty clear that "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the file is in the public domain". I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] ([[User talk:Rrburke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::But then you haven't shown any evidence that they were not in the public domain. The photos were taken over 70 years ago and as far as we are aware have been in the public domain, since we have no evidence to say otherwise. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{re|PicMonkies}} You have the [[COM:EVID|onus]] precisely backwards: we need evidence that they ''are'' in the public domain. If you have any, please bring it forward. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]] ([[User talk:Rrburke|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::Since all of these images are in the public domain in the UK, we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in the public domain in the US aswell. The photos are more than 70 years old and as I have shown with my licence are out of copyright. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::: If they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996, and were published 1924 or later, they are 100% copyrighted in the U.S.  It's more than "reason to believe", it is a virtual certainty.  Being expired in one country often means nothing when it comes to another country.  Any of these Bassano prints from 1926 or later would still be copyrighted in the U.S. one way or another, almost certainly.  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::::: No, there is no certainty here. There may be several reasons for which they could be in the public domain in USA, all quite difficult to prove. The most obvious one is that if the images were published in USA at the time without a copyright notice (quite possible), they are in the public domain in USA. Then if they were published with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Please do not present anything regarding URAA as certain. Nothing like this exists. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::: Being simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. is pretty much the only way it is OK.  If it was published just in the UK with a copyright notice (or in the US only more than 30 days later), but then never renewed, then yes it got restored by the URAA -- not sure why you say it would not.  It is true there is some uncertainty with just about anything, but the standard is to delete if there is significant doubt.  If there is no evidence that something was simultaneously published, then it doesn't mean we *keep* -- quite the opposite.  The policy:
-::::::::: ''Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.''
-:::::::: The part of policy regarding the URAA is mainly if the copyright history of the source country was not well enough known -- we need to do a careful evaluation based on the law at the time.  France, for example, is more complicated.  The UK however is known, being that they applied the EU restorations on the URAA date itself -- the current terms were the terms then.  There is no way for anything created in the UK 1926 or later (and first published there) to avoid being restored, except if it was also simultaneously published in the U.S.  If you can find evidence of such U.S. publication, fine, but absent of that there is significant doubt.  Much like we should not delete when there is only a theoretical doubt of a work being in copyright, we should not keep when there is only a theoretical chance it is OK -- there is indeed a significant doubt that it is PD in the U.S.  If anyone gets sued over such works, they would need to prove that simultaneous publication in court, and we aren't giving any help to them.  Can we find evidence of ''any'' Bassano image being simultaneously published in the 1920s?  Is there at least a pattern of it happening?  It's the same for any work where we want to keep it -- we need to supply evidence.  Many of the works may be PD-UK-unknown (though for the ones which come from the original negatives donated to the NPG in the 1970s, with no evidence of earlier publication, we don't even know that), but they also need to conform to a U.S. copyright tag.  You seem to be arguing that since there is a theoretical chance it could be {{tl|PD-URAA-Simul}}, we should essentially apply that tag with no evidence for it.  Given the 30-day requirement, it seems to be we should be able to point to a dated U.S. publication of the photo at the time in order to use it. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::{{cmt}} This interpretation makes a mockery of [[Commons:Public Domain Day‎]], as we could undelete almost nothing. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::: No, not true -- anything published before 1924, and now PD in their country of origin, can be undeleted.  If there was a UK author who died in 1948 but had a work published in 1922, that is now eligible for undeletion -- basically any such work where the author died more than 25 years after publication.  That will probably be roughly 50-50.  And obviously, works previously PD in their country of origin published in 1923 itself are now eligible for undeletion as of two days ago, as the U.S. copyright has now expired.  It does mean that day is largely meaningless for the anon-70 types of works since the U.S. is effectively anon-95.  While restored copyrights suck all around for us, they are the law, no matter how inconvenient it is.  I wish we could have kept with the 50-years-from-creation term that the UK had for pre-1957 photographs through December 31, 1995, but we can't.  It would have been nice if the U.S. had been allowed to get away without fully complying with Berne, but other countries would understandably not allow that (and the URAA was the result).  If we want to change policy to be only be PD in the country of origin, and rely on DMCA takedowns (or explicit deletion requests) from authors who want them removed given that they are not PD in the US (given the possible WMF willingness for that), it would be different.  But following the PD-in-the-US policy, which is current policy, they need to be PD there beyond a significant doubt.  The policy line you keep repeating (and linking to the mass deletion) was quickly followed by [[Commons:Review of Precautionary principle]], where (per the summary) the consensus was to delete URAA-restored works where a careful review showed there was a significant doubt they are no longer PD in the US.  Accordingly, the wording in Commons:Licensing was then changed to what I pasted above.  The same is stated in [[Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review]].  So, deleting URAA-restored works (published 1924 or later) is current policy.  There are certainly times where a review needs careful investigation of the copyright law in place in 1996, as they were often quite different than terms introduced later (thus precluding speedy deletion), but the end result still needs to be PD beyond a significant doubt in the US. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{outdent}} In contrast, the [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Elizabeth wedding 1947.jpg|recently closed DR discussion]] says, "Failure to enforce this policy globally is not grounds to continue to upload said content." Even when a mere allegation wasn't the sufficient ground for mass deletion, unwillingness to enforce URAA isn't sufficient to keep an individual content. If anyone here disagrees, he or she should request undeletion of that image. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
-:That deletion request has absolutely nothing to do with this undeletion request. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
-*{{o}} -- I do not see any effort on the part of the uploader to contact the National Portrait Gallery to ascertain that the authors are indeed anonymous, or conduct any other inquiries. There are also concerns about the status of these images in the US. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
-:*{{ping|K.e.coffman}} I don't see how contacting the NPG would make any difference. They already gave all the information they have. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-:*{{ping|K.e.coffman|Yann}} For anything made available to the public more than 70 years ago, figuring out the author *now* would not matter -- they would still be PD.  The author had to become known within 70 years.  If the NPG has no author information, then presumably there was no author information with the material -- they would supply that if known.  (By EU rules, since these were works for hire, the author should have been required on the initial publication, with no 70-year grace period -- but the UK missed implementing that part of the EU directive.)  So I have no problem assuming "unknown" status on them, if the NPG page lists no human author.  However, I am wary of images based on the original negatives donated in 1974, as opposed to prints distributed by Bassano at the time of making -- that could mean that the 70-year clock started in 1974, if they were never previously made available, and that a valid UK copyright still exists.  For anything based on 1920s prints, they would be PD in the UK today.  However, any of the prints from 1926 or after would have had their U.S. copyright restored, and would still be under U.S. copyright for 95 years from their publication.  The only way out of that would be to show simultaneous publication in the U.S., but that would need some explicit evidence.  So if any of the above are based on *prints*, and are from before 1926, I think they are OK.  Otherwise though, I have doubts.  The NPG has in the past sued a Commons contributor (granted over a large number of images), so I would prefer to not give them a valid copyright argument. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-:*I contacted NPG @ rightsandimages-at-npg.org.uk and here's what they said:
-:::''It is up to Wikimedia if they can accept the CC BY-NC-ND licence or not. As I say, we are happy for them to use this, but if they feel they cannot, then this is a matter for them. With Bassano images, even if the underlying photograph is out of copyright, we (NPG) will hold the copyright to the digitised copies we have made, and which are available on our site under the CC licence.''
