Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,380: Line 1,380:
BTW: For what purpose do we need those redirects/pictures exactly? --[[User:Yikrazuul|Yikrazuul]] ([[User talk:Yikrazuul|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW: For what purpose do we need those redirects/pictures exactly? --[[User:Yikrazuul|Yikrazuul]] ([[User talk:Yikrazuul|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:Yikrazuul, I [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=54334566 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? [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


{{udelh}}
{{udelh}}

Revision as of 23:10, 13 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]

Locator Maps in Germany

Long list in here

File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png File:Beelitz in SDL.png File:Bertkow in SDL.png File:Beuna (Geiseltal) in SK.png File:Bobbau in ABI.png File:Brehna in ABI.png File:Broock-PCH.png File:Dörnitz in JL.png File:Düsedau in SDL.png File:Erxleben in SDL.png File:Flessau in SDL.png File:Gladau in JL.png File:Gladigau in SDL.png File:Glebitzsch in ABI.png File:Goldenstädt in PCH.png File:Hindenburg in SDL.png File:Hobeck in JL.png File:Königsmark in SDL.png File:Krevese in SDL.png File:Küsel in JL.png File:Loburg in JL.png File:Lübs in JL.png File:Magdeburgerforth in JL.png File:Meseberg in SDL.png File:Mollenstorf in MÜR.png File:Moor-Rolofshagen in NWM.PNG File:Paplitz in JL.png File:Petersroda in ABI.png File:Raduhn in PCH.png File:Reesdorf in JL.png File:Reesen in JL.png File:Roitzsch in ABI.png File:Rosian in JL.png File:Rossau in SDL.png File:Sandauerholz in SDL.png File:Sandersdorf in ABI.png File:Sanne in SDL.png File:Schweinitz in JL.png File:Teschendorf in MST.png File:Tryppehna in JL.png File:Tucheim in JL.png File:Wallwitz in JL.png File:Walsleben in SDL.png File:Zeddenick in JL.png

