Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and 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? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shizhao and Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jcb and 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". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 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. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and 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. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [2]: "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）--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • 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。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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 Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhDhnkXwDc

File:印军越界现场照片（一）.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of 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 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. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question which license template should be applicable if undeleted? Ankry (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WQL, Techyan, and Jeff G.: Any hints? If none appropriate exists, it should be discussed in COM:VPC before coming here. Ankry (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: {{PD-ROC-official}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Definitely not. ROC != People's Republic of China. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Sorry, I meant {{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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: {{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:
--Wcam (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: Indeed, some of the above cases make me doubt. However, I would  Support 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. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: If in doubt, maybe COM:PRP should be considered? --Wcam (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request to undelete these files:

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.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Support}} 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. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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 WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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 (example).
Regrading your question, 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 Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself 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 {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 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. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

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. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping the 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. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case this undeletion request should be closed and we should let OTRS do its job. --Wcam (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Accipite7

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then 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. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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". De728631 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @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. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep 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. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [3]" 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. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, [4] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [5] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that 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? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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?


Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • 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 [6]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the 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 [7]) 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. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - 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. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          •  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. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @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. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Comment@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.


            • 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 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 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.


@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:
  1. 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 [8]
  2. 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. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Support 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. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support 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. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{@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. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 archived page and license info html screenshot. so I open undeletion request here. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to contact JuTa about this closure as well. The initial undeletion request, which was linked in the 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 performer rights was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. ℯxplicit 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support 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 JuTa here. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My response you can see here. --JuTa 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: Thanks. Ankry (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Just deleting of the video on the specific website such as Youtube does not necessarily mean the cc license is invalid (There is archived page and 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. Puramyun31 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I uploaded the video, I removed the sound of the video. the youtube user's behavior does not blanketly affect here.Puramyun31 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for over 2 weeks nobody declares to review the license on this rationale, I suggest closing this section as not done. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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? @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. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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 here, some photos with OTRS template, some photos without this. --Regasterios (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. 255. p."

Picture from my own book: The 80 Year History of Psychology, ed. Ágnes Szokolszky, Márta Pataki et al. Szeged, 2009 255 p.
translator: Google translate via 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. Ankry (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 editor [szerk. in Hungarian] of this book) took these photos (or she is the copyright holder). Bencemac (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencemac: restored. Could you, please add the ticket info to the file as you are the authorized OTRS agent? Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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”). Bencemac (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple images to be undeleted

 Support 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.[9]

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: [[10]] & [[11]], which had been kept by the administrators @Yann & @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:

PicMonkies (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. PicMonkies (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PicMonkies: Please see the United Kingdom in the table at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Rrburke (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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.

PicMonkies (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PicMonkies: 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 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. --Rrburke (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrburke: pre-1926 photographs with unknown photographers in the UK are {{PD-1996}}. But a mere allegation that URAA applies cannot be the only reason to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. PicMonkies (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PicMonkies: You have the onus precisely backwards: we need evidence that they are in the public domain. If you have any, please bring it forward. --Rrburke (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. PicMonkies (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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, Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This interpretation makes a mockery of Commons:Public Domain Day‎, as we could undelete almost nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the 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. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion request has absolutely nothing to do with this undeletion request. PicMonkies (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: I don't see how contacting the NPG would make any difference. They already gave all the information they have. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman and 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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. PicMonkies (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. clpo13(talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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 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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 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 - Jcb (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. @Jcb. PicMonkies (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria.jpg

Please restore this file by Franz Grainer (1871-1948). Thanks. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose 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. -- Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Also please restore File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg by Grainer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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,but in this particular case it could very well be a copyright owner which has sued a Commons contributor in the past.(the deleted comment was in regards to some other NPG works currently under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, Yann (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the 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. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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, Yann (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. I mean that if URAA is enforced at all IRL, who are we to do so on Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the URAA has been enforced in court. A few examples from some searching:
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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".
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these are quite interesting and convincing, specially the Mexican films case, so I won't support any restoration here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: Just FYI: @Jcb: apparently thinks that "the hypothetical copyright in US is only imaginary". --Rosenzweig τ 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: @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. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files by Mostafa Azizi

It was my mistake. We could keep these photos with some help from com:Graphic lab (by blurring the background):