-::What this apparently means that (1) NPG's BY-NC-ND licence is not compatible with Wikimedia's licence; (2) To claim that an image is out of copyright in the UK, the uploader would need to find a different source other than NPG. Separately, US copyright is still an issue. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::Show me where it is incompatible, as some editors and administrators have been saying that it is fine. You do realise that a CC licence means the work is free right? Wikipedia states 'A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work"'. So I fail to see what point you were making here as the NPG has basically said we can use the images. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::Not all Creative Commons licenses are considered "free" for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons. This one forbids commercial use and derivatives, but licenses on Commons must allow both. For Creative Commons licenses, the means only CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 are acceptable. See [[COM:L]] for more. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
-::: Commons ignores NPG's claim of copyright on digitised copies as policy has us follow the Bridgeman case.  Obviously, under current policy, a BY-NC-ND license is not acceptable for Commons.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
-::: {{ping|K.e.coffman}} The NPG is claiming copyright on the digitization.  Commons (following the Bridgman decision) does not recognize those claims -- we follow just the copyright of the original in this case.  The UK government said [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf this] as well: ''However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.  However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’.'' So, even by EU law, their claim is probably invalid as well.  If Brexit happens, it may allow their old precedents to take over again, and it would become a more gray area in the UK -- but probably just the UK, and places like Australia which have the same law.  But I don't believe it has been tested in court there.  But, policy is [[Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag]], so any NPG claim of copyright / license on digitization is not grounds for deletion.  If any of the above are from before 1926, and have no named author, they are probably OK.  For ones since 1926, NPG may however have a valid copyright claim on the original in the U.S. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|Clindberg}} what I was trying to say was that the uploader would need to demonstrate that the image had been published elsewhere. Meaning that if NPG was the first to ''publish'' the image on its website, then we can't really say that the UK copyright has lapsed simply because the image was ''taken'' prior to 1926. Does this make sense? [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::: Ah, I see.  Possibly, yeah.  A number of the NPG images from Bassano were taken from prints, i.e. copies that Bassano made decades ago.  For those, that shows publication at the time, which means any NPG digitizations should be OK if they are more than 70 years old and no author is named.  For the ones which came from the original negatives, where we have no evidence of publication, yes the answer could be different.  I can't see which is which for the ones here.  Most of the time, I'm sure Bassano published them, so it would be a question if the lack of publication evidence amounts to a theoretical doubt or significant doubt in the minds of the admins.  For me, I'd tend to be careful with NPG stuff.  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{comment}} - what was clear from day 1 has been confirmed in the meantime, involved uploader is a sock of a LTA, see [[:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron]] - [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
-::It only shows that I have an IP address in an area that is nearby to a sock, so nothing is 'clear' so don't make stuff up. I mean your reasoning for deleting my images on wikimedia, because you doubted 'that the authors of all these works would be unknown', turned out to be wrong. Indeed if you look at my edits on wikipedia they are only to add the images that I uploaded here to their respective articles, nothing more. @[[User:Jcb|Jcb]]. [[User:PicMonkies|PicMonkies]] ([[User talk:PicMonkies|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria.jpg]] ==
-Please restore this file by [[:de:Franz Grainer|Franz Grainer]] (1871-1948). Thanks. [[User:Mutter Erde|Mutter Erde]] ([[User talk:Mutter Erde|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{o}} The photo is apparently from 1939 (when the woman depicted, [[:en:Princess Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria]], shown as a bride, was married), so there is a URAA problem. 1939 photos are still protected until the end of 2034 in the US. -- [[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{s}} Also please restore [[:File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg]] by Grainer.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
-* Let's remember: [[:Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA|...''URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with <nowiki>{{Not-PD-US-URAA}}</nowiki>''...]].
-* btw, this is the WMF point of view. Regards [[User:Mutter Erde|Mutter Erde]] ([[User talk:Mutter Erde|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-**Meanwhile {{tl|Not-PD-US-URAA}} says {{tq|This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012. Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are.}} Perhaps the Commons community should clarify its position, since the last comprehensive discussion seems to have been four years ago, and policy and help pages like [[COM:L#URAA]] and [[COM:URAA]] are inconsistent with the aforementioned template. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 18:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-*** OK ː-). But my quote is newer = April 2014 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA Regards [[User:Mutter Erde|Mutter Erde]] ([[User talk:Mutter Erde|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-:* No, that is not the WMF point of view.  They have said, when pressed, that we should not keep stuff that we know is copyrighted in the U.S.  The original mass deletion was stopped because we did not have a lot of copyright history for individual countries correct -- i.e. many EU countries were still 50pma on the URAA date, and we were deleting stuff from those countries assuming the terms had been 70pma, etc.  But whether something was restored by the URAA or always had its U.S. copyright, it's really no different copyright-wise, or free-wise.  "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" was the wrong interpretation to come out of that.  I suppose that could be a community decision from their standpoint, but our policy is explicitly that we don't host stuff which is not PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin, and in ignoring the URAA we are knowingly ignoring that policy and hosting such files under a fair-use basis in the U.S., which they also forbade us from doing.  If ignoring the URAA was an actual community policy we would mention that fact on [[Commons:Licensing]].  It can be frustrating since most restored works the author will not care about once they become PD in their country of origin<s>,but in this particular case it could very well be a copyright owner which has sued a Commons contributor in the past.</s><small>(the deleted comment was in regards to some other NPG works currently under discussion.</small> [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-::* In [[m:Legal/URAA Statement]], the WMF has emitted a statement saying: ''if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice''. My point is that the copyright of nearly '''all''' URAA affected files is ambiguous, as we need to prove a negative to be sure of the copyright status of these works. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::*In that WMF statement, the sentence just before the one you quote says that “[t]he community should evaluate each potentially affected work [...] and remove works that are clearly infringing.” (Full quote: “The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the [[Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA#Legal team.27s statement|guidelines]] issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104A language of the statute] itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.”) And I don't see the US copyright status of a 1939 German photograph as ambiguous: it's still protected until the end of 2034. What ''is'' not entirely clear is the year 1939, because the upload stated no year at all. I assumed 1939 because the woman is shown as a bride and she apparently married in 1939. If we don't assume that, we'd probably have to assume 1948 as the last year in which the photographer was alive, and that would mean protection in the US until the end of 2043. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::I think that we may decide to host non-US works PD in home country and copyrighted in US under URAA-restored copyright, but we need a clear community decision to do so and, as Carl has said above, to mention this in our licensing policy. I also think, that WMF would accept such community decision; they always have a chance to delete content on DMCA. This would just potentially create more work for their legal staff. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::: Deciding about a copyright issue today is already quite difficult. With URAA, we need to find if a work was under a copyright some time in the past. IMHO very difficult at the minimum. So was been any case in court about URAA affected works? Because so far all this remains a theoritical discussion. I would rather that we follow actual practice. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::::I hope that by “actual practice” you ''don't'' mean any of the variations of “we can get away with it” as listed at [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]]? --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::No. I mean that if URAA is enforced at all IRL, who are we to do so on Commons? Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::: Yes, the URAA has been enforced in court.  A few examples from some searching:
-::::::::* ''[https://casetext.com/case/toho-co-v-priority-records Toho v. Priority Records]'': This was on some Godzilla stuff.  There was some infringement of some sound recordings which did not need to be restored in the first place, but there was additional infringement of a restored musical composition copyright as well.
