Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:12, 31 May 2011

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive.

Current requests

Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov

Discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov was closed by very doubtful way. User:Kameraad Pjotr concluded it by „Deleted, per nominator.“ although the discussion don't includes an exact list of disputed files and during the discussion it was cleary said that in some cases is template {{PD-CzechGov}} used absolutely legitimately and only some types of cases are questionable or unjustified. It is necessary to discuss particular controversial types of sources and their status toward law, not to delete all photographs with certain PD template.

I request for a sped revision of the conclusion. --ŠJů (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was indeed a bad decision. The foundation should provide legal consulting to solve the problem here.--Kozuch (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clearify, that such images desribed as "maybe ok because used in a publication" were not listed in the request. From reading and learning about the Finnish template I intentionally left photographic works from such publications out and only nominated images grabbed from government websites. On the gallery I provided you can still see the quality of the sourcing for 4 images (4 images the imposter Fredy.00 rescued for the moment with faked OTRS tickets). --Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legal status of copyright is independent on the photographic or un-photographic form of the image. The crucial criterion is whether the used source is 1) explicitly stated as free (e. g. legal acts, authentic instruments, public accesible registries or municipal chronicles) or 2) inexplicitly containable and hence doubtful (e. g. other informatory official stuff, government an parliament webs etc.) or 3) clearly not free (e. g. most of documents and webs of companies etc.). Photographs have utterly identical legal conditions as drawings and texts etc. Btw., a web publication is a publication just as printed or whatever other form of publication. --ŠJů (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it is not true that photographs have identical legal conditions as drawings and text (protection of photographs is actually broader, see § 2 subsection 1, last sentence), but that is not important for this discussion. The main problem here is that most of the debated files fall (at best) into the second category – we don’t know; and Commons’ rules seem to require to delete such not-clearly-free files. --Mormegil (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss individual files, individual sources and specific types of sources. But the conclusion to delete all photographs with PD-Czech template en bloc is ungrounded, mistaken and harmful.

§ 2 subsection 1 of the Czech act 121/2000 Sb. mentions "dílo fotografické" in the same rank as "dílo slovesné", "dílo výtvarné" etc. That's what I said. --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, my mistake, I meant subsection 2, not subsection 1. --Mormegil (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of subsection 2 says that works made by similiar technologies are subsumed under photographical works. No special condition for such works is stated here. --ŠJů (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. We are really off-topic here—anybody, feel free to move this somewhere else. Subsection 1 states the conditions for a work to be copyrightable (it has to be a “unique outcome of the creative activity of the author”); subsection 2 allows several kinds of works (computer programs, database structure, and photographs [and “a work produced by a process similar to photography”]) to be protected even though they do not fulfill these conditions; for those kinds of works, the conditions are reduced, the sufficient condition is that the work is “original in the sense of being the author's own intellectual creation”, i.e. not a “unique outcome”. --Mormegil (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't off topic. The question whether PD-Czech photographs have be treated in other way than PD-Czech drawings, maps etc. is very relevant here. The subsection 2 give no some special conditions for some kinds of works, but only additional corrections of definitions. I see no substantional distinction between "jedinečný výsledek vlastní tvůrčí činnosti autora" and "původní ve smyslu, že je autorovým vlastním duševním výtvorem". The subsection 2 only specifies that some potentially doubtful types of works fall fully sub the subsection 1. "Autorův duševní výtvor" is an exact synonym of "výsledek tvůrčí činnosti autora". "Jedinečný" (unique) is an equivalent of "původní" (original) in this context.

The meritum is that the whole discussion should be the question which of sources fall into the law definiton and how we should threat doubtful types of sources. An impeaching of all PD-Czech photographs is and was unreasonable. A photograph which is included in official decision or ordinance or official municipal chronicle is certainly free. --ŠJů (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat what I said above: The deletion requests only targeted images that not fulfill the template because they are not part of official documents but either grabbed from czech websites or uploaded with no verifiable source information at all. That was not correct use of {{PD-CzechGov}} but abuse. There must be a public interest in exclusion from copyright protection (and expropriation of the author, thats what we talk about here) and that interest is e.g. not given for images grabbed from random vanity galleries on gov websites. We may rename the request so that its name may reflect what was nominated. It wasnt a request to delete photographs using the template but photographs wrongly using the template, those photographs that are not parts of such works described in {{PD-CzechGov}}. Photographs that are part of works defined in {{PD-CzechGov}} was not nominated! --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between photographs and other kinds of works in the Czech copyright law is off-topic here. (I don’t think anybody suggested that photographs definitely under PD-CzechGov should be treated differently to e.g. texts definitely under PD-CzechGov.) You are wrong in your assessments above, “jedinečný” is not an equivalent of “původní”, the whole point of the subsection is to separate those two. But as I said, this is off-topic here, if you want further explanation to this, feel free to post to my talk (either here, or on cs:).

The question “which of sources fall into the law definition” is, indeed, the focus of this debate, but I cannot imagine how could we get to a definite result with that. And, as I mentioned above, the treatment of “doubtful types of sources” is specified by the Precautionary principle.

--Mormegil (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is necessary to abandon the mistaken and groundless conclusion of the deletion request. After it should be discussed the real merits. --ŠJů (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undelete. The provisions of the Czech legislation are clear, and the images should be public domain. The limitations raised in the discussions are groundless. Afil (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a table with all source and author information to Commons talk:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. If someon reasonable think that one of this files fulfills the requirements of {{PD-CzechGov}} (an official work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register[...] an official draft of an official work[...] and other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection.) we can undelete that file and give it a second, individual request. If you however think that the whole template Template:PD-CzechGov is wrong and that also files from 'vanity' galleries of public events of e.g. the czech prime minister are PD by law - then this is so or so the wrong platform but a case for Commons talk:Licensing. Files with faked sources and permissions by fredy.00 are excluded from the table. Afterwards and finaly we should rename the deletion request to something like 'Photographs illegitimately (an english speaker may know a correct term) using Template:PD-CzechGov'. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karrer.jpg

This photo from 1937 was deleted by Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs) after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg. This admin is on a deletionist crusade, requiring unreasonable evidence, the kind of evidence that would be unavailable for almost anything here. He is clearly deleting much more than Commons policies require, when other DRs can be speedily closed without such evidence. And he has a pattern of such deletions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been involved in at least three debates about images of Nobel prize winners.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorothy Hodgkin (Nobel).jpg (open DR)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Townes.jpg (closed as delete, see the undeletion request above)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg (closed as delete)

He has taken a neutral position on the first and keep on the others. In the two cases, he has argued that the image was first published in Sweden and therefore was now PD under the relatively short Swedish rules for photographs. Several of us, not just Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs), have pointed out that the prize winners were notable scientists in their home countries before winning the Nobel Prize and would, in the ordinary course of things, have had studio portraits such as these available for press, university catalog, and other uses. In the Hodgkin case, we have shown that the image used by the Nobel Committee was, in fact, taken in the winner's home country and, therefore, was very unlikely to have been first published in Sweden. While the Karrer case remains unproven, it seems to me that there is a substantial probability that it, too, was taken and first published outside of Sweden. Our precautionary principle puts the burden of proof on the keep side of the vote, so this was correctly closed as a delete.

As for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dunlop laarzen-1.jpg being speedily closed, this looks like a case of User:Pieter Kuiper once again taking retribution against a colleague whose decisions he doesn't like. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the image, first uploaded in 2003 by User:Kameraad Pjotr and used on nine wikis, is a problem. The DR was simply a waste of our time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jameslwoodward and Kameraad Pjotr have become the main deleters here. Their interpretation of the precautionary principle would lead to the deletion of almost anything. There is no guarantee that those boots are not from somewhere else. Many photos of boots are by boot manufacturers. So with their logic there is a "substantial probability" that those boots were published first in some boot catalogue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not knowing Swiss law (nationality of person, hence the other likely place of a studio photo) in this regard, if it was 1937 and there is no known photographer, when would its copyright be expected to expire. I would have thought that if published at the time it would have been 1987. I am comfortable with a conservative approach though feel that there should be a suggestion of which licence would apply in this case in lieu of anything special for Switzerland, to me the alternative seems to be {{Anonymous work}} – anonymous work more than 50 years old (Berne convention) which predates URAA — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jpg

The file was deleted after this request. Nomination clearly erroneous. Please undelete this file. Author was uploaded this picture under free license. it give all permission. Before this the author has exhibited the picture for the contest. The fact that this image has participated in the contest for talisman for Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014 and therefore was present in the gallery on the site selection mascots does not change anything. This picture was only the leader of online voting, and it is interesting, russian media covered this story, but it has not passed the selection and it did not enter top ten pretenders, which were chosen by the jury. it is not official talisman, and it will never become in future. What permission is needed? Author was uploaded this picture under free license, and author solved with a picture to do anything. --188.123.248.44 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file name 6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jp looks like it was generated by some website. Therefore I doubt that this is the original author who uploaded their own creation with nonsense title like "6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jp". According to the filename its a copy from some website and an original author would not need to copy their own work from other websites but can diretly upload it from their own computer. The filename of an upload directly from the creators computer may also not mean something but it will not be the files hash sum (or something like that). I dont believe that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously have found copies of images from Wiki, given that the resolution in Wiki is the largest, then obviously this is the original file. why it has strange name, i do not know, but all that is found on your link is more recent copies of popular image. if the author would have been outraged by uploading image to Wikipedia, he may be noted that in his last post about this picture in his blog

, which by the way, he notes that in the Russian Wikipedia says about his work is not quite correct information. that is, he knows, because that time the picture was already loaded, and illustrated the article about itself. and gives at the end of the post the link to his work a vector format for all who want to have. --188.123.248.44 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currency images from Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg

Beginning at User talk:Jcb#Currency deletions

According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg not only Zambian currency was deleted, but also a large number of currency images of different countries very deleted. However, this images are in PD as they are not protected by copyright in their countries of origin. The following tags apply to the images listed below: Ukraine ({{PD-UA-exempt}} in "(e) bank notes"), Turkmenia (in {{PD-TK-exempt}} banknotes are listed under b) state symbols and signs), Azerbaijan ({{PD-AZ-exempt}} (b) State emblems and official signs mentions "monetary signs"), Somalia (no copyright, see {{PD-Somalia}}), Zimbabwe ({{PD-ZW-currency}} is a special local low for currency), Georgia ({{PD-GE-exempt}} in b) official symbols of state mentions "monetary symbols"), Albania ({{PD-Albania-exempt}} has "Means of payment"), Turkey ({{PD-TR-currency}}).