These files were deleted out of process with an incorrect explanation that they are duplicative of other files. They are not, each one shows a different highlighted municipality than the claimed duplicate. The deleting admin will not undelete them, so here we are. I want to use these on the English Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I chose one at random, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png. It looks like a duplicate of File:Osterburg (Altmark) in SDL.png to me. (Slightly different shade of red maybe....) Wknight94 talk 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe I chose a bad example. Others don't look so much like duplicates. Wknight94 talk 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the history you can see that it is only a duplicate because a new version was uploaded just before file was deleted. So if file is undeleted and lates upload is reverted then it is not a duplicate anymore. Perhaps that is what Carlossuarez46 wants. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that many of this images had been reuploaded by the initial uploader to make them a duplicate and that he wanted to delete them to maintain the set of locator images. He may comment on the process too.
At the moment we have a complete, maintained and similar quality set of most recent locator maps of this Mecklenburg-Vorpommern municipalities. I also disagree with the deletion, Commons would be best with having also sets of the former situations, so the best sollution for updating sets of locator maps is not to overwrite the old ones and delete those whose name is not longer existing but to first move the complete set to an appropriate new name and indicating the time span and then upload the new set of images. For one particular file see File:Landkreise, Kreise und kreisfreie Städte in Deutschland.svg (lead image, older versions with time in filename in the other versions), of course we are talking of some more files here.
Back to the topic: With restoring this locators now you will not do an improvement of Commons. You will mix up the set of locater maps we currently have with outdated locators. As long as you not maintain the full set of outdated locator maps and update their descriptions you will create a terrible mess and mix up of old and new, bad quality and good quality, correct description and outdated description. So we should stay with the current maintained and complete set. Maybe sometime someone will create a new set of locator maps showing the old situation and directly upload it under a correct filename including the time span and with a correct description, that would be much, much easier. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after my initial quick look, I took a longer look at a few ---- and got thoroughly confused. Someone will need to simplify this case I think. File A became B, then became C ---- File X became Y, then became C ---- File B became X, then became A, then B. Then all got deleted. Ugh... Wknight94 talk 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see the deleted files, but when they were used on the English Wikipedia before wholesale delinking took place, they were different, if someone updated them to be duplicates so that someone could delete them, that's troubling. In any event, they should be undeleted (and can later be reverted to be useful), and if anyone still thinks that they ought be deleted it can be discussed properly rather than just speedied. Because the English WP (where I am an admin) and probably other Wikis rely on maintenance of files on commons even if nothing is currently linked the histories of articles cannot be fully viewed if the files are deleted because they are delinked (currently). That's a bigger process issue than we need to resolve here, but were these local on the English Wiki, any admin here could see that something has been changed to be duplicative and revert the change and save the file from deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Just based on the confusion of the case, it should have gone to COM:DR at the very least. Wknight94 talk 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Wknight94(1926) There were and there will be several restructurations of municipalities mostly in eastern germany to reduce the number of municipalities, 4th administrative level. The 3rd level (Landkreis/district) is also indicated in the filenames with an abreviation (the vehicle plate code). So far the outdated locators where deleted due to this bad replace and dupe process instead of renaming the whole set and upload a new set.
Roughly simplyfying what this means for the above images: All links above beeing blue are municipalitie locators that exist under the same name before and after the reforms, they ar of course updated because the surrounding municipalities changed. All red links are outdated locator maps of municipalities that no longer exist. Those shouldnt end up in the categories or sets showing the current sittuation, this requires correction of the description, maybe a change of filename to open a new set and it requires to categorize them appropriately. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if category or the filename is wrong the solution is not to delete the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the users perspective maybe it was the sollution. Bad process, and as I suggested: Move the whole outdated set to a filename that indicate that it is outdated (e.g. Foo in XY, yyyy-mm-dd - yyyy-mm-dd.png) and then upload the new set, do not replace files with something different (a changed subdivisioning is something different), do not delete them. That was not done (maybe not known at this time) and i admire that it would be terrible much work. If we now restore the files we obviously must correct this, otherwise we will do more damage to the existing set and then doing any improvement. So the best sollution would be to create a new set of images or extract them from all this version histories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Maybe a bot person should be invited? Wknight94 talk 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is possible: Yes. Is it possible? It also requires some human work I think, the reforms not toke place at one date but on various dates, so far the uploader was the only one who spent his time in this low interest and odd work field. So he must be involved, I dont want to have him stoped contributing to Commons and move to de.wp, that wouldnt be an improvement either. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easi to do. A bot can undelete the images. A human must check the images, revert to older version if needed and delete/mark images that are dupes. Once that is done a bot can rename all the images. --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if titles are wrong, there's a Move button now. That would probably be the best approach from a history-saving POV. Wknight94 talk 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not revert anything and not delete any duplicates. The files that exist at the moment with the name "foo in xy.png" are the lead images, they are in use all over and they present the current status after the reorganisation/reform. This undeletion request targets the locator maps before the reorganisation. So only extract that old revisions and move them to different filenames indicating that they represent a stuts before the restructuration. --Martin H. (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As these maps are subject to change frequently, it might be worth adding a date (read: year) of reference to the filename. Check, e.g. User:Tschubby's uploads for a way how it can be made to work. -- User:Docu at 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undelition. - Stop this nonsense event, please. Rauenstein (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sense? why were things overwritten? Now we have garbage like this File:Lewitzrand in PCH.PNG which shows Stadt Parchim (see File:Parchim in PCH.PNG) not Lewitzrand. If we had the maps of the former gemeinden we could clearly see the problem.... There has been no real reason why these were deleted (or overwritten to be duplicates and then deleted), and now we're left with wrong maps that even the German editors cannot figure out because there is no back up to try to understand them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct such simple mistakes instead of pointing on them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have adobe illustrator, so I point them out and someone who does may fix them. But my point remains, deleting these has obscured the fact that this error sat unreported for quite some time because no one had backup to check. Transparency is the hallmark of the Wikipedias; deletion of back-level versions, whether used or not, removes the transparency and allows errors to creep in and go undetected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. The DDR existed, those municipalities existed and articles about former municipalities are very well conceivable (e.g. people were born there, died there &c.). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but these are no reasons to undelete old, wrong and orphaned files. Rauenstein (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. See above!Nemissimo (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete from this discussion, it seems these can not be replaced by other images and have some use. —innotata 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. This is a mess, and the only reasonable answer is to undelete them so we can see what's going on. If they had been properly deleted, I wouldn't say anything, but uploading new images over the old and deleting them as duplicates lacks transparency. I have no objection to a DR, but the defense should get to point to the images in question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and the arguments presented by Prosfilaes. Afil (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I can only repeat: If we undelete this we will create a mess with outdated and current locator maps, so the result of undeletion will be a downgrading from a current, complete and maintained set to a an mixed, incomplete and outdated set. The files was treated the normal way on Commons, just look what mess people created with e.g. country maps and the Kosovo, thas country level and not the lowest administrative level in Germany we talk about here. From this file overwriting Commons lost locator maps of municipalities for some periods of time, but in opposition to even country maps the locator maps of this lowest administrative level in germany are maintained, accurate and complete. The very best sollution to recreate the lost time periods is to recreate new sets of locator maps for the outdated situation and upload them under an appropriate filename (including a date). So we e.g. need for the German en:Landkreis Stendal locator map settings showing the situation:
  • 1995 - July 16, 1996
  • -January 1, 1998
  • -April 15, 1999
  • -January 1. 2002
  • -January 1. 2005
  • -July 1, 2009 (for example the first mentioned file, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png is probably, didnt read literature on this, a part of this set)
  • -January 1, 2010
  • -May 31, 2010