-::::::::* ''[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4817 Toho v. William Morrow]'': More Godzilla; the films never lost copyright (and the character was infringed), additionally some publicity stuff was ruled to be restored, and also infringed.
-::::::::* ''[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1398553.html Troll Co. v Uneeda Doll Co.]'': This was on some troll dolls which lost their U.S. copyright due to lack of notice (1965 case ruling), but then got restored. The restoration was not being contested, but was more about if the defendant was a "reliance party" (they were not).
-::::::::* ''[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1376423.html Dam Things from Denmark v Russ Berrie Co.]'': This is on the same troll dolls; the dolls were restored but the case was remanded to a lower court because they did not properly evaluate the derivative works status in regards to being a "reliance party".
-::::::::* ''[https://casetext.com/case/peliculas-y-videos-internacionales-v-harriscope-of-la Peliculas Y Videos Internacionales v. Harriscope of L.A.]'': This was on some Mexican films which got restored.  The ruling was again more based on whether the defendant was a reliance party (they were for 22 of the 29 films).
-::::::::* ''[http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/331/472/510935/ Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al]'': More Mexican films; the District Court ruled infringement on 81 of 88 films.  The appeal addressed the remaining seven; they were ruled PD in Mexico in 1996 (by virtue of being produced before January 1948 and thus PD in Mexico due to failure to comply with Mexico's own registration requirements at the time), and thus ineligible for restoration.  The infringement of the 81 others was upheld.
-::::::::* ''[https://casetext.com/case/elkan-v-hasbro Elkan v. Hasbro]'': This was on the Stratego board game.  It was ruled simultaneously published in the U.S. and Canada, and thus not eligible for restoration.
-:::::::: I'm sure there are more.  Some others are mentioned by reference.  The URAA restorations have plenty of court case precedence now to be valid, if restored according to all the clauses in the law.  They will use foreign law on the URAA date to determine URAA eligibility, and also foreign law to determine who the authors / copyright owners are. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::Thanks, these are quite interesting and convincing, specially the Mexican films case, so I won't support any restoration here. Regards, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{ping|Abzeronow}} {{ping|Clindberg}} {{ping|Clpo13}} {{ping|Mutter Erde}} {{ping|Yann}} Just FYI: {{ping|Jcb}} apparently thinks that [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_in_Category%3AHugo_Erfurth&type=revision&diff=334515014&oldid=334396390 "the hypothetical copyright in US is only imaginary"]. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
-: My personal URAA policy preference is more in line with Jcb, but I also can see the need for consistency on how Commons approaches it (either delete all the URAA-affected files or delete none).  I also notice that Commons routinely ignores U.S. copyright in for example outdoor photographs of German sculpture in public places, so ignoring a nonsense law especially for art so we can actually have a useful archive is somewhat better than making Commons U.S.-centric in how we apply copyright law to works that are out of copyright in their source countries.  But doing this by proposal is better than ad hoc deletion & undeletion decisions.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
-:: The URAA is frustrating, but it is the law (and is not imaginary or nonsense -- it is the law that courts follow).  The EU restorations are similarly frustrating, and result in many deletions of pre-1924 works even though they are just fine in the U.S.  The policy User:Jcb linked to ([[COM:DIU]]) was quickly superseded by [[Commons:Review of Precautionary principle]].  Yes, if we want to change policy that is one thing, but current policy is to delete when a careful review shows a significant doubt.  Granted it should be a ''significant'' doubt -- unless there is documentation which indicates otherwise, we typically assume publication around the time of creation for example, for U.S. term purposes -- but if it is likely still under copyright, then it is a problem.  Any DMCA takedown or deletion request by copyright owners would be promptly followed, as we wouldn't have much of an argument against them. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{ping|Abzeronow}} {{ping|Clindberg}} {{ping|Clpo13}} {{ping|Mutter Erde}} {{ping|Yann}} {{ping|Jcb}}: At the request of Yann, I've now started a discussion about the URAA problem at [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright#URAA revisited in 2019]]. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 14:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg|Files by Mostafa Azizi]] ==
-It was my mistake. We could keep these photos with some help from [[com:Graphic lab]] (by blurring the background):
-* [[:File:Naser Mamdoh.JPG]]
-* [[:File:Mohamadali Najafi.JPG]]
-* [[:File:Rambod Javan.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Soudabeh moradian.JPG]]
-* [[:File:Ansariyan.JPG]]
-* [[:File:Siruse ebrahimzade.jpg]]
-* [[:File:Behnoushe bakhtyari.jpg]]
-* [[:File:N-Biroti280886.JPG]]
-And I don't remember why I voted delete to [[:File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg]]. We could have it too. [[User_talk:Hanooz|Hanooz]] 12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
-* {{s}} Some can be easily fixed by blurring/cropping, and some are indeed covered by [[COM:DM]] policy. {{neutral}} about [[:File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg]] as its author is Mehdi Delkhasteh, although {{w|Mostafa Azizi}} claims to be the rights holder as the producer. Work-for-hire is probable, but I think it is prudent to directly hear from Mehdi Delkhasteh through OTRS system. [[User:4nn1l2|4nn1l2]] ([[User talk:4nn1l2|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.jpg]] ==
-Three files were deleted on 30 December 2018 by [[user:jcb|jcb]].  The [[Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sirlanz|discussion]] was initiated on the grounds that the images (1) "don't seem legitimate" and (2) are "inconsistent with the other files of this user".  Obviously, the first is no reason at all and the second surely is a reason which could not ever be ground for deletion of anything, i.e. the matter was raised without any reasonable or proper justification at the outset (by [[user:Senator2029|Senator2029]]).  I responded to these non-grounds in a brief message.  Someone followed up by asking for EXIF data and, due to my not at that time having a user page, I was unaware of the question or, indeed, any of the ensuing comments there.  The rest of what was written discloses what then took over as the substantive basis for the challenge which was the absence of EXIF data on two of the three images.  This I have subsequently explained to [[user:jcb|jcb]] who has chosen not to deal with the matter but asked that I pursue it here.  I note that the policy requires editors to make that approach to the deleting admin before coming here and I have complied with that but the admin was just simply disinterested.  I have the original files, of course, with the EXIF data and they are entirely my copyright.  Due to my inexperience, I did not know of the significance of the EXIF data, nor did I know that the software I used to crop the original images was stripping the data out of the files.  I can provide the originals with EXIFs if required but they are not suitable for publication as they are not cropped appropriately.  [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]] 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{o}} {{Ping|sirlanz}} The images were deleted per [[COM:PCP]] as missing EXIF and refusal to provide it is considered reasonable doubt about uploader authorship. Also, for any image that has been used elsewhere without a free license evidence prior to upload to Commons a formal [[COM:OTRS]] permission is strictly required. And, note, this is a community managed project, so community may decide to delete any image here. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