Please undelete and revert delinker for the following images (list given in the format Jcb sent me, sorry that it's not very well-formatted

There are some images which are doubtful (seem to be Russian currency which falls under {{PD-RU-exempt}} but the description is not clear enough)

Thanks — NickK (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start with it. (For others, please feel free to work on it as well). ru:Доллар_Зимбабве still has to be relinked, but that could be done best if the operation is ready. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nacionalizacion_servicios.jpg

A Peronist poster, was licensed with {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nacionalizacion servicios.jpg because it was anonymous. This does not make any sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter you just don't get it: The artistic work can be anonymous. No problem with that. But we need to know where and when the work has been published for the first time. Otherwise it is impossible to determine whether the work was published more than 50 years ago and whether it has been published first in Argentina. Both requirements of the law. Please read the law and then come back here to comment again. --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't yet it. It is a propaganda poster for Peron's first five-year plan (in effect between 1946-1951), it is the publication itself, all the information is on it. It is ludicrous to demand anything else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are facts here that were not in the DR (which I closed as a delete) -- we have a date of publication -- not later than 1951 -- and, given the nature of the poster, it must have first been published in Argentina. We don't know the source, but I'm not sure we need to. Anyway, I undeleted it to take another look at it and, unless anyone objects, I'll leave it that way. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the author information "Estado Argentino" verified by any source, it appears to be a plain guess or laziness but not an reliable information - but it is the essential information for the copyright status ("anonymous work belonging to an institution"). Unless a source can be provided that verifies this author information it should be deleted(not restored. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jim. Martin H.: of course this was produced by an agency of the Argentinian government, just like the rest of the posters shown in es:Plan Quinquenal en Argentina#Publicidades. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Authors are individuals, who says that the author belongs to that institution? Source for that? I can speculate too that it is an institutional work, but without a source im not entiteled to make any such statement. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG

This file was deleted denying my claim that I am the sole owner of this file. w:Varghese Palakkappillil is a famous personality in Kerala, India and naturally everyone would doubt how I can own the copyright of the photo of such a famous person. I, Rahul Johnson Palakkappillil, belong to the same family as Varghese Palakkappillil and almost all the famous photos of him have been taken from our family album. Some color photos were made to draw in a studio. Fr. Varghese is my great great grandfather's brother. Undoubtedly I own the copyrights of all these photos. I was not sure if my claim will be accepted by other users. Thats why I did not stress much on that point. But now since my file was deleted I am disclosing the fact that I am a close relative of Varghese Palakkappillil and I own the copyright of many of the photos of Varghese Palakkappillil. I request the users here to believe me and restore the deleted file.Achayan (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the owner of the images who has the copyright, it is the person who took/made the image, in this case the photographer. If they are indeed family photos, then it is probably going to be difficult to know who took the photos, then whomever is the legal heir(s) to the estates of the photographers will own the copyright and the right to release to the public domain. I would suggest that you look to follow the processes at Commons:OTRS and identify the images and once that is received and processed, then we can look to retrieve the images. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG as delete. In that discussion, Achayan wrote:

"Learn the rules buddy. Derivative work means editing or modifying an already existing file. This is a new photo drawn and created by me. It has no copyright problems either."

That is different from what he or she claims above. I don't know what the facts are, but I know that there is enough uncertainty so that our precautionary principle should apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told i did not stress on it because i was not sure if the users will trust me. I am truly the owner of that photo.Achayan (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Jim. Im "Voting" oppose here instead of closing the undelrequest right away, the reason is on hand: COM:PRP, I not feel comfortable with uploaders changing their copyright or ownership claims based on their needs to upload, and not based on the real legal status of the media file. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like the user did not understand the rules properly on the first upload. To me, the claim looks genuine and the file can be restored. We should treat novice users in a little more better way. The file is certainly not {{Out of scope}} either --Sreejith K (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find a certain irony in a user saying, "Learn the rules buddy", and that same user later being defended as a newbie who didn't know the rules.

It is true, though, that Achayan is a relatively new user and does not know the rules. Owning a paper photograph is very different from owning the copyright to that photograph -- we frequently have new users claiming that because they own a paper photo of an ancestor, they can post it here.

The question, again, in this instance, is who actually owns the copyright to the photograph. Since it is very unusual for a photographer to transfer copyright when he sells paper or digital copies of the image, it is most likely that the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs and not, as claimed here, to User:Achayan. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and that's exactly my point. User:Achayan is trying to say that he is the heir of the person in the photograph. He failed to make that point in the DR most probably because of his over confidence and ignorance. I do not have a reason to disbelieve him and so I support undeletion of this image at this point. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to disbelieve him to be a heir of the person in the photo. But being the heir of a person shown in a photo is meaningless for the copyright on the photographic work. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image should be a paid work of art and the owner of the photograph should be the one depicted in the photograph itself. Naturally, after his death, his heir holds the rights for the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Sreejith told is the truth. At present the copyright of the photograph belongs to me. Please be kind enought to trust me and replace the photograph at the earliest. Achayan (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peterborough-i sziklafigua.jpg

With all due respect to the closing admin (whose decisions are always well considered), I believe this image was wrongly deleted. Just because something is a rock carving does not make it comparable to a coin. Not all carvings are alike - some (i.e. sculptures, even reliefs) are unquestionably 3D objects, but the mere fact that something an image is carved on a rock surface does not render it 3D. The closing admin agrees that the test is whether something would cast a shadow, and he suggests that the subject in this case would cast a shadow. We would be hard-pressed in these circumstances to see any shadow. Using the logic of the closing admin, anything with even a minimal amount of texture would therefore constitute a 3D object; I do not believe that to be correct, otherwise we would be deleting hundreds (thousands?) of other images of "2D" objects, everything from paintings to quilts, that have as much texture as this petroglyph. For example, the brushstrokes on many post-impressionist paintings have more of a 3D quality than the petroglyph in question - if this petroglyph is 3D, then so would this painting as its brushtrokes would cast more shadow than the petroglyph.

While the ultimate consensus here may be to uphold Jim's decision, I believe that this issue merits more consideraton from a wider group of editors, especially given that the majority view at the deletion discussion was that this was not a 3D object. For the reasons I gave at the deletion discussion, I ask that this image be undeleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you, Skeezix1000, for both the compliment and the fair and comprehensive summary of the issues here. You almost get me to change my mind.

You are quite correct that there are many paintings that have significant relief in the brushwork (or sometimes palette knife work). The problem with that analogy here on Commons is that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (on which we rely for our handling of images of PD paintings) addressed a wide variety of paintings and concluded that photographs of them did not have the necessary originality for copyright. It did not address sculpture, coins, or rock carvings, hence our conservative position on our use of images of them.

You suggest that these are really 2D -- I think not. Among the various similar web images are petroglyphs photographed with side lighting which distinctly show the depth of the work. Just because the subject image was photographed with flat light does not deprive the photographer of his or her copyright -- he or she had a choice and made it.

I certainly agree that to a large extent the distinction between File:Adolphe Joseph Thomas Monticelli 001.jpg, which you cite above, and this petroglyph is artificial. Many copyright decisions are artificial, framed by the law and precedent, not reality. We can keep the painting because a judge has ruled that it is all right, but not the rock carving because we have no such ruling to back us up. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, after an exchange on my talk page. I think that the problem we have is that, for simplicity, Commons has framed it as 2D versus 3D. That's fine, but it isn't actually where the line should be drawn -- it must be drawn where Bridgeman drew it, as that is our basis for rejecting copyright in images of paintings and drawings. So, what I should really have said, is not that this is 3D (which I believe it is), but that it was not covered by Bridgeman and therefore does not fall in our safety zone. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a fair point which I had not considered. I will read Bridgeman. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete carving are 3D; never heard of one that is 2D. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that's the issue in debate. You haven't responded to the reasons put forth. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png

New York State generated booking photographs are subject to NY FOI laws. The New York Committee on Open Government (statutory body to assist the public in understanding New York FOI laws) states "Conditioning the release of copies on contractual agreements governing future treatment of the copies, in our opinion, would thwart the very purpose and intent of the Freedom of Information Law. It is our belief that when materials are accessible under the Freedom of Information Law, upon receipt of the appropriate fee, they must be released to the applicant without restriction." Further references to back up unrestricted use of releasable New York public records at Sunshine Review and Open Government Guide. Covered records defined here.

It's not clear that the citations supporting keeping the file were considered by the admin who deleted the file, hence the appeal. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Freedom of information and copyright are two separate areas of law. Releasing a copy of a document covered by freedom of information legislation to an applicant without restriction is not the same as releasing the copyrights. Court records from copyright trials are typically covered by freedom of information legislation. If the effect of taking a copyright infringement case to court were to release the evidence into the public domain, the whole principle of copyright would be rather useless. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Committee on Open Government (first citation above, where New York attempts to explain the interaction b/w their FOI laws and copyright) is aware of such considerations and clarifies which releasable records are subject to copyright and which are not. Mugshots fall outside the class of documents for which copyright would be asserted. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. here. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee is an executive agency, not a judicial one; the letter you link is clear that the discourse on copyright is the author's opinion and even says "The stance taken by DOT, in view of the Copyright Act (17 U.S. §101 et seq.), arguably is correct." While persuasive, I'd be hesitant to say the Committee's opinion is definitive. Powers (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The committee routinely issues legal opinions to New York counties (2005), towns (2008), school districts (2005), cities (1998), etc telling them that they cannot assert copyright on almost anything they produce (they do talk about exceptions, mugshots very clearly fall outside those exceptions). I expect this is why there is almost no case law; New York stops invalid copyright claims by entities subject to their FOI law before they can get to court. For many more advisories see the Freedom of Information Law Advisory Opinions page and search on "copyright". Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Basically, you have the state gov't saying that copyright doesn't apply, and providing that as legal advice to the copyright holder. As Weedwhacker128 asserts, in these circumstances there is unlikely ever to be any case law. I don't think we have to be more Catholic than the Pope here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Jmabel above. Another case where we Wikimedians should not try to make our own interpretation of the law. 05:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
~~Support~~ The 2005 advisory specifically calls out a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case (paras 47-54):

[T]he Second Circuit opined, it would be for the District Court to determine whether the tax maps were in the public domain from inception, and thus outside the coverage of the Copyright Act. To make this determination, the District Court would have to consider, most importantly, whether the County needed the economic incentive of the Copyright Act to create the maps, or whether it had adequate incentives or obligations to produce their respective materials.