At every date something happened. A change in one part of the area required, that we need a complete new set for all parts of the area because every locator map shows the whole area. We have a current set (26 municipalities +1 blank map) for the lates situation. Undeleting one single file from the Jan2005-July2009 set and adding it to the current set would create a mess and obviosly noone wants to fix that mess. So dont undelete, create new sets. If you need a base map for an outdated set you may ask for assistance. --Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Swiss court said it is free. A commons admin knows better and deletes it. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...per our precautionary principle. --High Contrast (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the paranoia principle you can justify deleting all images of German statues, or even closing down the whole site. And Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. you should not even need to think about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look: we have between 50 and 100 images which use this license template ({{PD-Switzerland-photo}}). I think there should be a general discussion about it on Commons talk:Licensing. Also regarding this sentence from the header of Commons:Licensing: "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
However it would be strange if we would not use the template since we are also using (e.g.) source country specific FOP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen case law on cross-country FOP, but I would bet (maybe 60-40) that a US court would accept a photograph of a statue in a country with full FOP for statues. (Much lower odds on the rare countries that have full FOP for 2-D art; I think we might be in trouble if we couldn't argue fair use or de minimis there, because a photograph effectively reproduces the 2-D art, not just an image of it.) On the other hand, I think a US copyright examiner wouldn't even pause when registering this image for copyright, and given the lack of the rule of the shorter term, I think a US court would agree with that analysis. I think there is legitimate reasons to analyze these cases separately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a cross-country FOP case, the de:Hundertwasserentscheidung immediately comes to mind. As to the Meili photo, could not anybody take it, and register it with the US copyright office? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg 85.94.184.115 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has done anything in 4 months, I've opened a discussion about it at Commons_talk:Licensing#.7B.7BPD-Switzerland-photo.7D.7D -mattbuck (Talk) 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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]