-::{{Ping|Ankry}}The misinformation bandied about here is astonishing.  I offered, immediately upon becoming aware of the challenge, to provide images with the EXIFs.  I have never "refused".  My offer remains.  I repeat my plea to be told how or where to provide them if they are required.  Indeed, no one has explicitly even said I MUST upload files with EXIFs but merely indicated that the lack of them was cause for suspicion.  I repeat that the grounds stated for deletion were that (1) someone thought they were inconsistent with my past activities (the most tenuous of reasons imaginable and certainly not derived from any policy meant to be enforced here) and (2) that they looked too professional (again, there is such a policy?).  The second ground (of the only 2) cited now by [[user:Ankry|Ankry]] is also entirely false.  His is the very first suggestion in this debate that the images existed previously somewhere.  They did not.  Indeed, the challengers to them explicitly stated they could not find them anywhere.  I ask [[user:Ankry|Ankry]] to review his opposition unless he has some valid ground for continuing it.  This is really quite an Alice in Wonderland situation now, completely out of control if people can spin flat-out fabrications like these. [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]] 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{Ping|sirlanz}} What do you mean by "offerred"? Did you upload the photo version with EXIF? If you wish to offer it in a non-public way, OTRS is the only solution. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{Ping|Ankry}}So how do I go about that?  If the images have been deleted, would it not be an affront for me to just go uploading them again (same images, just with the EXIFs this time)?  Surely I have to get someone to permit that step, do I not?  I have made it clear that I do not live in the Commons side of things and have no idea of your procedures here. How about a little positive assistance to make up for all the blatant misinformation that has led to this completely wrongful deletion?  [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]]
-:::::{{Ping|sirlanz}} Community deletion should be resolved in a community-driven process. As lack of EXIF data was the main reason to doubt your authorship, providing images with EXIF is new data that allows image image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion and gives you a chance to convince those who opposed. Nobody here can simply override a community decision as we are unable to verify your authorship on-wiki. This can also be done via OTRS; your choice. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::::{{Ping|Ankry}}You have my thanks for taking time to set me on the right course here.  But I do not have a clue how to act on "allows image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion" because I thought that was precisely what we are doing here.  Can I repeat, these are my original images and I have them with EXIFs and want to upload them to end this problem.  If they have been banned, how do I upload them again with the same names or are you saying I should do new uploads with different file names ... or what?  Or am I obliged to carry this discussion forward somewhere else?  [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]] 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::{{Ping|sirlanz}} If the lack of EXIF was the only reason to delete the image, the next, reopened DR is likely to be closed as {{vk}}. If there are/were other [[COM:PCP]] issues there, [[COM:OTRS]] permission may be needed (that is a long way: 190 days now). [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::{{Ping|Ankry}}Look, I can see that this is going to just look silly to you (and others) but do you know how non-plussed "the next, reopened DR" and "other [[COM:PCP]] issues there" leave me?  I am a WP believer; it has such a central role in information dissemination for humans, that's why I'm here.  But the arcane processes, ugggh.  I guess I will just have to bone up on these two hifalutin expressions and try to work my way through this maze.  I'm not criticising; everyone wants to get on with things efficiently and not get snagged on inexpert editors, but there it is.  I may or may not be heard on this issue again.  Cheers. [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]]16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
-*{{support|Support temporary undeletion}}. Restore the file, and the author will have a chance to upload a new version with Exif. I believe that [[User:sirlanz]] has basically offered to provide such a version. It should be noted that it is '''not''' a requirement, only a suggestion to keep Exif data, somebody else may wish to go OTRS route and it should not be held against them.  ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 15:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-:Yes, that is correct.  I shall upload the same images with EXIFs if this temporary undelete is put into effect.  [[user:sirlanz|sirlanz]]00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
-::{{Ping|sirlanz}} OK. Let it be that way. However, I do not understand the need to restore the image '''before''' upload of the version with EXIF. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:jd_nov.18_portrai_1_web.jpg]] ==
-I first uploaded the file in December 18 with linking the source jugenddelegierte.dbjr.de. The wikimedia commons admin said that he deletes the photo because the license was not given at the website I referred and that I should talk to the admin of jugenddelegierte.dbjr.de. I just contacted her and she changed the website now and you can see that it is really a cc-by-sa license. So please undelete the file.
---[[User:JD SD19|JD SD19]] ([[User talk:JD SD19|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{info}} The photo is declared now "© Kristoffer Schwetje Fotografie / cc-by-sa". I cannot identify license version, however. May it be interpreted as 1.0 or newer? No link to the license text either. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
-That is what I was asked for. I thought this would be enough to clarify, that it is really a photo which is free to use. I mean it is a photo of some official German youth delegates and we need it for our wikipedia article. What must be done that the photo can be undeleted? --[[User:JD SD19|JD SD19]] ([[User talk:JD SD19|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{Ping|JD SD19}} See {{tl|Cc-by-sa}}. And AFAIK, CC-BY-SA licenses require providing URI to the license text (which I could not find). So I am waiting for others to comment on this. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
-can anyone else help use with this topic? I really need the photo for the article and I did all the changes the admins originally asked me for. --[[User:JD SD19|JD SD19]] ([[User talk:JD SD19|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Beryl Al2Be3(SiO3)6.jpg]] ==
 <!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=Vaterite.jpg}}
+* {{Il|1=Дмитров1.jpg}}
+Reason: this may be a test UNDEL case. Deleted through [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дмитров1.jpg]], on the grounds that it contained one component image that was a violation of NoFoP-Russia for copyrighted public monuments.
-* {{Il|1=Beevers crystal structure model of Kaolinite.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=Beryl Al2Be3(SiO3)6.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=Ruby model.jpg}}
-Reason: I took these photographs.  I built the models that it they are photographs of and I set up the studio that the image was taken in.  I own the copyright to these images.  They are freely available across the web because I made them freely available.  I have made ALL my photographs of molecular and crystal structure models freely avalable for anyone to use and download for non-profit purposes, as can be seen on my page at [[miramodus.com/images.shtml]], where I include a statement on their free use.
-It would be useful if, instead of simply deleting images with no regard for the effects of those deletions, your administrators would ASK the contributors before deleting for more definitive evidence of ownership.  We all check boxes to confirm that we own the copyright before uploading, yet your admin people appear to be able to delete images based on no evidence.