Yes, New York state entities can assert copyright, but by the (not-appealed) standards of this US Federal court determination this booking photograph is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clownish to 'support' your own request. Jcb (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M'kay, I didn't know it was clownish. Sorry, haven't been through this process before. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weedwhacker128, these discussions aren't votes. When I was new at this I complained about someone who had nominated something I submitted also weighing in with a separate "delete". I was told then that there was nothing wrong with the nominator also placing an explicit !vote. I was told the administrator who closes the discussion is not supposed to simply count heads. I was told the administrator who closes the discussion is supposed to be paying enough attention to notice when the nominator also voice an explict !vote. Most people don't do it, but there are some regular participants in these discussions who almost always add an explicit !vote when they make a nomination. I can't remember ever reading a discussion where this practice was questioned since I raised it about five years ago.
Regarding whether you were being "clownish", please do not think it is OK to use terms like "clownish". I am disappointed to see an administrator fall short from setting a good example by using inflammatory language. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcb, you were the administrator who closed the original deletion discussion, weren't you? In the interests of openness, transparency shouldn't you acknowledge you were the deleting administrator when you make a comment in a deletion review? Since you were the deleting administrator, and you didn't offer an explanation in the deletion discussion, did you consider offering one here? Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the exact link (the Court of Appeals decision, bolding mine): We hold that FOIL does not abrogate Suffolk County's copyrights and find that it is possible for Suffolk County to comply with its obligations under FOIL while preserving its rights under the Copyright Act. [...] We also find that Suffolk County sufficiently alleged that its tax maps possess enough originality to withstand First American's motion to dismiss. Finally, we find, at least on the record before us, that Suffolk County's official tax maps cannot be deemed, as a matter of law, to be in the public domain since their inception. We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings. In other words, the freedom of information laws do not automatically invalidate state copyrights. The only question in that case was if the maps passed the threshold of originality in order to be copyrightable in the first place, a case-by-case matter. In the U.S., almost any photograph (yes including booking photos) pass the threshold of originality and can be copyrighted. Far from being evidence that these should be kept, that is an explicit ruling that the public record status does not mean that the copyright is lost. Furthermore, the quote you have above is not about all works in general, but was about judicial opinions in particular, and any considerations based on your quote need to also take into account "whether the public needs notice of this particular work to have notice of the law". We have {{PD-EdictGov}} for this type of work, generally limited to the content of laws and judicial opinions. If state courts have rulings that their particular FOI law invalidates copyright, then we may have a state-specific template, but I have not seen any such evidence for New York. If that law you cite below gets passed, that would help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear that I'm not claiming that NY FOIL itself says anything about copyright (it doesn't), but the authority created to assist in its implementation does have quite a lot to say about copyright. As I've said several times, NY can assert copyright, however as Suffolk tracked through the courts it was clear that general principles were being discussed. E.g. here, where Robert Freeman prepared an advisory that ended up triggering the US District Court to reverse its holding that essentially NY could copyright everything; to almost the exact opposite. After the Second Circuit this was refined to obligated work (as you have seen), and the NY Department of State has been telling everyone the same thing since then. (Theoretically someone could write to them and ask about this particular image.) Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the Court of Appeals specifically disagreed with that opinion ("In so holding, we decline to defer to the Committee on Open Government's advisory opinion") and reversed the District Court. They ruled the maps were copyrightable provided they passed the threshold of originality -- just like any other work. The one exception is the one mentioned for works with legal effect (i.e. ones that affect the public's right to know the law). There is a long history on those cases here; they appear to only involve that type of work, and not just any work which government is obligated to create. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the 900 pounds (410 kg) gorilla here is that Template:PD-NYGov should probably exist, and that it would bear a strong resemblance to Template:PD-CAGov. All obligated output of public entities in New York state (until either a new court decision or A5726 finally grinds its way through the NY legislature) is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would need some evidence. All links supplied above actually indicate otherwise. There is no support for the statement "all obligated output of public entities in New York State is in the public domain" that I can see. That is a misreading of the rulings and documents, from what I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the link where all the NY Department of State legal advisories discuss copyright. They are dated both pre- and post-Suffolk. Post-Suffolk they are telling anyone who asks that if the state entity is obliged to produce something, they cannot copyright that product. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I looked through the list of opinions you linked, and almost none of them really touch on the subject -- most are just pertaining to whether government can use copyright as an excuse to not fulfill FOIA requests in the first place, which in most cases they can not. However, copyright also involves rights of commercial use and derivative works, something that compliance with FOI laws does not need to confer, so those rights can still be claimed. The only other relevant opinion seems to be here, where they reiterate that they still feel that copyright should not be claimed in works where there is an obligation to create it in the first place, including the same maps which the Court of Appeals said could be copyrighted. That opinion also states that "most [agencies] do not copyright any of their works"... unfortunately for us and them, since 1989, copyright is automatic in all eligible works so even if copyright is not claimed, it still exists. By the way, that would be one good avenue to bring back the Sid Vicious mugshot -- if you can show that copyright notices were not present on New York mugshot releases in that era, they would have fallen into the public domain that way. I would guess there is a very good chance of that. For mugshots (or any other work) first published since March 1, 1989, though, that is no longer the case. All the rulings I see, despite the wishes of that Open Government committee, still seem to strongly imply that copyright still exists on most works created by state governments. The states can certainly decide to forgo that copyright, so if that law ever passes (which would be great) that would change things immediately, but until then it would seem that the Court of Appeals ruling is really the primary relevant text, which also mentions the consideration of "whether the public needs notice of this particular work to have notice of the law" to determine whether something was inherently uncopyrightable. Again, that is the type of thing covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, which has a very long history and does not include non-edict material. I'd love for that to change, of course, but there does not appear to be any New York law or court ruling which can be read that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent the following to the New York Dept of State Committee on Open Government via their contact page:

Dear COG,
There is currently a discussion regarding New York State and copyright occurring at Wikimedia Commons. Advisories issued by the COG are being cited:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Sid_Vicious_NY_Mug_Shot.png
The image in question is a booking photograph generated by the NYPD in 1978. The image has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons until it can be determined if the image is in the public domain.
Could you possibly offer an opinion on this matter?
Regards,
(my details) Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I received the following reply on May 16:

Dear (my name deleted):

Attached is an opinion advising that judicial precedent indicates that a mugshot is accessible to the public (any person) under the Freedom of Information Law, unless it has been sealed due to the dismissal of charges against an accused. I do not believe that a government agency could validly claim copyright protection regarding a photograph of a person who has been convicted as a result of a public judicial proceeding.
Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director
Committee on Open Government
Department of State
One Commerce Plaza
Suite 650
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518)474-2518
Fax: (518)474-1927
Website: www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/index/html

I replied with follow-up questions (in part): "The individual in question was arrested, photographed and held, then later released on bail, but he died before trial. As such, the mugshot is not of a person convicted of the crime for which he was arrested." Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've exchanged a few more messages with the New York Department of State Committee on Open Government, and at this point I can't claim the image is either in the public domain, or can be clearly licensed in a way that is acceptable to Wikimedia Commons (at least without expending a lot more shoe-leather). So, I'd like to withdraw this request to undelete this image. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to find out if the photo was published without a copyright notice at the time? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg

The file was licensed as PD-MinnesotaGov, and several files with that license were deleted when the license was no longer recognized. However, it was overlooked that the Seal is PD under US federal law, because it was adopted in 1861, when the current age limit is January 1, 1923. This particular version was also independently created by a User on Commons, and he released it as PD. The file is allowed on Commons under these reasons, this was a misunderstanding. I feel it should be undeleted, it was used extensively, and it's a shame to loose it because of a misunderstanding. Fry1989 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The file probably shouldn't have been allowed under PD-MinnesotaGov anyways as the artwork was from source without a free license. I am the creator of the file, and all it was, was a colorized version of File:Seal of Minnesota (B&W).svg, which was just a direct copy of http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/minnesota-seal. As per Commons:Coats of Arms, this is just basically "found artwork". We don't know when it was published, but given it is a vector graphics file, it would not be PD-US or anything similar.--Svgalbertian (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD-MNGov was an invalid license; it cannot be used as a rationale. Also, per Commons:Coats of Arms, each different drawing of a seal is a separate copyrightable work (they are separate expressions of the same idea), and must be licensed individually. That the design dates from 1861 is completely irrelevant (though it means there are likely plenty of PD versions to find and upload). An SVG particularly would be a modern work, and needs a free license of some sort. Two people draw their own versions of the seal, neither are derivative works of another, and each owns the complete copyright on their respective drawings. No state "owns" the design to the seal to the extent that original drawings of them are derivative works in a copyright sense (though there are generally trademark-ish laws protecting particular uses of them); the source of each specific drawing must be traced. States do own drawings on their own websites, so those should not be copied. Where did this particular SVG come from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork is from http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/minnesota-seal which is just a site people upload logos to, it is almost impossible to determine the origin unless you can find a copy of it on another site dated before "Mon, 05/21/2007 - 04:05".--Svgalbertian (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, this could well be a copy of the original 1861 design (or another pre-1923 design). If old designs can be found, and this is an exact copy of one of them, I doubt that slavish tracing would garner new copyright. -- Orionist ★ talk 02:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the artist was trying to copy the 1983 version of the seal. Some history and pictures here: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/leg/symbols/sealarticle.pdf --Svgalbertian (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find! This has very good pictures and details that might be all needed to make its Wikipedia article a Good Article. Back to our case, we have here a design from 1983 with no attached copyright notice, but the possibility of copyright registration. I searched the US Copyright Office website for post-1978 records and couldn't find any, although I tried every possible keyword combination (seal of Minnesota, Minnesota state seal, Minnesota seal), even searching "seal of the state" brought just five results, all for other states, all are independent depictions by printing companies. So I'm leaning here towards considering this as {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extract of the Minnesota Historical magazine Roots, which is likely under copyright. Although, if the illustration was just a copy of the seal in use... I'm not sure that gets a copyright by virtue of being there. As for an SVG, I'm usually pretty dubious that something like that is a straight trace... usually there is a fair amount of additional work involved in the SVG. Looking at them, it would not surprise me if that SVG did start out as a trace of the version pictured in that article. I suppose it's possible that there were no additional creative contributions made... most of the time it seems there would though. Although the brandsoftheworld version does look very very close, there are details in how to do the shading etc. BTW, there is more historical information on the seal in a 1952 article here; that magazine issue did have its copyright renewed (but again, the illustrations are not owned by the magazine and are from much earlier). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very close. I did not know about the 1983 version of the seal before posting it here, and I am surprised how close it was. In this case I am leaning towards {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but we are in a very grey area.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some way that's acceptable to bring back the Seal. This was a terrible loss. Fry1989 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is, but we can't do it by copying someone else's work (unless licensed or PD via other means). If it helps, I just uploaded File:Minnesota-StateSeal.svg, which appears to be the vector version of the us embassy bitmap. That was part of a series of SVGs I just uploaded from the same basic source -- 46 states. I have also found a completely different Minnesota seal SVG by the US federal government, which I'll also upload at some point, though it's not nearly as good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fry1989 has gone and re-uploaded the image from this deletion request (albeit with extremely minor changes) and claimed it as his own work. This is unacceptable, and shows a lack of respect for this community, and a complete disregard for copyright. I have reported them at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Seal of Minnesota.svg and User:Fry1989.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AbdAlRahim.jpg

This image was deleted in September 2010 Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AbdAlRahim.jpg -- based on a misconception. Apparently the image had a tag that said it was the work of the FBI. The actual history of this image is that it is a still from a video unearthed after the house of a senior leader of al Qaeda was destroyed by a missile strike in late 2001. Some videos were unearthed in the rubble, which were all described as "martyr's video". Later, when adequately translated, while the other videos were confirmed to have been martyr videos this video was established to have been a recording of Abd_Al_Rahim_Abdul_Rassak_Janko's confession to have been a spy for the USA. It was made by the al Qaeda leader, who was an Afghan citizen. So the image should have been under a {{PD-Afghanistan}} liscense. Although he was never at large, the FBI did publish a wanted poster for him. In fact, when the Taliban fell, he was in a Taliban prison. After the Taliban fell all the Afghan prisoners went home. But a half-dozen foreigners, who had no money, no clothes, and didn't speak any of the local languages stayed. These half-dozen men were interviewed by the BBC, a few days after the prison guards abandoned their posts. They expressed their gratitude to the USA for overthrowing the Taliban. They expressed their gratitude to the USA who they believed was going to fly them out Afghanistan, and fly them home. They were only half right, the USA did fly them out of Afghanistan -- to Guantanamo. No, I am not making this up. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Assuming that the facts described above are correct, it would have to have been first published in Afghanistan to be {{PD-Afghanistan}}. It is far more likely that it was first published outside of Afghanistan, which means that the unknown camera operator owns the copyright in whatever country it was, in fact, first published. The fact that the FBI and others probably infringed that copyright is irrelevant to our discussion, because the copyright still exists. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's either unpublished, or published in Afghanistan (the video may not be the original copy). PD-Afghanistan probably applies in either case. Someone taking the video and publishing is not technically with authorization of the author, and in any event the author had no control over what country it gets published further in, so there is no way that country's laws could be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, clarification please. It is years past the time when the WMF should have had a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law to give us advice about the status of the intellectual property rights of images taken in countries where there is no protection of intellectual property rights. Some Commons contributors have asserted:
1. If an afghan citizen first publishes an image in Afghanistan, it is in the public domain;
2. if an Afghan citizen first publishes an image they took in Afghanistan somewhere where there are intellectual property rights, they retain all the rights to the image, even though they are not a citizen of a signatory state.
3. If a citizen of a country that is a signatory to intellectual property rights agreements takes photos in Afghanistan, that image is protected by copyright without regard to when or where it is published.
4. If a citizen of a country that is not a signatory to intellectual property rights agreements takes photos in Afghanistan, the photographer owns the rights even if they don't publish the image, but some other entity publishes the image. This seems to be the position you are taking here.
5. Some contributors here have argued that photos taken by Afghan citizens are not protected by copyright, unless some entity publishes them outside of Afghanistan, and it doesn't matter how the publisher acquired the image -- the publisher owns the copyright, even if they acquired it from the actual photographer through fraud or theft.
6. Some contributors here have acknowledged that (some) images taken in Afghanistan are not protected by intellectual property right law, but have argued that we should treat them as if Afghanistan was a signatory to intellectual property right agreements. They have argued that (1) some Afghan legislators have talked about introducing IP laws in Afghanistan; (2) Afghan IP rights are imminent and inevitable.
7. So, if an FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department employee had taken the photo it would be in the public domain, correct?
8. If an FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department employee had taken the photo it would be in the public domain, even if it were taken in Afghanistan, correct?
9. If the FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department had paid the actual photographer for the IP rights, the photo would be in the public domain, without regard to their nationality, or where the photo was taken, correct?
10. Using several of the interpretations of the IP rights of the original Afghan video was not protected by IP rights when the US Government seized it as contraband, or war-booty. So, why shouldn't this snapshot, of a PD image, made by employees of the US government, be in the public domain?