This file (which had been in use on many wikis, including the English article "Homosexuality") was speedy deleted at 03:36 20 Jul 2010 by Nuclear Warfare. The reason given was "Living persons global foundation policy violation: No evidence that the two are gay." The photo was innocuous--two men, fully clothed, standing close together against a green screen. The file's title--and the photo itself--is unambiguous, so I don't understand the rationale behind this deletion since there was apparently no request to delete by the uploader or either of the subjects in the photograph. I left a note on the admin's talk page, but since then he has opened a doppelganger account and I can't find my request (which was only made about 36 hours ago). Therefore, I'm requesting here that this file be undeleted and restored to the wikis in which it appeared. Wi2g (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW has replied to you on his talk page. --Herby talk thyme 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this file should not have been speedy deleted. A normal deletion request would be better. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand why it should have been considered for deletion at all; it doesn't seem to fit any of the deletion-policy criteria. Wi2g (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it remains unclear whether the couple consented to the publication of this photograph, this is a possible violation of COM:PEOPLE as this has been photographed in a private setting and the two persons can be identified. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFBorchert's point here seems reasonable to me. The people are very clearly identifiable - I'd be happy if explicit permission were granted via OTRS I think. --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that homosexuality has various degrees of negative complications in some parts of the world, which ranges from disapproval to the death penalty. Therefore identifying these men as a gay couple is potentially problematic for them. It falls in the same general category as recent discussions of images that labeled a woman as a prostitute, a man as an alcoholic, and a family as immigrants. It is one thing for a gay couple to be together in public; it is a very different thing for them to be an example in the WP:EN article Homosexuality. Unless we are very sure that these men are willing to have their picture used there and all the other places it may be used, we should not keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the educational value of such a photograph is to have examples of gay couples, then a simple search will find alternative copyright free alternatives, several already on Commons. This particular image could be kept on Commons without any issue if there is a verifiable release. -- (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be much clearer instructions on this matter. To upload such an image one should clearly have consent from the persons. The uploader knows this if he or she has read our policies. But I have not heard that one must state that consent explicitly. In the discussions about COM:SEX such a requirement was received as very controversial.
The least one could ask is that the uploader be contacted.
--LPfi (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My read was that there was a clear consensus for that aspect of COM:SEX, even in the final vote. The two things that got controversial were scope-speedy and US-law. You're right that contact with the uploader may fix this whole thing if anyone gets around to doing it. --99of9 (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support undeletion if the uploader could supply information to address the COM:PEOPLE guideline (regardless of the presumed sexuality of the people in the photograph). The main reason that this photograph would attract attention against these guidelines is the word "gay" in the file-name which could easily be fixed by renaming the file. -- (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered how problematic the filename was, and renaming it seems like the simplest fix. I'd be happy to contact the uploader, but don't remember who he or she is and don't know how to access that information. Can anyone help? Wi2g (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will be difficult to contact the uploader, because this image upload in 2009 was his/her only action. By the way: could File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg be a good replacement of the picture? Jcb (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we cannot trust neither good faith nor knowledge about our policies when somebody is uploading only one, problematic, image. If the photo was taken in a private setting, where the persons could expect privacy, and they show something they wouldn't show in public, then we cannot host it. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can not mark two identifiable persons as gay if we are in doubt if they agree with putting their face up in Wikipedia. Since it is a single upload and the consent is not explicit given, I am against undeletion in this case.

The suggestion of using File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg seems to be a good idea since it is used in the article [1] and the photographer refers to this wikipedia entry on his flickr site [2](which solves the consent issue for that picture) -- Neozoon (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.русский 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 blogрусский, 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]


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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

The reason given at the closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coital_Play.png is no reason for deletion. Another picture got censored.

With this reason you can delete every and all pictures showing humans as someone likes - shooting around randomly - aka censorship. We do not have a consent verification system (like OTRS) so this cannot be a valid reason as - as I said - this would mean Commons can (as it obviously is) be censored. I am sick of this. I personally invested time in this picture, we only have very few (if any - I do not know the current status) pictures of sexual intercourse. This picture was even quite aesthetic and good quality.