-[[User:Thesnark|Thesnark]] ([[User talk:Thesnark|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
-: {{ping|Hedwig in Washington}} Have you read https://www.miramodus.com/Image-use.shtml? Please share your interpretation of the conditions stated with us. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Leyo}} Yes I did. It doesn't quite fit with CC or attribution. The way one would have to present the link is too narrow, doesn't work like that on all publications. We had those discussions before, where an author wanted to decide where exactly to put the credit, license, link. IMHO not suitable for Commons. --[[User:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:blue">Hedwig in Washington</span>]] '''<sup>[[User talk:Hedwig in Washington|<span style="color:red">(mail?)</span>]]</sup>''' 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
+{{U|RG72}} gave an interesting case though, in 2019–20 concerning a postcard set, one of the constituent postcards contained an image of a monument in Yekaterinburg whose sculptor filed a copyright complaint (see [[Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#NoFoP should be amended]]). The case reached the Russian Supreme Court, which denied the sculptor's complaint (essentially dismissed), because the involved monument was only depicted in one of the postcards of the set (the set is considered the entire reproduction, and the monument is not the main object of the whole reproduction because it was only depicted in one of the postcards). Perhaps while the original images should stay deleted, the montages or collages where those deleted images were being used should be restored, in light with this slightly-lenient ruling by the Russian court narrowing sculptors' economic rights. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 08:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
-== [[:File:19860904 VOZ - Portada-PRIMEROS-MAGNICIDIOS-UP.jpg]] ==
+:Ping other participants of that CRT/Russia talkpage thread @[[User:Alexander Davronov|Alexander Davronov]]@[[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]]. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
-El archivo es de dominio público es un periódico de 1986. lo que se puede es corregir los datos de la imagen para que los derechos digan que es de dominio público {{unsigned2|05:56, 15 January 2019|Yurilizarazo}}
+: Recently (on June 25, 2024) the Yekaterinburg case and some similar cases were subject of trial in the Russian '''''Constitutional''''' Court (the highest court of the RF, higher than the Russian Supreme Court). See discussions in ru-community: [[c:Commons:Форум/Архив/2024#Стало_больше_свободы_панорамы,_но_есть_нюансы|1st]]+[[c:Commons:Форум/Архив/2024#В_России_теперь_есть_свобода_панорамы_для_памятников|2nd ones on Commons]] and [[:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское_право/2024/06#Небольшие_послабления_по_свободе_панорамы_в_отношении_памятников_в_России|1st]]+[[:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское_право/2024/07#Фото_скульптур_теперь_свободные?|2nd ones in Ru-wiki]].<br>In short: the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
-:<del>{{o}}</del> [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia]] states that copyright expires 80 years after publication (in 2067). And US copyright expire 95 years after publication (in 2082); unless one can prove that the magazine was published also in US. {{Ping|Yurilizarazo}} Am I missing something? [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
+::@[[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] how about the possibility of the montages/collages being lawful based on the court ruling, since the monuments themselves are not the main objects of the collages/montages. Similar analogy to the court ruling itself that concerns a set of postcards, even if one of the postcards unambiguously shows the monument itself as its sole depiction, the entire postcard set is lawful (the monument is not the main object of the entire postcard set) and the sculptor's claims dismissed, if I can understand RG72's comment in the CRT talk page. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 09:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
+::: Hmmm... This is interesting PoV (suggestion), but Jim's point below (''We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons'') is too strong. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
+{{o}} There is a simple answer to this. We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons, freely licensed. We do this in order that we can check the copyright status of each image. Obviously, the offending image in a situation like this cannot be present separately on Commons, so we can't keep a montage containing it. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
+{{s}} Firstly the author of the image expressly freely licensed his image to the Commons. Secondly, according to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [https://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Press-srv/Smi/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=9432] and  [https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6791004]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. [[User:Alexander Davronov|Alexander Davronov]] ([[User talk:Alexander Davronov|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
-[[User:Ankry|Ankry]] eso es para obras literarias o similares, no para portadas de periódicos o de publicaciones de interés general por ejemplo esta iimagen "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeitschriften.JPG" que no solo toma una portada sino muchísimas portadas de revistas [[User:Yurilizarazo|Yurilizarazo]] ([[User talk:Yurilizarazo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
+* ''That's simple'' fair use, which is deprecated on Commons. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
-:{{Ping|Yurilizarazo}} The mentioned page is probably based on [[COM:DM|de minimis]] rule. If there's a clear exception for such magazine covers in Columbian copyright law, it has to be described in [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia|this page]] prior to going further here. A Spanish speaking user with at least basing understanding of legal language is required for that. Any hints, which Columbian Act and in which part states so? And please, note: the images uploaded to Commons must be free for '''any''' use, including commercial and derivative work creation. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
+== some PD-Myanmar files ==
-[[User:Ankry|Ankry]] sin ánimo de ofender, me asalta una duda sino entienden el idioma, si no tienen los conocimientos ¿para qué editan, y peor aún para qué ejercen sanciones?, borrar una imagen sin tener la capacidad cognitiva para hacerlo es un sabotaje, es trollear, entiendo que para mantener un archivo, hay que organizarlo, etiquetarlo apropiadamente, pero esta labor no es necesariamente del que sube la imagen, sino por eso se supone que es una comunidad colaborativa, si alguien hace algo incompleto, otro que sabe, quiere, le gusta, tiene la disposición, lo termina o lo completa; pero lo que se ve es que no actúan con disposición de colaborar sino de censurar, de pedir borrar todo lo que no les guste, o de dar ordenes encubiertas, hablar de forma imperativa, de hagan, busquen, completen y que encima les agradezcan, es también una asunto ético que pidan el borrado sin siquiera intentar conservar la información que se pretende compartir, es decir sobre lo que trata la imagen, bien sea buscando una imagen similar o simplemente completando la información de los "formularios" que consideren ha quedado incompleta o mal diligenciada, y lo peor en búsqueda ladina de hacer acusaciones temerarias, violando la presunción de buena fe o de imponer sanciones contra los usuarios violando la presunción de inocencia donde la carga de la prueba se supone está en cabeza de quien acusa no del acusado (es decir el acusador debe primero investigar, buscar, tratar de conservar la imagen, la información, buscar las leyes que permitan hacerlo, y solo cuando encuentre que no es posible, que existe un acervo probatorio que puede llevar a la convicción que un usuario está infringiendo una norma, entonces si acusarlo pero haciéndole saber el porqué y todo el análisis que hizo, en lo que se basó, en las búsquedas que hizo, el historial de búsqueda de Google o Wikipedia o de su biblioteca, que actúan como una acusación que llevarían a la certeza que se violó la norma [[antijuridicidad]] y aún esto no es suficiente para acusar porque faltaría la [[culpabilidad]] y el [[dolo]] y la necesariedad de la sanción, sin que exista otra posibilidad que la de acusar para obtener una sanción a modo de recobrar la armonía perdida, de otra forma parecen matones, gatillos fáciles, carceleros, sicarios wikipedistas que asesinan la información) no digo que sea su caso, pero es evidente que hay un mal proceder de parte de las personas que piden borrados y amenazan con sanciones cuando ni siquiera se toman la molestia de colaborar y colaborar no es solicitarle al que sube la imagen que complete el formulario o hacerle caer en cuenta que lo llenó mal o de forma incompleta (como hacen los funcionarios de una empresa tradicional o de un Estado con una forma de gobierno burocrática y seudo-elitista) sino en como ya lo mencioné en completar por iniciativa propia lo que haga falta. {{unsigned2|19:34, 18 January 2019|Yurilizarazo}}
-"Any title, photograph, illustration and commentary on a current event, published by the press or broadcast by radio or television, may be reproduced in so far as this has not been expressly prohibited. Pueden ser reconocidas cualquier título, fotografía, ilustración y comentario relativo a acontecimiento de actualidad, publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, si ello no hubiere sido expresamente prohibido."