I find the sixth suggestion -- that we shold treat Afghan images as if they were already protected by internation IP rights because it is inevitable that Afghanistan will sign onboard -- particularly problematic. We are not mindreaders. Respecting intellectual property, copyrights, patents, trademarks, are based on accepting an underlying assumption we consider so obvious we never think about it. That assumption is that it is in the best interests of the public at large to allow those who created new ideas to control those ideas for a limited amount of time, because new ideas, new songs, new images, new inventions, new ways of representing thoughts, plans, ideas, is a good thing. We accept "progress" is good. Afghanistan is a very conservative country. The Taliban did not believe in progress. And many Afghan citizens who were not members of the Taliban, or allied to the Taliban, agreed. Sovereign countries are allowed to reject the idea that "progress" is a good thing. If the citizens of a country, through their elected representatives, have rejected IP rights I think we should respect that. I don't think we should reject their sovereign decision. Will Afghanistan and the other half dozen nations that are not signatories to international IP rights agreements sign on? Probably. Is it inevitable? No. Is it imminent? Definitely not.

The WMF should have paid for the professional advise of a lawyer with expertise in IP rights to weigh in on this issue a long time ago. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant bits of the Berne Convention (Article 5):

(3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. However, when the author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which he is protected under this Convention, he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors.

(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:

(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;

(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;

(c) in the case of unpublished works or of works first published in a country outside the Union, without simultaneous publication in a country of the Union, the country of the Union of which the author is a national, provided that:

(i) when these are cinematographic works the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country, and

(ii) [about architectural works, not relevant here]

So...

Yes, provided it is not simultaneously published in another country of the Berne Convention.
Correct, per Berne Article 5(3) and 5(4)(a)
Correct, per Berne Article 5(4)(c)
Correct, the photographer retains the rights (if any). Publication has to be authorized by that author however for it to count for the Berne Convention; if not authorized it is still considered unpublished, as far as I know.
See above. The copyright would have to be transferred like any other.
I would disagree with this. However, if Afghanistan does eventually join the Berne Convention, they will have to retroactively restore copyrights to at least 50 pma, which would mean we may have to delete a lot of PD-Afghanistan works. We can cross that bridge when we come to it, once we see the details.
Yes.
Yes.
No. The U.S. Government would own the rights, I think, and the country of origin would be where it was first published (if a Berne country). The US Government can hold copyrights transferred to it; they do not automatically become PD. The government could release those IP rights of course.
A frame from the movie is not enough to create a derivative work. The rights would be the same as the original video. In this case I would probably consider them unpublished... if they were published before they were seized (evidence for that would be impossible to get), it would have been in Afghanistan.

Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Carl in all but one respect (I would be dumb not to as he knows far more about the interactions of copyright law than I), and have changed my stand on this.

7. Not necessarily. It must be in the course of his duties. Thus a Federal employee can take a photograph of the mountains on his day off and publish it him or herself. It is even arguable that if a Federal employee whose job description does not include photography takes a picture while on duty, it is not PD. We have argued this in the case of soldiers who were not Army photographers.

9. Good examples of this are the Sacagawea dollar and certain other coins which are copyrighted, see {{PD-USGov}}.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to James and Carl for thoughtful replies.

WRT simultaneous publication. From my look at the Berne Convention, if something were published in a non-signatory country, but was "simultaneously" published in a signatory country, the document or image is considered published in the signatory country, and the rights belong to the publisher in the signatory country. The trouble with this is, from my look at the Berne Convention, the definition of "simultaneous" publication is 30 days. It seems to me that this clause is woefully out of date -- that it dates back to pony express days. Does the Berne Convention only protect Afghan photographers who simultaneously publish their own images?

WRT to question 4 above -- maybe I didn't write this one clearly enough. In December 2002 a young Afghan taxi driver who was brutally tortured and murdered, for kicks, by soldiers in Bagram, even though they recognized he was innocent. The murderers included the same company of interrogators who played a role in the Abu Ghraib photos a year later. A picture of him, taken by his family, was published by the New York Times. I came across this image on the web-site of a freelance photographer. He had done the legwork of looking up and visiting the murdered man's family. He acquired this photo, somehow, and published a mid-range version of it on his promotional web-site. He claimed he owned all the IP rights to this image, and, as such, he offered a higher-res version for re-sale. WRT to question 4. Dilawar's family could have sold all rights to the image to this freelance photographer. To do so they would have had to have understood intellectual property right laws. However, almost all Afghans are illiterate. Even people in the west here don't understand IP law. It seemed to me that the photographer in question was treating all photos taken by Afghan citizens as if they were gold mines -- whoever staked the first claim to the IP rights outside of Afghanistan got to claim all the IP rights, without regard to how they acquired the image. I have found this attitude pretty common.

So, the freelance photographer who acquired the only known photo of Dilawar prior to his capture -- what rights was he entitled to claim to the image? Was he entitled to sell the higher res version?
If he had not taken the families only surviving version of the photo, but had somehow made a copy of it, what rights would he be entitled to claim to the copy? My guess would be none. Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take on your two questions is that it would depend entirely on the actual facts of his acquisition of the photograph. Let us suppose for a minute that the guy is a genuine good guy and has agreed with the family that in return for an all rights perpetual exclusive worldwide license, that he will give them half of any revenue from the photo, and that he actually did just that. In that case, I have no problem with saying that he would own and could protect the rights appropriately worldwide -- except, of course, in Afghanistan.

If, on the other hand, he paid a nominal amount for an X on a contract, then I begin to get uneasy. I believe that in theory any adult who is not legally incompetent should be responsible for anything he signs, but there are limits to that when dealing with very unsophisticated people.

Finally, if he stole the photo, or took it at gunpoint, then I think he has no rights. This is case 4 above, I think. I'd like to see what Carl thinks. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It entirely depends on the contract between the photographer and the family. First, I should probably note that the text of the Berne Convention has no legal force in the U.S., but rather it depends on the text of 17 U.S.C 104 (which was changed to conform to the Berne Convention and so has basically the same stuff). The photographer would need a signed contract for any transfer of rights to be valid in a U.S. court I would think, since it would probably be considered "first published" there if this is a U.S. photographer. But, the rights would exist in either case; either the photographer owns them or the family owns them, but that means nobody else does and nobody else (including us) can use them without permission. It is entirely possible the photographer is just acting as the agent while not actually owning the rights, with the authority to administer and enforce the copyrights (Getty does this for many/most of their photographers, for example). Any (non fair-use) usage of a photo in this situation, without the photographer's permission, sounds like you would be hoping that the court would rule the photographer does not have the grounds to file a lawsuit because they have no copyright interest in the photo, and then hoping the family themselves does not have the means to actually sue. And there are ways the photographer would have the grounds to bring a lawsuit even without owning the full rights, I would guess. There would be no difference as far as any third party would be concerned (thus the general statement on the website may be true enough) but the actual situation would depend greatly on the form of the agreement between the photographer and the family. But I can't see any way it is PD, even if the photographer is misinterpreting things or acting outside of his rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments.

Dilawar's family was illiterate.
Even literate Afghans (or literate North American) have trouble understanding intellectual property rights. Even if his family included some members with a basic level of literacy, I doubt they would have understood the implications of IP rights sufficiently to give meaningful consent.
He may have said something like, "I know you are upset over Dilawar's death. You'd like the world to know how he suffered? Let me take this photo with me, and I will use it to help tell his story."
If I understand you, you suggest the family retains all IP rights to the image, because the image was not published in Afghanistan prior to being published in the USA? If the image had been first published in Afghanistan then it would be in the public domain, as Berne requires both (1) Afghan photographer; (2) first published in Afghanistan -- have I understood you?
One more question -- what would you suggest would be the IP status of images taken in Afghanistan, by Afghans, but not published? Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the elements you list above would only be relevant to a dispute between the photographer and the family themselves. Anybody else making use of the photograph is not a party to that, and really can't use any such arguments to defend against copyright infringement accusations. Copyright issues involving international considerations are pretty rare and have not been tested in court... there was one case which decided to use the copyright law in the country of origin to determine copyright ownership (i.e. they will not impose the U.S. written-transfer requirement for copyright transfers performed in other countries). Afghanistan is a particularly problematic issue as well, given their lack of copyright law. The U.S. does, in general, allow copyright on unpublished works regardless of their nationality (see 17 U.S.C. 104(a)). More info is at this circular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Latvian money

Files regarding Latvian money

Have been deleted as per request which is based on wrongful application of rules - the Latvijas Banka (Latvian Bank) owns copyright of Latvijas latslats and not of the Latvijas rublis (Latvian rubel) which was a transitional money. These files have been mistakenly deleted as they depict Latvijas rublis, not the Latvijas lats. --F1 fanat (talk) Have been deleted as per request which is based on wrongful application of rules - the Latvijas Banka (Latvian Bank) owns copyright of Latvijas latslats and not of the Latvijas rublis (Latvian rubel) which was a transitional money. These files have been mistakenly deleted as they depict Latvijas rublis, not the Latvijas lats. --F1 fanat (talk)

One of Latvian wikipedia users wrote an e-mail to Bank of Latvia, they responded that the copyright law does not concern Latvian roubles or any other historical currency as main purpose of any current laws on reproduction of coins and banknotes is to foil counteirfeiting atempts ~~Xil (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be On hold - I am not opposed to this undelete at a later date, I just think it slightly premature. The issue inculding these comments, is currently being addressed here. Before we undelete these images I think several things need to be worked out.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree this shouldn`t be kept on hold any longer - the other discussion has frozen, seemingly no one involved in it is versed in law and frankly it seems that people don`t even see diffrence between two currencies. In the mean time we have bank (which probably had its lawyers answer this) saying it is PD, and the law in accordance to which this was deleted dosen`t apply here in the first place ~~Xil (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian lats

As can be observed in here several images of banknotes (and possibly other images showing Latvian lat as well) were deleted apperently as in case of rubles above on pretext that Latvian copyright law states that copyright of lats is owned by Latvian Bank and any reproduction is forbiden. However the article in question was introduced in 2004 (most designs for Latvian money were in cirrculation well before that date) and untill then the law clearly stated that banknotes are in public domain. Applying this law to reproductions of pre-2004 money is against legal principle that laws should not be applied retroactively ~~Xil (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not talking about the same files as referenced above, you should make a list of which files exactly are concerned by this request. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any files depicting Latvian lat coins and bancnotes designed before 2004 are in public domain, including as I pointed out, those that were used to ilustrate w:en:Latvian lats:

Note that some of the image names seem to indicate post 2004 date, however I don`t have the means to check if this is indeed so (besides these bancnotes would differ only with having different year of issue printed on them, not sure if this alone is reason to have different copyright - the lates changes to general design of banknotes were made in 2001, I believe). In any case I wish to make sure that if somebody now uploads versions issued prior to 2004 these won`t be deleted. Also I want to point out that there seems to be an error in translations of Latvian copyright laws - where in English it says banknotes, in Latvian it says naudas zīmes, naudas zīmes ought to mean both banknotes and coins, as evident by the fact that legal documents regulating design of naudas zīmes all concern both ~~Xil (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per e-mail I mentioned in discussion above the Bank of Latvia says they want banknotes to be watermarked with PARAUGS (sample) as per these rules. I asked the user to e-mail them back asking about retroactive application of law and if past 2004 money would be considered okay to publish if images conform to these rules ~~Xil (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be On hold - I am not opposed to this undelete at a later date, I just think it slightly premature. The issue inculding these comments, is currently being addressed here. Before we undelete these images I think several things need to be worked out.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination the previous images probably don`t have watermarks bank is requesting ~~Xil (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Request: File:J-c-bose-school-of-engineering.jpg

Hello,

I sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please check if you need any further information.