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - copyright is not the main concern, deletions of the Flickr-account doesn't automatically cause deletion at Commons, but now we have no way to check other things, this is a high risk file - Jcb (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we should have a mechanism of checking those "other things" when the file is still around there. What is it that should be checked? --LPfi (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody knows the age of the subjects and nobody knows if the subject gave their permission to be exposed like this in the internet. This could be even cyberstalking. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did the subjects seem very young? Is there some reason to doubt they gave permission? How would the issues be checked if the image still was on flickr? How do we check those issues for the images still present on flickr? --LPfi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's well possible for both of the subjects that they are less than 18 years old. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did you notice that we have no ID card copy for any picture here? And did you notice that you could delete many, many pictures with this argument (especially those)? --Saibo (Δ) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe, but I'm not going to look around to get as much files as possible deleted from a certain category. I just process DRs. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point is that this seems to be very arbitrary if we have no means in place by which legal and appropriate images can be kept. We have to have policy on this. I have seen no argument about this image being any more problematic than any other sexual image (unless the depicted people clearly are old). --LPfi (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen a solution proposed to the statements around requisite record keeping, which to me seems relevant and pivotal to the deletion. Argument proposed is not convincing, unable to support reinstatement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please point me to our policy which requires the "record keeping" which some think we need to do? Please also tell me why images from flick account should need to go and images uploaded here directly with totally anon accounts which could be dead at some time should be okay. --Saibo (Δ) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a false argument; an absence of a policy is not a legal defence and does not prevent us from taking required lawful actions. I didn't mention flickr and I see no difference between legal requirements for flickr-sourced or a direct upload, and you make a good point that if this is a requirement then maybe it should be applied to all the other images of that nature.
  • I'm tending to agree with Saibo, here. If we're going to get queasy when the original source for "graphic" images are disabled, that needs to be encoded as a consensus policy somewhere. Until then, I see no reason to treat these images as any different than any other now-deleted image from Flickr. Powers (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, weakly. This was a {{2257}} image. No secondary producer would be able to re-use it without some way of identifying the actors. Without access to the original account, that doesn't exist. This is problematic from a pragmatic point of view. We should have a policy of keeping our own copy of all contact info for 2257 images, whenever possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support On reconsideration I found Saibo's argument persuasive on this matter. We host many images that are effectively impossible to use inside certain nations (e.g. images PD in the US but still in copyright in Mexico). It's unfortunate but content reusers in other nations would still be able to use it. I'm concerned about our inability to evaluate the image for license laundering, but I'm equally concerned about new users uploading copyvios as Own work, and the situation is very similar - the convention is we don't delete without evidence of likely copyvio. Moreover, the two persons in this image are impossible to identify (being an extreme close-up on the genital region), so privacy is not realistically an issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As I understand it, 2257 does not apply to us, because we are non-commercial. Anyone handling such things commercially will know that. As far as I know we don't keep 2257 info on file for anything, do we? - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't and shouldn't, but I'd argue we should at least provide some way to contact the record holder, or else it effectively prevents most commercial use inside the United States. Usually this is provided indirectly through the source link, which is not useful in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same as above: uploads by totally anon, even without compulsory email, one-upload accounts should be okay but flickr uploads not? However, if 2257 should be effectively able to censor Commons, which Commons is not, we do need a way to get rid of it. The best way would be if WMF sets up servers in another country - this way we could also solve the URAA nightmare.
        "effectively prevents most commercial use inside the United States" - maybe - but if we delete it we prevent use in every country. Not the other's fault that US has some ... let me call them interesting... laws. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea why you think someone is "blabber"ing around here. I am just calling a spade a spade. Of course, I know, you call the spade cleanup tool instead. --Saibo (Δ) 17:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It seems there is no specific reason this file was deleted. The arguments for deletion are based on us not having done things that no guideline suggests doing. If such arguments are accepted, deletion of files will be very much arbitrary. Instead, try to find consensus for how these things could and should be handled in the future. --LPfi (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In my understanding, us hosting this without a statement of the location of the records ensures that someone is doing something illegal. See 2257 section (e)(1). I don't think our current {{2257}} template adequately reflects that requirement of the regulation. Once a Flickr account is deleted, we can no longer credibly claim that we have a statement of the location of the records (perhaps even pointing to a valid Flickr account is insufficient). --99of9 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was my understanding that the 2257 requirements are for images intended for commercial distribution. Section (e)(1) says as much (by reference to section (a)). What makes you think that Wikimedia needs records, or a location of them? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems worded to catch as much under the federal remit as possible. (a)(1) appears to catch this kind of image because it is "produced with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce" (i.e. a camera, unlikely to have been entirely manufactured in the user's state of residence). After (a)(1) catches the image (either because of the camera or the author's commercial intent) before it even gets to wikimedia, from then on it needs a records location attached (in (f)(4) we need to list a location, but don't need to verify the accuracy of the records ourself). [Finally, a side point that applies to Flickr images... the fact that we got them from Flickr means that they've gone via a commercial(?) site, so that may even trigger (a)(1)] --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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. -- Orionisttalk 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, -- Orionisttalk 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]

This pic is of the second hatbadge (of 5) worn by RCEME personnell. I am the National Secretary of the RCEME Assn. of Canada & am authorized to use any pictures from our website. http://rceme.com/badges and the main website http://rceme.com/ where you will find me under the contact link. Hope this proves satisfactory and that you will undelete this image. Thank you.