-"It shall be lawful to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public news or other information on facts or events that have been publicly disseminated by the press or by broadcasting. Será lícita la reproducción, distribución y comunicación al público de noticias u otras informaciones relativas a hechos o sucesos que hayan sido públicamente difundidos por la prensa o por la radiodifusión."
-https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Colombia#Threshold_of_originality[[User:Yurilizarazo|Yurilizarazo]] ([[User talk:Yurilizarazo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
-:So {{neutral}}: I think I need a second opinion on this. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
+* {{il|1962 Rangoon University Protests6.jpg}}
-{{o}} IP laws of Colombia are overruled by "Decision No. 351 Establishing the Common Regime on Copyright and Neighboring Rights" of the [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Andean Community of Nations|Andean Community of Nations]]. I can't find any article in the treaty which allows free publication of recent photographs or front pages. [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] ([[User talk:Thuresson|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
+* {{il|1962 Rangoon University Protests7.jpg}}
+* {{il|1962 Rangoon University Protests8.jpg}}
+Since the photo were taken in 1962, which are now in public domain per [[Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Myanmar|Myanmar's 2019 copyright law]]. [[User:Ninjastrikers|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:blue;font-family:century gothic;">Ninja<span style="color:red">✮</span>Strikers</span>]] <sup><span style="color:Red;font-size:85%;">«[[User talk:Ninjastrikers|☎]]»</span></sup> 06:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
-== File:CharlizeTheron-Portrait_by_Stephen_Achugwo.jpg ==
+: {{o}} They were not public domain in 1996 as photographs would have been creation plus 50 years under the old British law which means pre-1946 photos. These would have entered the public domain only in 2013. So URAA applies. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
-This realistic portrait is among my celebrity series of Paintings. I painted Charlize Theron as a tribute to her contribution to Art, Entertainment and Media Industries. The Oil on Canvas portrait was adored in various places I displayed it, including Bloemfontein and Johannesburg South Africa. It is an inspiration to the young ones who are seeking to become great performers in future, as they look up to her as a National Hero and a global icon. {{unsigned2|16:05, 22 January 2019|Sirsteve17}}
-{{o}} I can't find anything to suggest that Achugwo is an established artist ([https://www.freelanced.com/freelancers/about.aspx?freelancerid=49260 merits]), hence [[COM:SCOPE|out of scope]] for the following reason: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". [[User:Thuresson|Thuresson]] ([[User talk:Thuresson|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Logo CNI 1.png]] ==
-Stop deleting this logo!!! It's the OFFICIAL logo of the National Center of Inteligence of Mexico!! I already put as author of the image the MEXICAN GOVERMENT! I'M A MEXICAN FUNCTIONARY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT! COMMICIONED TO EDIT THIS PAGE. THIS IS VERY OFFENSIVE, STOP DELETING OFFICIAL LOGOS OF THE MEXICAN GOVERMENT!!! {{unsigned2|23:53, 25 January 2019|Dionisio Ingres}}
-== [[Logo CNI México.png]] ==
-THIS LOGO COME FROM THIS PAGE: https://www.gob.mx/cni SO IS A OFFICIAL LOGO FROM THE MEXICAN GOVERMENT, WHOM I PUT AS AUTHOR. STOP DELETING IT!!!. {{unsigned2|00:07, 26 January 2019|Dionisio Ingres}}
-== [[:File:Farhad Besharti.jpg]] ==
-i am Farhad Besharati and this is my website, all i Write on my Page is Documentary, my Official Website is : <ref>[https://farhadmusic.com/gallery/]</ref> {{unsigned2|08:11, 26 January 2019|Hadiwoodi}}
-* {{ping|Hadiwoodi}} You forgot to tell us which file you are talking about. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-* {{o}} website says "© 2017 Farhad Besharati, All Rights Reserved."  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-<references/>
-== [[:File:1910 Fantana in Campia Brailei - Druica Bordei Verde.png]] ==
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=1910 Fantana in Campia Brailei - Druica Bordei Verde.png}}
-Reason: [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Macreanu Iulian]]
-"The image was published by its author Alexandru Garoflid (died in 1943) in his book Agricultura veche, Tipografia "Cartea Românească", Bucureşti, 1943, p. 11."  Claimed license was {{tl|PD-RO-photo}} [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
-*{{support}} Publication has been found, it is more than 10 years before the dreaded 1996. We can safely undelete now. ℺ <u>Gone Postal</u> (<tt>[[User:Gone_Postal|〠]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:Gone_Postal|✉]]</tt> • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|✍]] [[Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal|⏿]]) 05:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-== Three files uploaded by Allo002 ==
-Yet another holocaust of images—'''not''' presenting any direct '''threat''' to Commons (such as copyvio or personal attacks)— with {{u|Jcb}} as the performer.
-* [[:File:South Korea (3884725570).jpg]]&nbsp;– withdrawn from the delreq ''by the nominator'' (yet linked) - restored - [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-* [[:File:Yoga, On Top Of Namsan! (3886460048).jpg]]&nbsp;– over objections
-* [[:File:Kelsi, Yoga, Namsan! (3886460618).jpg]]&nbsp;– over objections
-When will the community put the end to vicious practice of blind deletion ignoring any information but the list of files? [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-:The first one was unintentional, I thought that I deselected this one. I have restored that one. Regarding the other two files, I don't think they are is scope. (Both were also uncategorized). But if someone is really convinced that those two files have any added value for our collection, I won't care if they get undeleted. Please categorize them if undeleted. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{o}} IMO, private, out of scope images. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-== Files of buildings by Joseph Hornecker (1873-1942) ==
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=Opéra Nancy.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=Villa Fournier-Defaut.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=F54-Nancy-maison-Geschwindammer.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=Villa Marguerite Saurupt Nancy 11-06-2006.jpg}}
-* {{Il|1=Nancy - Opera National de Lorraine.jpg}}
-Reason:
-*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opéra Nancy.jpg]]
-*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa Fournier-Defaut.jpg]]
-*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:F54-Nancy-maison-Geschwindammer.jpg]]
-*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa Marguerite Saurupt Nancy 11-06-2006.jpg]]
-*[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nancy - Opera National de Lorraine.jpg]]
-"The architecte, Joseph Hornecker, died in 1942, so the building will be in the public domain the first of january, 2013".  2nd file might require a new DR. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Keizo Obuchi 1998.jpg]] ==
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=Keizo Obuchi 1998.jpg}}
-Reason: I found this image on http://www.kantei.go.jp, which is the website of Japanese government. Please check "Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0)" http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/it2/densi/kettei/gl2_betten_1_en.pdf. It says "The Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (hereinafter
-referred to as the CC License). This means that Content based on the Terms of Use may be usedunder the CC License in lieu of the Terms of Use." [[User:Roku61|Roku61]] ([[User talk:Roku61|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
-== File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg ==
-Этот файл принадлежит мне или загружен с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файл. {{unsigned2|19:38, 28 January 2019|Kolchanovb}}
-== File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, etc ==
-Файлы принадлежат мне или загружены с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файлы. {{unsigned2|19:41, 28 January 2019|Kolchanovb}}
-{{comment}} I bring from the title and fix the files names:
-[[:File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg]], [[:File:Людмила Нарбекова2.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 19.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 21.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 26.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 25.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 24.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 23.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 22.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 7.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova5.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova10.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova9.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 16 Pray about the horses.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova8.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova6.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova7.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 3.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova4.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova 2.jpg]], [[:File:Ludmila Narbekova.jpg]].