Thanks --Partha89 (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

===========================================================

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK File:J-c-bose-school-of-engineering.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)".

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

22nd April, 2011 Partha Roy

===================================================================================

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

Category:Murghab River

I created Category:Murghab River sometime in the last year or so.
Recently another contributor created Category:Morghab River
All the elements in the old category were manually moved to the new category, without any prior discussion.
The contributor who created the new category, and moved all the elements from the old category to the new category, then placed a {{Delete}} on the old category, but didn't fill it in.
I could have excised the empty delete tag. I now regret I didn't. Instead I populated the template, and explained the situation in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Murghab River.
On April 21 an administrator deleted Category:Murghab River, because the category was empty.
On April 22 I left this note on that administrator's talk page. They reverted their first deletion.
On April 25 another administrator deleted Category:Murghab River, again, simply because the category was empty -- without actually reading the discussion.

As I wrote on the discussion page, and as I wrote on the first administrator's talk page, I think the other possible transliterations should redirect to whichever name we decide is the base name.

As I wrote on the first administrator's talk page, there are no standards for tranliterating Afghan names. Here is a google search of all Afghan government sites site:gov.af "Morghab River" OR "Murghab River" OR "Murgab River" OR "Morgab River". Just three hits from Afghan government sites -- all three use the original name, "Murghab River". Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it makes perfect sense to have a redirect in this case, as users are likely to use both spellings. I'm not sure which one should be the category and which one should be the redirect though; your findings on the government website make a strong case in favor of Murghab River, but on the other hand we tend to follow en.wp's conventions, and the article there is called Morghab River. Either way, this category should be undeleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated -- maybe calls for flipping a coin. en:Morghab River (Afghanistan) has a hatnote pointing to en:Murghab River (Tajikistan) which begins in Afghanistan. So there are two rivers with the name in Afghanistan. Also, although the article title is "Morghab", the article uses "Murghab" consistently throughout -- the title spelling does not appear in the body of the article.

So, I think we ought to undelete Category:Murghab River and redirect it to Category:Morghab River. Since it seems to be a tossup, I make that choice on the grounds of pure expediency -- it's the slightly easier of the two possibilities. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. If Geo Swan agrees also, I think we should go ahead and do that. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons to be learned here, in my opinion.

I think the individual who created Category:Morghab River erred.
1. I think they erred in manually copying all the contents from the earlier category, Category:Murghab River. After finding there was already a category they should have sought others opinions as to whether the new category deserved pride of place over the old one.
2. I think they erred in not using {{Category redirect}}.
I think both the first and second administrators to delete Category:Murghab River erred.
1. I think they erred in deleting the category simply because it was empty.
2. I think they erred in deleting the category without taking the time to read the discussion. No one supported deletion in the discussion.
In retrospect maybe I should have simply excised the incomplete discussion. I thought it would be questionable to delete a discussion that I disagreed with.

Is it a toss-up? Well, no, I don't really think so. Since the Afghan government uses the "Murghab" not "Morghab" I think it should be the base name. Further, leaving the new name as the base name endorses the earlier mistakes. I think this would be an additional mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Tryphon, with {{Category redirect|Morghab River}}. Yann (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg

Recently an administrator has determined that the logo for the Pirate Party of Canada is simple enough for inclusion on the commons, in the act of closing the Commons:Deletion requests/File:PPoC logo sge sm.png discussion as keep. If others agree that this logo can be allowed on the commons, I request that File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg be undeleted, as that was just the logo, without the text, and of a higher quality than can be found on the organization's website. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Pirate Party of Canada itself states, talking about their logo, that the use of these files is not restricted by copyright [1]. So

support. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not convinced that File:PPoC logo sge sm.png is, in fact, PD-textlogo (i.e. the middle portion). But, in addition to what Tryphon has said, the entire party website is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. The organization appears to be happy to freely license its intellectual property. So both the files would appear to be fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion was based on OTRS 2011040610006973. What was written in that OTRS? I've invited the deleting admin to the discussion. Trycatch (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced File:PPoC logo sge sm.png is a text logo either. Maybe you could argue the center portion is de minimus. But this logo up for undeletion includes only the center portion and is definitely not a text logo. Regarding the OTRS ticket, we received an email from Mike Bleskie, the deputy leader of the Pirate Party of Canada (from the pirateparty.ca domain) stating that images of directors of the Pirate Party of Canada are to be considered as licensed under Creative Commons NC-BY-SA unless stated otherwise by the subject of the photo themselves, or by the photographer of the image. That applied to File:Mikkel-paulson.jpg and File:Mikkel-times-square.jpg, where the subject stated otherwise. But Mike Bleskie went on to state that all versions of the Pirate Party of Canada logo are licensed under that same (noncommercial) license, with absolutely no exceptions to be made unless the Federal Council of the PPCA rules otherwise. The license on their site is indeed CC-BY-SA, but it may only apply to the text content. The source of the file was listed as http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Branding_Guide , but we can see in the history of it that the disclaimer that the files may be free of copyright restrictions was added by Mikkel Paulson, the web developer. So do we trust the web developer or the deputy leader? I had sent an email back to Mike Bleskie asking for clarification or an exception for the logos but never heard back. – Adrignola talk 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit of a side note, Paulson has an account here, IntrigueBlue (talk · contribs). 117Avenue (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seal looks like {{PD-ineligible}} to me. There's a couple of lines, a couple of arcs, and the Canadian maple leaf silhouette. Nothing copyrightable there. Powers (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to be undeleted? 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PPoC logo sge sm.png. Yann (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of North Dakota.svg

I am requesting this file be undeleted. First of all, it was deleted without giving me time to respond to the deletion nomination, that alone is a violation of my rights. Second, it was nominated due to it's similarity to the file from Vector-Images.com. While the Seal itself came from Vector-Images.com, I altered the file itself significantly(and I can prove it!), therefore making it my own version, and I hold the rights to that version, I released it as PD, and the Seal itself is already PD under US law due to age. The file should be undeleted, I hold the rights. Fry1989 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the icon on vector-images, I did not see any significant changes. Changing a couple colors is not a significant change, copyright-wise. The outlines seemed substantially similar, or even virtually identical, and at the very least it is a derivative work and must be licensed by vector-images. You would have to change things enough that you aren't using any of their outlines, almost to the point of not being able to tell that vector-images was the graphic source. I'm sorry, but this was quite blatant. You also claimed that the file was derivative of a different version, and was PD-USGov, which was absolutely not the case, and did not mention the vector-images source at all in the image description. That was a complete misrepresentation of the source and is grounds for speedy deletion. If you want to explain what changes you made, please do so, but it is almost certain to be a derivative work of a copyrighted graphic, and possibly not even altered enough to claim a derivative copyright. But, please describe the changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hold both the original from VI and my version. I intrinsicly changed how they are made. While the VI version uses sillouette, my version uses actual letters, circles, the stars are now independent, and the sun has been altered slightly. All these changes make the file significantly different from the VI version, and I can email anyone who desires proof both versions for comparison. I hold the rights to the version I uploaded. As for the license, I licensed the file as PD-US under self, not as PD-USGov, so that is false. I can also relicense it as derivative if that is neccesary, and can even alter other parts more as needed to make it more independent. Fry1989 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately... those are arguably not even enough to claim a derivative work (letters are irrelevant to copyright). But even if it is, that is absolutely a derivative work and subject to the copyright on the original version. You really need to redraw every graphical element from scratch for it not to be a derivative work; i.e. you need to make it so that you can not recognize any expression from the original in your version. If even just the plow is the same, for example, it's still a derivative work, and it sounds like virtually the entire thing is the same, with some minor variations. Another user did compare the vector-images version with yours, and found visually no difference. The copyrightable aspects to that are the graphical components -- the tree, plow, etc. Those cannot be copied or derived from a copyrighted version, unless the outlines have all been completely changed. If you look closely at the vector-images version vs. the USGov version, you will see that every graphical element is completely different -- i.e. those are not derivative works of each other, as there is no expression in one which is present in the other.