And I don't remember why I voted delete to File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg. We could have it too. Hanooz 12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.jpg

Three files were deleted on 30 December 2018 by jcb. The 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 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 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. sirlanz 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @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. Ankry (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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 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 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. sirlanz 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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? sirlanz
@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. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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? sirlanz 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz: If the lack of EXIF was the only reason to delete the image, the next, reopened DR is likely to be closed as  Keep. If there are/were other COM:PCP issues there, COM:OTRS permission may be needed (that is a long way: 190 days now). Ankry (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. sirlanz16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. I shall upload the same images with EXIFs if this temporary undelete is put into effect. sirlanz00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Ankry (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JD SD19 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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? --JD SD19 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JD SD19: See {{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. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JD SD19 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beryl Al2Be3(SiO3)6.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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. Thesnark (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Have you read https://www.miramodus.com/Image-use.shtml? Please share your interpretation of the conditions stated with us. --Leyo 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:19860904 VOZ - Portada-PRIMEROS-MAGNICIDIOS-UP.jpg

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurilizarazo (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose 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. @Yurilizarazo: Am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yurilizarazo (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yurilizarazo: The mentioned page is probably based on de minimis rule. If there's a clear exception for such magazine covers in Columbian copyright law, it has to be described in 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. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurilizarazo (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "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_originalityYurilizarazo (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So  Neutral: I think I need a second opinion on this. Ankry (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IP laws of Colombia are overruled by "Decision No. 351 Establishing the Common Regime on Copyright and Neighboring Rights" of the Andean Community of Nations. I can't find any article in the treaty which allows free publication of recent photographs or front pages. Thuresson (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:CharlizeTheron-Portrait_by_Stephen_Achugwo.jpg

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsteve17 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I can't find anything to suggest that Achugwo is an established artist (merits), hence out of scope for the following reason: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionisio Ingres (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionisio Ingres (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 : [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadiwoodi (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ [1]

File:1910 Fantana in Campia Brailei - Druica Bordei Verde.png

Please restore the following pages:

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 {{PD-RO-photo}} Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three files uploaded by Allo002

Yet another holocaust of images—not presenting any direct threat to Commons (such as copyvio or personal attacks)— with Jcb as the performer.

When will the community put the end to vicious practice of blind deletion ignoring any information but the list of files? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose IMO, private, out of scope images. Ankry (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files of buildings by Joseph Hornecker (1873-1942)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"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. Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keizo Obuchi 1998.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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." Roku61 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg

Этот файл принадлежит мне или загружен с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, etc

Файлы принадлежат мне или загружены с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файлы. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USS Tulsa (LCS-16) in acceptance trials.jpg

Per User:Fæ/email/DoD; all media on DVIDS is unambiguously public domain, regardless of source. Kges1901 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthelb (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose 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. Ankry (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lanlan0122 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

I got this image from Mr. William Mook. How should I prove I have the copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.88.174 (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@70.162.88.174: What image are you talking about? Did you upload it? --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please specify which image you want undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: File name not provided. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg

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 削除の撤回を求めます。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 07:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:All Stars Cup Logo.png

Official document. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (diskuse) 15:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you don't really mean File:Example.jpg? Gestumblindi (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jaroslav Novák | www.allstarscup.cz Allstarscup (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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.  Oppose Ankry (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Origine de l'univers, 350x180cm, Encre et bois © François Mangeol.jpg

Florence Marmiesse (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Dear Sir or Madam,[reply]

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 29.01.19

Many thanks! Florence Marmiesse (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 16 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dito:

Freigabe durch [Ticket#: 2019012910012388] Danke, --Markus (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 16 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailod (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 16 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:गजानन भास्कर मेहेंदळे.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken by myself. अमित म्हाडेश्वर (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It seems to originate from picasa, not directly from your camera. Contact COM:OTRS to prove your authorship. Ankry (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

Why is this being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatupageantsandqueens (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beatupageantsandqueens: Which file do you request to be undeleted? File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.114.101.38 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: File name not provided. --Yann (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SCSU John Nwangu-334fm.jpg

I have permission from John Nwangwu to post this photo here. Why was this deleted without notice? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ledsalesoz (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.--PQ77wd (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simon-Dawlat.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019012910006377.

As an OTRS agent (verify), 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.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 07:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: FYI. --Yann (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=336990475"