-Regards. --[[User:Ganímedes|Ganímedes]] ([[User talk:Ganímedes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 {{udelh}}
-== [[:File:USS Tulsa (LCS-16) in acceptance trials.jpg]] ==
+== [[:File:Logo Gobernación del Estado Zulia (2021-2025).jpg]] ==
-Per [[User:Fæ/email/DoD]]; all media on DVIDS is unambiguously public domain, regardless of source. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
+Hi Administrators, please restore this image, this are public domain in the last paragraph of license in Venezuela {{t|PD-VenezuelaGov}} (Google translator) [[User:AbchyZa22|AbchyZa22]] ([[User talk:AbchyZa22|talk]]) 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
 ----
+{{not done}}: Named source has explicit copyright notice and no free license. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 21:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-{{done}}: as per above. --[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 {{udelf}}
-== [[:File:Nipmuc Regional High School Logo.svg]] ==
-This file was deleted for the following reason: "belongs to school copyright". However, the logo for the school is not covered by any existing copyright claims. Please do not delete files in the future without providing legitimate evidence of copyright infringement. {{unsigned2|22:24, 28 January 2019|Matthelb}}
-:{{o}} Whoever is the logo copyright owner, they did not declare that it is freely licensed. And without such a declaration (in written form) the logo cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons. Copyright exists since work creation; it does not appear automagically when claimed by somebody. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[File:Ajinomoto history 1950s.jpg]] ==
-以下の5ファイルは、いくつかのファイルを結合させて作成したものですが、元となる一つ一つのファイルには、CC BY-SA 4.0　のライセンスが付与されております。ライセンス上問題ないようですので、削除の撤回をお願い申し上げます。
-File:Ajinomoto history 1950s.jpg
-File:Ajinomoto history 1960s.jpg
-File:Ajinomoto history 1980s.jpg
-File:Ajinomoto history 2000's.jpg
-File:Ajinomoto history 2000's 2.jpg
-[[User:Lanlan0122|Lanlan0122]] ([[User talk:Lanlan0122|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelh}}
-== [[:File:Example.jpg]] ==
-I got this image from Mr. William Mook. How should I prove I have the copyright? {{unsignedIP2|02:41, 29 January 2019|70.162.88.174}}
-:{{ping|70.162.88.174}} What image are you talking about? Did you upload it? --[[User:Arthur Crbz|Arthur Crbz]] ([[User talk:Arthur Crbz|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-: {{comment}}  Please specify which image you want undeleted.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 ----
+{{not done}}: No reason given. As noted, has at least a URAA copyright. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 21:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-{{not done}}: File name not provided. --[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 {{udelf}}
+== [[File:Crowd Checks Out Clean Coal at Missouri State Fair (6072555381).jpg]] ==
-== File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg ==
+I would like to use this picture to illustrate the advocacy activities of the fossil fuel industry in the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage Carbon capture and storage]. I agree it is promotional in intent. That is the reason I want to use it - promotion happens in the real world and we should cover that phenomenon encyclopedically. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User talk:Clayoquot|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-当方が撮影し、Instagramに掲載した写真を不正にコピーした写真を提示し、「Patrick Rogel」によって不当な著作権侵害申告をされたため
+* {{s}} Even if put on Flickr with promotional intent, seems reasonably in scope. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation of New Orleans]] ([[User talk:Infrogmation|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-削除の撤回を求めます。 {{unsigned2|07:18, 29 January 2019|M.tgwa}}
-== [[:File:All Stars Cup Logo.png ]] ==
+== [[:File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm]] ==
+It is important to America and also it is history that cannot be deleted.Also, i would like to investigate it but I can’t. Please get it ASAP.Thank you.
-Official document. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (diskuse) 15:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
+[[Special:Contributions/42.98.226.90|42.98.226.90]] 06:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
+:Relevant DR: [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
+: Yes, it is an important historic American film, but as [[:en:Zapruder film]] says it is copyrighted and thus cannot be hosted on Commons yet. I am not opposed to fair use of the film, which would have to be locally hosted on English Wikipedia. There is no fair use on Commons (I was the closing administrator on that DR). [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
+== [[:File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg]] ==
-:I think you don't really mean [[:File:Example.jpg]]? [[User:Gestumblindi|Gestumblindi]] ([[User talk:Gestumblindi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
+[[Commons:Deletion requests/File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg]] was closed rather quickly today, and I was halfway through typing out a keep for it at the time: I think it's a good illustration of a person genuinely engaged in editing a video on a home computer, to the point where I would have used it at [[:en:Video editing#Home video editing]], or even in the lead there. The concern that the photo is a social-media style "selfie" seems misplaced, as the subject is facing away from the camera.