This is a fundamental aspect of copyright; the owner of a copyright also controls distribution of all derivative works of the original. Please read en:derivative work for a start, and more info is available here. It is certainly possible to add enough of your own expression to qualify as a derivative work, although it has to be your own original, creative work -- simple changes like changing a couple of colors, stylistic changes like changing to outlines, using a different font, etc. do not qualify. If you redraw the plow from scratch, that portion is your own -- but the entire seal would still be a derivative work until you redraw all the graphic elements, and until then must be licensed by the owner of the copyright of the original in addition to you licensing your portion. Copyright is a tough subject, but this part is basic -- I would not use vector-images as a source for *anything*, basically, as it is very easy to have derivative works that way. Find a PD version, or draw your own plows, or find graphics elsewhere on Commons to build up your own. Yes it is hard, but that is why copyright is there to protect people from copying their work like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the file itself is intrisicly made differently from the original version, not just the letters. I also said I can alter the version as needed to be even more independent so your argument is wrong. We need an accurate version of the State Seal, as it is used by the Government (all websites use this white version). If someone is able to make the seal in SVG themselves, then great, but I have done what I am capable of. On a side-note, we still have several files on here that are directly from VI, nevermind being derivatives, and I don't see them being deleted, so this is absolute nonsense. Fry1989 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not wrong -- you appear to have very little comprehension of what copyright is, which is unfortunate for someone so prolific on this project. You need to redraw it from scratch; at that point it will not be a derivative work and will be entirely your own. Do not use any elements from the vector-images version at all. By all means, take a PD version such as the USGov one, change the color scheme, and upload to a different file name and change wiki pages to use that one. Or, draw one yourself, perhaps partly by using graphics already on Commons. The USGov one is certainly not great, particularly at larger sizes, and other options would definitely be good. But that does not mean we can ignore copyright law to get them; rather respecting copyright is a fundamental part of what Wikimedia projects are. We cannot ignore copyright, even to make a better encyclopedia. Yes, it is hard work drawing your own stuff -- it's beyond my capability as well. I have a very special appreciation for those who can do it and are willing to license the result, as most people do not want to license them freely after putting in all that work. But we can't just copy (or create derivative works of) versions where the copyright is not licensed. As for other VI images on here, it probably means we haven't found them and nominated them yet. A few (bitmaps only) may be on here via some special copyright exemptions in other countries. Please point some of them out as we may have to delete them too. Vector versions from VI are particularly problematic if we have them, as it's easy to take components out of them and use them in other works, creating (unwittingly) an unlicensed derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. I can point out plenty of examples of hypocrisy and contradictions over this matter. Either way, I have a favour to pull in, and I will see if I can get the ND seal made independently to please you purists. But I want the record to show I find this all in dishonesty and subjective contradiction. Fry1989 (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a lot of gray area and arguable aspects to copyright law, and I'm sure we don't do deletions perfectly, but honestly this does not sound anywhere close. Open-and-shut case of a derivative work, at best. If you have questions, please ask, but please please do some reading and learn what a derivative work is. This is far from purism, rather you are committing blatant copyright violations. Copyright is not some annoyance to be worked around, or have uploads camouflaged to hide their source and authorship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to camoflauge anything. I uploaded the file the way I know how. As for authorship, I am the author to the altered version I uploaded, even if the original source is from elsewhere. I did a great amount of work on the file re-doing how it was made so don't claim I'm not the author. Fry1989 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did work on the file, sure. Copyright has a rather specific definition of what constitutes "authorship" when it comes to copyright, and it's not certain you did that. But, for argument's sake, say you did -- then yes, you are the author of your alterations, but only those. It is still a derivative work, which means there are two authors -- you, and the author of the original work. There would be expression from both authors present. That author was not mentioned at all (rather you claimed a derivative work, or at least source version, of File:NorthDakota-StateSeal.svg, which is artistically unrelated). Furthermore, the author of that original work must agree to a free license for the derivative, as well as you providing a license for your additions. That was not done, and is required. Even uploading it is a copyright violation without permission from the original author; that original author controls distribution of all derivative works, per copyright law, which is the crux of the matter. Using a copyrighted graphic as a source work is almost always a bad idea because of this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete some redirects...

On May 1st, a contributor initiated Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan -- it lists some redirects to some files I had recently uploaded. I had begun uploading the formerly secret Category:Guantanamo Detainee Assessments, which were listed here: http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html . Note: they are listed by the individual's Guantanamo ID number. I made a table to keep track of which files had been uploaded: User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03. Once uploaded, I have moved these files to slightly longer names that include a version of one of the names in the file.

What was the original justification for deletion? Nominator asserted that some of the redirects were broken double redirects. Nominator recognized that other redirects were not double redirects. In fact most were not double redirects. Some were, due to normal human fallibility. I took nominator's stated concern seriously, and fixed all of those that were double redirects.

One contributor weighed in in the discussion, with some concerns I frankly had trouble understanding, and with a concern over COM:PEOPLE, implying we needed the permission of the individuals in images that I cut from some of the files. In 2005 the DoD fought the Associated Press over a series of FOIA requests for the names of the Guantanamo captives, and for access to some of their unclassified files. In their argument for keeping the information secret the DoD did not argue on national security grounds, they argued that they were preserving the individual's privacy. In January 2006 US District Court Jed S. Rakoff ruled that the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy. For this reason I do not believe the permission required by COM:PEOPLE is applicable. See below where I explain why I struck this paragraph. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator who deleted these redirects asserted, on their talk page, that "Unused redirects after renaming are often speedy deleted. The deletion of those redundant redirects is non controversial maintenance." I agreed that the deletion of unused redirects is routine maintenance. I disagree that these redirects were redundant, as I was using them to help manage these uploads.

Given that I had already fully addressed the nominator's stated concerns, I request undeletion of the following redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)~~ My signature lies above the list. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

I think the redirects should be restored until the uploads are completed if they were in use for that purpose (so he can easily see which are completed).
As the files were moved shortly after upload, I agree there appears to be no long term reason to keep them.

Regarding the file naming (ok this isn't directly related to undeletion, but relates to minimizing further deletions :-): I consider that the file names are overly long, and the renamed versions are worse! This is totally unnecessary, and not good practice. The filename does not need to be a long description, and abbreviations are quite appropriate for a set of files like this. The good part of the filenaming is that the unique part of each name is at the start, so it can be seen even when the name is truncated (as in category views). One doesn't search for files by name (or guess at a likely filename and hope that the destination is what is looked for), one uses the search facilities or categories or gallery pages. Put in all in the description page.
Renaming the files for ease of sorting (eg in categories) or ensuring none are missing (eg in galleries) makes sense, but something like "ISN 00008 Guantanamo assessment.pdf" would have been quite sufficient especially given the variability of transliteration of peoples names into English. But for future uploads, work out a system to upload them directly to the destination name, deliberately creating these redirects does actually serve no useful purpose.
Our aim should be to to assist users who are working towards the projects goals, not to hinder them because of some sense of tidiness, it is a minor administrative action to undelete them and delete them again when finished with. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input on the optimal length of filenames.
- Something like one fifth to one sixth of the files have been uploaded so far. At this rate, if I am the one who uploads the remainder, it might take a month or even two, to get them all.
- WRT to only using the ID number in the filename, over on the wikipedia I have one very vocal critic who has routinely denounced me for using ID number to identify Guantanamo captives -- claiming the use of ID numbers to identify human beings is "dehumanizing". Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell your critic that the file name is not being used to identify a person but simply a document. Identifying people with names used by their captors is not really giving respect to their identity as a person - to truely respect their identity I would use their names in whatever language the individual normally uses, but that doesn't appear to be included in these records. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - you can also update the file names in your personal table - Jcb (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is just an unnecessary make work scheme, temporary undeletion is trivial and does no harm to the project. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example that show that renaming files creates more problems than it solves. A few more opinions and renames to create backlogs like this. --Foroa (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for other readers -- User:Jcb is the administrator who deleted these redirects. User:Jcb, Tony Wills wrote above: "Our aim should be to to assist users who are working towards the projects goals, not to hinder them because of some sense of tidiness..." I'd be very interested in your response to this comment.
User:Jcb writes: "you can also update the file names in your personal table."
1. This table I generated from http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html has over 750 entries.
2. This is not the only table I generated. I currently also generate related smaller tables of interesting subsets of these files. including, User:Geo Swan/wl/Guantanamo captives still in custody and User:Geo Swan/wl/Alleged recidivists. I may prepare galleries of these interesting subsets. I may prepare other tables, or galleries of interesting subsets.
3. I don't edit these tables by hand. The tables are generated by programs I wrote on my own computer. Those programs merge the ID numbers from http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html with other information including a a file of authors I maintain on my computer. When I take a good look at each file I record the name of the senior officer who signed the assessment, and the date the assessment was signed, in that file on my computer. I may generate additional tables of interesting subsets that rely on my list of signatories and signing dates.
4. I haven't worked as a professional programmer for a very long time. If I were still a professional programmer, and you were my boss I would agree that you would be authorized to tell me, "Your first approach is inelegant. I want you to start over using this approach I consider more elegant." Do you think I should consider you authorized to direct me to use a different approach, one that is a lot more work, based on your personal idea of elegance?
5. Similarly, if there was a genuine policy problem with this use of redirects, I'd make the effort to use a different approach. But it seems to me you haven't offered a policy-based justification for your conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan.
6. Aren't there already published lists of the captives' names -- lists that those programs I use which generate the tables could use to generate the final names? Yes. And I didn't adapt those lists and have my programs consult those lists for two reasons. First, I am no longer a professional programmer, and this would be a lot more work. Second, I chose not to use those lists because many of the captives' assessments use completely different names than those on any of the official lists that have already been published, and I decided it would be confusing to use those other names. Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In January 2006 US District Court Jed S. Rakoff ruled that the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy. For this reason I do not believe the permission required by COM:PEOPLE is applicable.

Well, you donna believe that, how glad for you. According to your statement the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy, gladyl Wikipedia commons does not give a fuck on their rights. BTW: For what purpose do we need those redirects/pictures exactly? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your language civil. I think being locked up in Guantanamo was the action that stomped on their rights. I would expect that if they are still locked up there they would like the world to know of their plight. Whether the PDFs should be uploaded, with or without photos, is a separate argument/discussion and is not relevant as to whether these redirects are undeleted. If that is the real issue here for some people, then I suggest they start a deletion discussion. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikrazuul, I overstruck the paragraph, above, where I talked about COM:PEOPLE comment in the original deletion discussion. The original nomination included redirects to captives' images -- mugshots. I think the COM:PEOPLE comment was from someone who was arguing we needed the captives' permission to use the images. Since this undeletion request does not include images of individuals I probably should not have mentioned COM:PEOPLE. I suggest since this undeletion request does not include images of individuals I suggest your focus on COM:PEOPLE is off-topic. You have my apologies if I confused you. If you think you have policy based concerns that you continue to think justify opposing undeletion, please state them. Otherwise I request the closing admin discount your "oppose" as being based on a misconception.

I am going to second Tony Wills's request you moderate your language.

Since I have provided an explanation as to how the redirects are used, above, and other explanations at the top of User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03 and in the original deletion discussion, and on the closing admin's talk page I won't repeat myself here. Perhaps you could be more specific about what part of the explanation above lost you? Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I see no reason to fill the file namespace with redirects to do personal maintenance. Please look out for other sollutions to maintain your uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korpilahti bell tower.png

Please restore the image File:Korpilahti bell tower.png, for which the photographer has specifically provided permission to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. See correspondence attached. — Objectivesea (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From: Jukka Joutsi [redacted] Date: December 13, 2010 10:44:10 PM PST (CA) To: Erik Pedersen <xxxx@xxxx.xx> Subject: Jukka Joutsi - here's the original bell tower photo of the Korpilahti church, Finland

Hello Here's enclosed the asked, original bell tower photo of the Korpilahti church, Finland.

The use of the photo is OK in this circumstance with the credit given to the photographer.

Jukka Joutsi

Original Message -----

From: Erik Pedersen To: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:15 AM Subject: Your photograph of Korpilahti

Dear Jukko Joutsi,

I have made Wikipedia pages for several Finnish churches (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taulumäki Church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_Church_(Hattula,_Finland) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pielisensuu_Church) and I am currently putting together a Wikipedia page for Korpilahti Church.

I see that you have a nice picture of the bell tower of the Korpilahti Church (http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/aapa493.jpg, 436px × 577px) on your web page at http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/korpilahti.html. I would very much like to include this photograph to help illustrate the article I am writing. Images used on Wikipedia, however, must be donated to the Wikimedia Commons (that is, they must not have a copyright which restricts the use of the photographs), but the Commons will include a statement that gives attribution credit to the photographer. See http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creative_Commons_Attribution-Share_Alike_3.0_Unported_-lisenssiehdot.

Would you be willing to contribute this photo to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia? If so, it is possible that you have a larger, higher-resolution version of the image. Although the Wikipedia page will probably only use the image at about half the size at which you posted it (that is, 218 pixels by 288 pixels), Wikimedia Commons prefers to receive images of the highest possible resolution.

Please let me know if you approve of my suggestion, and if you do, please send a high-resolution version. Of course, if you have plans to market the photograph commercially or have assigned the copyright to someone else already, please disregard this request. We would never use the image without your permission.

Kind regards, Erik Pedersen

http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/laukaafutis.htmlhttp://www.jukkajoutsi.com/laukaafutis.html

Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. We have careful procedures for such things that help us ensure no one just makes up correspondence and claims it to be authentic. Powers (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion Request: File:Kylie Sturgess profile

Hello, I sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please check if you need any further information. Thanks.

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Kylie Sturgess profile.jpg [2]. I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. 122.109.52.166 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)20th May, Kylie Sturgess.[reply]

OTRS in process; File:Kylie Sturgess.jpg restored temporarily. – Adrignola talk 21:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMCLagerhuelse.jpg

The e-mail giving the license has in 2006 not been sent to OTRS, but was posted in the license paragraph of the file itself. This procedure was considered okay at that time as can be studied on my discussion page. I am asking now to undelete the file. In case it should be necessary I will try to get this mail sent to permission.commons. Okay? --Leumar01 (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. However, you should sent the original permission to OTRS anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so next week and for other files with the same situation as well. --Leumar01 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding mail has been sent to permission a few minuntes ago. --Leumar01 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File: Manuel Rego.jpg

I would like to have this picture back. I have the family´s permission to post it.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensambletamiris (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then send this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and refer to File: Manuel Rego.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, please, that the permission must come from the photographer -- not simply someone who owns a copy of the picture. If the family member who gave you permission took the picture, that will be fine, but if not, you must get permission from the photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last 3 photos of Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Famkr01 (not nominated by me)

~~To give the author the chance to correct his author-claims.~~ To clarify the situation. see also

He sent me an e-mail and left a note here. I start this UR rather because I am convinced he tells the truth but I was too late for the DR. Community should decide what to do. -- RE rillke questions? 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be telling the truth, but if his late mother-in-law was the photographer, then it is up to his mother-in-law's heir(s) to give permission, not Rudi Kölbl as it is unlikely that Rudi Kölbl owns the rights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary: Commons:Deletion requests/Opéra de Lyon

I'd like to remove the sections of the image that are eligible for copyright. This will take ~2 days. If nothing else is suggested, I'll overwrite the images and you can delete/ hide the old revision. Do you think this is possible? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo-Sencillo.png

Hello,

I hereby confirm that I work for Café Britt Corporation and have full permission to upload the logo. My contact info within the company:

fvalverde@cafebritt.com

Image undelition request: File:Logo-Sencillo.png

Thank You. --Felivalverde (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this might be simple enough to qualify for PD-ineligible, the best thing is if you will please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS and send permission from fvalverde@cafebritt.com. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Deletion of Pictures I Own

I am the Owner of these pictures and I properly told Commons they were copyright free before i Uploaded them. I need help undoing their deletion.

Thanks. --Ng2f7 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose None of these appears to be "own work" as User:Ng2f7 claimed. They also are not copyright free -- they are all taken from web sites that have explicit copyrights on them. I think this deletion is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why do you insist on claiming that these pictures have copyright rights. These are all widely available on Google and on my Public Political Page in Facebook (Search "Manuel Moisés Montás"). I would aprecciate any help regarding the undoing of the deletion of these pictures, especially my own File: Manuel_Moisés_Montás.jpg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng2f7 (talk • contribs)

Ng2f7, assuming that you are Manuel_Moisés_Montás, who took the File:Manuel_Moisés_Montás.jpg picture? Please, be aware as well that the fact that something is "widely available on Google" doesn't tell nothing about copyright issues.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- an OTRS confirms that the first image really was properly liscensed. I am curious as to why the OTRS didn't apply to the other images. I am leaning towards a keep for all the images. FWIW, I have applied {{PD-Self}} to lots of images, and have never had a challenger question whether I really took them as Ng2f7 had here... Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- My question was sincere, and meant to be helpful. If Ng2f7 is a public figure, and File: Manuel_Moisés_Montás.jpg is an official photo, there is a fair probability that it was taken by some photographer, and in that case a different license should be provided.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jameswoodward, some decades ago I read a funny, sad story in the RISKS digest. I can't remember what field the story teller worked in. But he described authoring some papers in a small journal, that were nevertheless influential and widely quoted. Fastforward a decade or so, and he applied for a new job. He was asked to submit electronic copies of some of his work, to show his writing style. He thought the interviews went OK. But he was informed afterwards that he wasn't hired because an automated tool that was designed to detect plagiarism had been run on his papers. It compared documents to previously published documents. When he looked into it the passages in his papers that triggered the plagiarism detectors were his own work, directly quoted from his papers -- which weren't in the plagiarism detector's database.
Perhaps what our uploader meant was that his images were already widely plagiarized, and you came across sites that plagiarized his images not vice versa? Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any looking on the web so your story, while funny-scary, doesn't apply.

My problem with this image is that it looks to me like a professional photograph. User:Ng2f7 has claimed that it is "own work". He has also claimed that File:RafaelRodríguezReyes.jpg, another politician, and a flag are "own work". Finally, he claims that he is the subject of the image, Manuel Moisés Montás. It is just barely conceivable that these are all true -- he could have used a self-timer to take this image of himself -- but I don't think any of us believe that -- it is too well posed and set up to be self-shot. So, I would like to know who the photographer is -- that's a reasonable question, which wasn't answered in the OTRS e-mail, which came from a g-mail address.

Manuel_Moisés Montás is a sophisticated person and this has not been handled in a sophisticated way. So far all we have are assertions of a new user and an OTRS e-mail from an anonymous account. If User:Ng2f7 is in fact Professor Montás, then he will surely understand our questions and deal with them.

who is the actual photographer of the two images?
who actually created the image of the flag?
did he really purchase the copyright from the photographer or is this just a case where he owns the physical photograph, but not the copyright?

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment raises some questions for me:

Are you saying you know the message that satisfied an OTRS volunteer came from a gmail account?
Are you an OTRS volunteer yourself?
I've never seen an OTRS volunteer offer even a snippet that a correspondent used gmail. Are OTRS volunteers authorized to reveal details of that sort?
Are OTRS volunteers really allowed to confirm that a message is a bona fide message from a specific real life individual, when it comes from a web-mail address that does not require confirmation of a real life identity? That doesn't seem right to me.

For what it is worth you completely missed the point of my anecdote. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LuisSHarguindeyWKings.jpg

I am the creator of that photo and failed to provide a license.

I want to provide it now and would be as public domain.

Thank you --Manuelharguin (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm assuming you took this photograph of a reception to the kings of Spain and Granada, in 1980, yourself. If you did not, please clarify what you mean by saying you are "the creator of that photo." Dcoetzee (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChristosSiametis.jpg, File:48gogreen logo.jpg, File:Francesco Vitali.jpg

Hello,

  I request to undelete these files 
  1) ChristosSiametis.jpg
  2) 48gogreen logo.jpg
  3) Francesco Vitali.jpg

these file were deleted because of copyright violation. but now I've talked with owner of these files and they are sending OTRS permission mail very soon.

Thank you in advance.

Apaleja (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - OTRS can undelete them when they receive the email. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julbert1980 photos

Please restore the following files:

Those files were uploaded and released into public domain by Julbert1980, which stated them to be his own work and filling the attribution field with Julien Bertrand. Notwithstanding, they were all marked as "lacking source/permission" due to doubts by HighContrast that Julbert and Julien Bertrand are the same person. I don't understand those doubts, if he said the photos were "own work", and the author was Julien Bertrand, that's because he is Julien Bertrand, and it does not take much imagination to associate Julbert with Julian Bertrand. As I believe they were all marked and deleted by mistake, I'm asking for their undeletion.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I look at image description and it is not clear to me why they were deleted--Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ without OTRS. It is true that the named author, Julien Bertrand, is probably the uploader, User:Julbert1980, but we see many cases where users appropriate the name of an author in order to evade our rules. Darwin put a note on User:Julbert1980's talk page in February, warning him that he must fix the problem, but Julbert1980 took no action in response. These are not ancient history -- they were all uploaded this year. Rather than simply undeleting these on the assumption that the two people are the same, I think we should insist on an OTRS e-mail from UserJulbert1980. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"he must fix the problem" - what problem? It said "source: own work". Is this a new policy or ?? Curious; my own uploads regularly have my real name spelled out in exif. Do I also need to explain how N, V, and O blend into a TLA ?? NVO (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, also other things make me think that an OTRS ticket will not show any information that we not know already: the uploader is the photographer. I very often agree with the editor who tagged this files, but in this case I recommend to have a second look and to reconsider if the tagging was necessary. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that "Julian Bertrand" is the same person as User:Julbert1980? If yes, restoring those files would be correct. If not theuy should stay deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same problem I run into when people get annoyed that I ask for Flickr licenses to be changed rather than emailing OTRS directly. A similar email address or a filled-in value for a name that is the same as the Flickr user's isn't definitive proof that they are the same. If only the uploader had used [[User:Julbert1980|Julian Bertrand]] for the author, this would be more clear. – Adrignola talk 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking at the french userpage and the uploads I would say that to 99% everything is okay with those files. Of course there is a 1% chance that it is some kind of fraud and the user deliberately put in the name of someone else but in this case... its just very, very unlikely. We also have: a correct 'own work' and also a PD-self which again is an indication for own work. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am mostly put off by the fact that these are recent uploads, yet despite a personal note on his talk page three months ago and the deletion of all the files, he has not come to us and said, "Yes, these are mine, User:Julbert1980 is Julian Bertrand".

But, in honesty, I don't whether that is realistic suspicion or just being pissed off at a user. So, given the strength of support here, I withdraw my oppose. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems an unexperienced User (no categorisations, no editions on commons after uploading, no reply on its user pages on commons) he problably has uploaded starting from the french wikipedia, where he has classified himself as a wikipedia pohotographer. Best is to keep all images which show the same camera on the metadata as are on some other files of this user.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's slightly absurd to be argueing about how to proove whether julbert1980 & julian bertrand are the same person, as claimed, or not. unless someone here actually has proof that the user is lying, then short of sending a team of agents to investigate, or demanding that julbert1980 provide us with personal ID, we are never going to know for certain. (& btw otrs is not a magic bullet!) the basic/minimum necessary file info was provided by the uploader, whether or not they put it all in the "right boxes". unless someone has any actual proof of copyvio, or at least a significant history of prooven copyvio by this user, the deletions should never have happened. commons has done all reasonable "due dilligence" on this & any remaining "liability" would be on the uploader, & not commons.Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears fundemental to how Commons operates, we allow (if not encourage) people to use psuedonyms to upload files and assert ownership & copyright and to license their images without a shred of proof. Even if they use their real names, there is still not a shred of proof, there is just an assertion of copyright. Whether this is a good idea is a different matter, but it is part of the open, 'everyone can contribute, even anonymously' philosophy of these wiki projects. If we allow doubt in any user's mind to be sufficient reason to count as "significant doubt" then the system of tagging images with 'no permission' and deleting them if there is no response simply means that once users become inactive here (knocked over by a bus, move on to better pastures), their images are vulnerable to this sort of deletion. Any images (including mine) that have no other evidence of authorship (eg OTRS) will eventually get deleted under a system of 'accept the license until someone challeges it'. I think we have to be very specific about what "significant doubt" means otherwise this process is just used as a fast track, back door, deletion process. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A whole host of penises

User FAP has for the past month been trying to get a lot of penises deleted. In some cases I accept there were bad quality images, but these are not, these are all GOOD quality photos, clear, well-angled, a variety of poses of the same penis to allow people easy comparison. The nominating/deleting reason was "Uninteresting photography. Abundant pictures of the same penis. Best alternatives. Commons isn't a porn blog", which I dispute thusly: Not all photos are interesting to everyone; many photos of the same thing from different angles is a GOOD thing; these were good images; and yes, but it's not a train blog either and yet I've managed to upload ~2000 photos of the things. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to undelete. We have over 400 photos in category:Human penis and deleted photos is not a best illustrations. Some are near-duplicates. Yes, Commons is not sensored, but Commons is not an amateur porno hosting also. I made two DR nominations today: photos of penis is rather blurred. I can't see any support vote to all this photos during week of DR nomination, only Delete -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support "We have 10.000 pictures of different building, lets choose only 50 of importance, delete the rest" Obvious joke, like this one. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support We need comparative photos of one penis from many angles. Starting many photo deletions with generic reasons can quickly overload DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those images are just of that "Hey, look at my dick"-style. The existing hundres of penises easily match up with those few deleted ones. "Censor" is no valid argument, more precisely a pseudo argument, as everyone could claim every deleted picture of any style as "censorship", so we could get rid of deletion requests anyway.