-Dobrý den, do budoucna se zde budu vyjadřovat pouze svýmn rodným jazykem tj. ČESKY Na vysvětlenou všem a snad pro vždy: Několik týdnů po založení článku ALL STARS CUP jsme článek na doporučení wikipedisti Harolda upravili a promazali dle jeho rad, aby splňoval kriteria a pravidla Wikipedie včetně jejich fotografií. Bohužel wikipedista " vystupující pod user:Josve05a / Jonatan Svensson Glad / se rozhodl vymazat oficiální logo našeho turnaje na které držíme ochrannou známku udělenou úřadem průmyslového vlastnictví České republiky, což bylo podmíněno také množstvím úkolů nutných pro její vydání. Pokud by měl pan Jonatan Svensson Glad zájem a vůbec chuť se tím zabývat a klikl by si na oficiální stránky turnaje, zjistil by, že logo je s celým turnajem nepopiratelně spjaté. Myslím, že před tím, nežli se rozhodl logo jen tak ze zábavy smazat a označit jej jako okopírovanou //ukradenou věc nejdříve zkontrolovat zda někdo jiný vyjma nás toto logo používá. Samotná výroba loga nebyla zadarmo a museli jsme i úřadu průmyslového vlastnictví ČR prokázat jeho originalitu a nybytí vlastnictví. Wikipedie se tváří jak je ráda, když lidé dodávají zajímavé články z různých lidských odvětví a potom dochází ze strany lidí jako je Jonatan Svensson Glad k takovému arogantnímu chování. Odpověděli jsme prostřednictvím emailu dle instrukcí wikipedie a pořád se k tomu hlásí další a další a samotný Jonatan Svensson Glad neměl ani špetku úcty k nám a na naše vyjádření reagovat. přitom on je ten, který vše zapříčinil. Ke cti českých wikipedistů je, že pokud oni sami mají pocit, že článek neobsahuje co by měl tak reagují po celou dobu v diskuzi jenom oni. V našem případě na Commons se Jonatan Svensson Glad rozhodl jen tak pro zábavu smazat naše oficiální logo na které jsme po právu hrdí a je celosvětově známe a pro všechny spojené s fotbalovým turnajem ALL STARS CUP Proto se domnívám, že by jste měli naše logo do článku vrátit.Nejsem sice tak moc známou osobou, ale vzhledem k úspěšnosti našeho projektu spolupracujeme s řadou novinářů a lidí veřejně známých a věřte, že mou zkušenost s wikipedií nebo spíše její parnerskou organizací Commons budu všude prezentovat pokud nedojde ze strany kompetentních osob k narovnání celé záležitosti a umístění - vrácení našeho loga do článku ALL STARS CUP
+As someone who's had to [[:File:Restaurant logo design mockup.jpg|fake a screen onto a similar stock photo]] before, decent photos of people doing something specific on a computer, where the photo emphasises the act of work more than the person as an individual, can be quite rare. --[[User:Belbury|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-Jaroslav Novák | www.allstarscup.cz
-[[User:Allstarscup|Allstarscup]] ([[User talk:Allstarscup|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
+: {{s}} I agree with Belbury.  Definitely not "rubbish" as the speedy deletion nominator had said, and a good illustration of someone using editing software. This is not some social media selfie. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-:{{Ping|Allstarscup}} You declared that exclusive copyright to the logo is your personal ownership. And that you allow anybody to use the logo in any way for any purpose. We doubt such declaration made by an anonymous user and require to confirm this by a link to the official website or via email following [[COM:OTRS]] procedure. And personal attacks against Wikimedia Commons user who strictlyfollow rules, are not acceptable. {{o}} [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
+:Weak {{o}}: "Someone using iMovie" is different than a picture that could illustrate that use. The screen is blurry, and since it is a free software, anyone can create a useful picture or video. This is not one of them. If anything, this could illustrate a teenager's desktop, but nothing else. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
+:{{o}} Very busy, low quality image. The screen is out of focus. The half cup on the right should be cropped, also some of the left..&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-== File:L'Origine de l'univers, 350x180cm, Encre et bois © François Mangeol.jpg ==
-[[User:Florence Marmiesse|Florence Marmiesse]] ([[User talk:Florence Marmiesse|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Dear Sir or Madam,
-I have sent the email below of declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
-I hereby affirm that I represent François Mangeol’s, the creator sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media as shown here : in the attached images ans texts and below and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of these works.
-https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Florence_Marmiesse
-File:L'Origine de l'univers, 350x180cm, Encre et bois © François Mangeol.jpg
-File:2016 CR LUNE@ASSAUT.jpg
-File:INFINITO © FRANÇOIS MANGEOL.jpg
-I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-SHare Alike 4.0 International.
-I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
-I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
-I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
-I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
-Florence Marmiesse
-Appointed representative of François Mangeol
-.01.19
-Many thanks!
-[[User:Florence Marmiesse|Florence Marmiesse]] ([[User talk:Florence Marmiesse|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{odelay|:}} [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[File:Freizeit_im_Sattel_-_Cover_83-01.jpg]] ==
-Dito:
-: [[File:Freizeit_im_Sattel_-_Cover_90-11.jpg]]
-: [[File:Freizeit_im_Sattel_-_Cover_78-08.jpg]]
-: [[File:Freizeit_im_Sattel_-_Cover_72-09.jpg]]
-Freigabe durch [Ticket#: 2019012910012388] Danke, --[[User:Markus Bärlocher|Markus]] ([[User talk:Markus Bärlocher|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{odelay|:}} [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:u20_logo.png]] ==
-I have documented written permission under  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International  to use this from the class organization and submitted the affirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. {{unsigned2|16:24, 29 January 2019|Sailod}}
-:{{odelay|:}} [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:गजानन भास्कर मेहेंदळे.jpg]] ==
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=गजानन भास्कर मेहेंदळे.jpg}}
-Reason: This photo was taken by myself. [[User:अमित म्हाडेश्वर|अमित म्हाडेश्वर]] ([[User talk:अमित म्हाडेश्वर|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-:{{o}} It seems to originate from picasa, not directly from your camera. Contact [[COM:OTRS]] to prove your authorship. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelh}}
-== [[:File:Example.jpg]] ==
-Why is this being deleted? {{unsigned2|20:50, 29 January 2019|Beatupageantsandqueens}}
-:{{Ping|Beatupageantsandqueens}} Which file do you request to be undeleted? [[:File:Example.jpg]] is not deleted. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
-----
-{{not done}}: as per above. --[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelf}}
-{{udelh}}
-== [[:File:Example.jpg]] ==
-Please do not delete the file because there is no evidence to prove the aqusations that this is child pornography.some of us dont find it offending.@deekay. com {{unsignedIP2|22:01, 29 January 2019|41.114.101.38}}
-----
-{{not done}}: File name not provided. --[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelf}}
-== [[File:Loganbeirnetalkonwashington.jpg]] ==
-I have permission from the owner of the photo (the actual person the article is on) to post this photo. Why was it deleted without notice?
---[[User:Shrilaraune|Shrilaraune]] ([[User talk:Shrilaraune|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:SCSU John Nwangu-334fm.jpg]] ==
-I have permission from John Nwangwu to post this photo here. Why was this deleted without notice?
---[[User:Shrilaraune|Shrilaraune]] ([[User talk:Shrilaraune|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:146 Front cover.jpg]] ==
-Image in cover was taken in-house by Renew staff, Renew (the organisation that publishes Renew the magazine, and I am technical editor) owns the rights to the image and cover in total, and allow it to be used as per CC rights. [[User:Ledsalesoz|Ledsalesoz]] ([[User talk:Ledsalesoz|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-== [[:File:School Uniform for LWFSMS (C).jpg]] ==
-Have you got any permission for that photo is infringement? That photo I have used a camera to take photo. And that photo CANNOT be found on any websites. Also that was neither a copyright logo nor a cartoon or TV characters. I think Roy17's wants to make provoked in any wikis due to his requestment. Also Liwan Fenshui Middle School have merged to Truelight High School since 2017. The school uniform is hardly to figure out near that school.--[[User:PQ77wd|PQ77wd]] ([[User talk:PQ77wd|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelh}}
-== [[:File:Simon-Dawlat.jpg]] ==
-<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages:
-* {{Il|1=Simon-Dawlat.jpg}}
-Reason: A valid [[OTRS]] permission has been provided &ndash; [[ticket:2019012910006377]].
-As an OTRS agent <small><span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:0.9em">([{{fullurl:Special:GlobalUsers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:AntonierCH}}}}  verify])</span></small>, I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.<br />If you want, you can apply {{tl|temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
-Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. {{smile}} [[User:AntonierCH|AntonierCH]] <sup>([[User Talk:AntonierCH|d]])</sup> 07:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-----
-{{done}}: {{ping|AntonierCH}} FYI. --[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
-{{udelf}}

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:19, 29 September 2024

Current requests

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

some PD-Myanmar files

Navigation menu

Search