Finally we are coming to: We need comparative photos of one penis from many angles which is ridiculous, as it would require to upload tons of penises to meet that criterium (360° x 360°) If you want to see more dicks because you cannot imagine how a penis looks like (after those more 400 existing ones), go to youporn or gayporn or just look downside.

It is not that we have "only" a single picture which was deleted, so a useless "keep it" discussion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician; even if you insist on taking it literally, it's 2π x 2π. It's entirely reasonable to want to see how one penis looks like in different conditions, without having to worry about differences between penises. Your sexist comment that they should "just look downside" is beyond the pale, in my opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician Don't think so, 4π² would be ~40, far too less. But besideds, is it entirely reasonable to assume that under 400 pictures of penises you wouldn't find the right angle??? Unfortunately, nowadays it is so hard to figure out how a dick is looking like...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See w:radians, the only real way to measure angles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how many angles are possible in a 3D enviroment? Answer: ∞ (w:Real number. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly

\pi \times 2\pi

. 360° around

\alpha

and 180° around

\beta

(

(\alpha ,\beta )\subset \mathbb {R} ^{2}{\text{with}}\ 0\leq \alpha <2\pi ,0\leq \beta \leq \pi

) and you have any axis. (see cylindrical projection). Anyways a poor demonstration of mathematical knowledge. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a mathematician, and it wouldn't be

4\pi ^{2}

, it would be

2\pi ^{2}

as you need only work between

\pi /2

and

-\pi /2

in the second angular parameter. But yes, it's actually infinity. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the actual topic, no one here but you has mentioned censorship. I'm simply saying that these are good quality photos which were deleted on the grounds of "oh we have lots of those already". I'd like to see that go through with pictures of the Eiffel Tower, or the Statue of Liberty, or in fact any subject except sexual ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This user has confused Wikimedia Commons with a personal porn gallery. What will you become if everyone do it ? Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's amazing we have any pictures of human genitalia on Commons, given the inevitable abuse that users will heap upon them. In any case, what will Commons become if everyone uploaded pictures of the Statue of Liberty is not a reason to delete pictures of the Statue of Liberty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have only 100 photos of the Statue of Liberty, whereas above 400 of penises, so, no, that is not a good comparison. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually according to CatScan there are 517, and over 1000 photos of the Eiffel Tower. Will you now support deleting photos of the Statue or the Tower for being too similar? I further note that while the Statue is one thing, unchanging, there are 3.5 BILLION human penises in the world, all different. And they change! -mattbuck (Talk) 09:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, should we start to open a worldwide campaign "Upload a set of images of your penis on commons, as we have only >400 pictures"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm not saying that at all. My general argument is that these particular photos are good photos. My specific argument here is that you cannot claim that we shouldn't delete photos of the Statue of Liberty because there are only 100 compared to 400 penises when there are actually more than 500 pictures of the Statue. Would you support deleting some photos of the Statue of Liberty on grounds of being too similar? Or of the Eiffel Tower? There are over 1000 photos of that according to CatScan. If you hold that 400 photos of the human penis, which comes in all shapes and sizes, is too many; then you cannot argue that 500 pictures of something fixed and unchanging is not enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support images were wrongly deleted, for spurious rationale, & with inadequate debate, as part of a no-penis deletion nom "spree" by one user User:FAP. many of the reasons given for the deletions were invalid, no basis in commons policy. same "rationale" was cut & pasted across multiple noms, with no real consideration of the files' individual merits Lx 121 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We donna have a so called "no-penis" deletion agenda, a reason for deletion cannot be "invalid", and "individual merits" of self-shot dicks is highly questionable, as commons is not a private web host for free, hence it is a basis in comons policy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reason for deletion is invalid if it goes against policy. I accept that many of the photos deleted were just plain rubbish, and so I didn't request undeletion of those. But these are high quality photos, and I think they have merit as a group. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If these are all of the same person, I Oppose undeletion of File:Young indian boy penis.JPG, and possibly all of them. Obviously it can't be a young boy and also a man. Blatant lies in filenames/descriptions of files strongly suggests bad faith. Any hint of bad faith in nude/sexual uploads should be treated very cautiously. Keeping this file reduces our credibility, and given that we have alternatives, I think it should stay deleted. --99of9 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "young boy" can extend into the 20s, especially if you are not an English native speaker. The subject of that particular photograph seems to be in the late teens or early twenties.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, maybe. Young boy, not so much. --99of9 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you translate it literally to other languages, you'll get something as "jeune garçon" in French, "rapaz jovem" in Portuguese, "chico jueven" in Spanish. I can tell you that all those could perfectly apply to someone in his 20s. I'm well in my 30s, and occasionally I'm still addressed in such a way, especially by the proverbial matron. In any case, if you have actually seen File:Young indian boy penis.JPG (you still can, it's on Google's cache), saying it's a picture of a child would get anyone rolling on the floor laughing their guts out.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you mattbuck. Those files were pretty deleted contrary to our aims. --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support I agree with Mattbuck, those were good quality pictures. And no, we don't have enough of good quality pictures of penises. But, really, I'm almost sure that the model of the photos is the same person, but the descriptions are different -- e.g. File:Asian penis scrotum.JPG, File:Uncircumcised indian penis.jpg. Indian, asian, man, young boy -- everything at the same time. I agree with 99of9 on this point, misleading descriptions are problematic. Trycatch (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are all from the same subject, it could add value to the collection, instead of detracting from it, since it provides a good set for comparisons.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you do realise that Asian means coming from Asia, not just east Asia? An Indian is an Asian by definition. Also I'm 24, and could be quite easily be described as a man or a boy, depending on the context. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you are right. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't really know if the term "young boy" could be used to describe a person in his 20s. Trycatch (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite typical usage in slang terms, where "man" is replaced with "boy", not caring about the age. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy yes, young boy no. Do any other native speakers seriously disagree with me on this? --99of9 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support We should not be deleting good quality photographs. This may not be a medical database but there are many benefits to having a wide variety of quality shots. Why would we want more than 400 photos of penes? The same reason we would want more that 400 shots of any other body part or area. Automatically interpreting close up shots of body parts as pornography is ridiculous and would lead to mass deletion of photographs of women's chests while we may retain mass photos of children and men's torsos. Fæ (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per mattbuck, A socket-puppet has requested this pictures for deletion and they was deleted without discuss. No need to discuss the undeletion --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mein-Steifer-Penis.JPG

Another good quality penis image deleted, although I accept this one is a bit strange, but still, no good reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Restore it as the others above. Some fishy action goes going on. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above, this cock is superceded by far more others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personal cam shot...Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support image was wrongly deleted, for spurious rationale, & with inadequate debate, as part of a no-penis deletion nom "spree" by one user User:FAP. reasons given for the deletion were invalid, no basis in commons policy Lx 121 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per mattbuck, A socket-puppet has requested this pictures for deletion and they was deleted without discuss. No need to discuss the undeletion --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruševine u Ravnom 0b4.jpg

Speedy deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion_policy. Log reads "‎(Out of project scope: Promotional content)" -- Docu at 12:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Oppose The log is a little misleading -- the image is from http://www.hercegovina.info/vijesti/hercegovina/foto-prica-opcina-ravno.

Google and I don't read Bosnian, but "© Hercegovina.info Internet portal" appears at the bottom of the gallery page there. It was tagged for no permission on April 21, which seems to be correct and deleted on May 10, which is past the seven days allowed for no permission. The uploader, User:Quahadi, who is an Admin, was properly notified of the problem with this image and nine others.

So, it looks like a righteous deletion to me. Am I missing something? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at one of the other pics and it had an OTRS tag. -- Docu at 12:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS tag on all the images, including the deleted one, is "OTRS received" with parameter 3, the "not sufficient" parameter. That is consistent with the information on the OTRS ticket. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some news at OTRS, either all need to go or this one restored. The stated reason is not a criterion for speedy deletion. -- Docu at 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be all deleted or none -- but I figured to wait a little while to give Quahadi a chance to respond. It's true that promo isn't a reason to speedy a file, but, as I said above, that's just the deleting Admin's picking a bad reason -- unless something turns up at OTRS, the images are missing permission and are well past the time limit. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in the info-hr queue (Croatian) and no processing of tickets in that queue is occurring from communications received on the OTRS mailing list. So we're not holding up our end of the situation which is unfortunately seen in the backlogs across the board due to a shortage of volunteers. – Adrignola talk 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DannyBuday.jpg

Please undelete this file as I personally took this photo 'on set' and own the rights and fully release them to all. Thank-you.

Status: Own work

Sincerely, --StaceyForrester (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Stacey Forrester[reply]

You originally stated the source of the image as "IMDb". If you are the photographer, in what capacity were you on the set? Powers (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 518: / Line 518: @@
 <nowiki>===================================================================================</nowiki>
+{{udelh}}
 == [[:Category:Murghab River]] ==
@@ Line 547: / Line 548: @@
 ::::# In retrospect maybe I should have simply excised the incomplete discussion.  I thought it would be questionable to delete a discussion that I disagreed with.
 ::::Is it a toss-up?  Well, no, I don't really think so.  Since the Afghan government uses the ''"M'''''u'''''rghab"'' not ''"M'''''o'''''rghab"'' I think it should be the base name.  Further, leaving the new name as the base name endorses the earlier mistakes.  I think this would be an additional mistake.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
+----
+'''Restored''' as per Tryphon, with <nowiki>{{Category redirect|Morghab River}}</nowiki>. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
+{{udelf}}
 {{udelh}}
 == [[:File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg]] ==

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:12, 31 May 2011

Current requests

Contents

Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov

File:Karrer.jpg

File:6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jpg

Currency images from Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg

File:Nacionalizacion_servicios.jpg

File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peterborough-i sziklafigua.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg

File:AbdAlRahim.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/Latvian money

Latvian lats

Undeletion Request: File:J-c-bose-school-of-engineering.jpg

Category:Murghab River

File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg

File:Seal of North Dakota.svg

Request to undelete some redirects...

File:Korpilahti bell tower.png

Undeletion Request: File:Kylie Sturgess profile

File:CMCLagerhuelse.jpg

File: Manuel Rego.jpg

Last 3 photos of Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Famkr01 (not nominated by me)

Temporary: Commons:Deletion requests/Opéra de Lyon

File:Logo-Sencillo.png

Undo Deletion of Pictures I Own

File:LuisSHarguindeyWKings.jpg

File:ChristosSiametis.jpg, File:48gogreen logo.jpg, File:Francesco Vitali.jpg

Julbert1980 photos

A whole host of penises

File:Mein-Steifer-Penis.JPG

File:Ruševine u Ravnom 0b4.jpg

File:DannyBuday.jpg

Navigation menu