Larry Aubry Vehtech (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 13 April 2011[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:OTRS so that we can confirm your claim tto be the National Secretary. Powers (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be easier to visit http://rceme.com/badges/ and read the top line of the page where it says These images are free to copy by members for individual or public use.Thanks, Larry Aubry Vehtech (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Not to be used for commercial purposes", which means we can't use them. We need specific and unambiguous permission from the rights holder to use them in any way for any purpose. Powers (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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...
  1. Yes, provided it is not simultaneously published in another country of the Berne Convention.
  2. Correct, per Berne Article 5(3) and 5(4)(a)
  3. Correct, per Berne Article 5(4)(c)
  4. 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.
  5. See above. The copyright would have to be transferred like any other.
  6. 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.
  7. Yes.
  8. Yes.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  1. Dilawar's family was illiterate.
  2. 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.
  3. 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."
  4. 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?
  5. 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]

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]

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

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

  1. I created Category:Murghab River sometime in the last year or so.
  2. Recently another contributor created Category:Morghab River
  3. All the elements in the old category were manually moved to the new category, without any prior discussion.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. On April 21 an administrator deleted Category:Murghab River, because the category was empty.
  7. On April 22 I left this note on that administrator's talk page. They reverted their first deletion.
  8. 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.
  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]

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 [3]. 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]

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]

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]

This image, which appeared in the article about Mordechai Rotenberg, was deleted despite my statement that the family had provided it and gave their permission to use it. I have now received a letter from Mordechai Rotenberg acknowledging that he allows the photo to be used, which was forwarded a few minutes ago to "permissions." --Gilabrand 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That file has never existed on Commons. If you wish to appeal English Wikipedia's deletion of the file by that name, you need to do so on that project. If you wish to upload the file to Commons, you must obtain a license from the photographer allowing anyone to use the photograph in modified or unmodified form for any commercial or noncommercial purpose and send that permission to OTRS. LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete the above. Deleted by error or without valid reason. --  Docu  at 11:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Category:Blouses cover the subject or am I missing something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to make redirects for all singular forms, w'll have to add 1300000 redirects. --Foroa 16:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to. We just ask administrators to use their tools in accordance with our guidelines. --  Docu  at 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jim: it was a redirect. --  Docu  at 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing Page history:
   (show/hide) (diff) 13:34, 29 April 2011 . . Docu (talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (redir (deleted by error)
   (show/hide) (diff) 06:37, 28 April 2011 . . Wiki-uk (talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (←Created page with '{{category redirect|Blouses}}')
   Log: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
   (show/hide) 13:08, 30 April 2011 Foroa (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Blouse" ‎ (Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses) (view/restore)
   (show/hide) 10:37, 28 April 2011 Foroa (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Blouse" ‎ (Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses) (view/restore)
--Foroa (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly none of the other four administrators participating in this discussion seem to be aware of that, thus I somewhat doubt it. Would an administrator independent of the deleting administrator certify that the above is correct? --  Docu  at 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page history is correct. It was deleted a mere day after creation as a category redirect, then recreated by you the day after, then deleted again the day after that. – Adrignola talk 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the edit summary got most if not all participants in this discussion confused (voting  Oppose based on incorrect assumptions). The reasonable thing to do is probably to undelete the redirect and ask people to open a regular deletion request. The deleting administrator should probably be reminded to be more careful about their edit summaries. In this case, they seem to have mislead at least for administrators. --  Docu  at 06:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per consensus Ezarateesteban 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was first kept, than deleted by the same administrator with the reason: After some additional discussion I changed my mind. There is no place for files which this kind of restrictions at Wikimedia Commons. I request a revision of this deletion.

  1. The file is released with the licence CC-BY-SA, thus fully according to our project requirements. The author additionally explains that he expects the credit (directly) under the photo. Such a user text is not a legally binding condition (this is the licence alone), it's only a noncommittal wish. We have lots of such user additions like mail me, send me a link to the using homepage, send me a specimen copy and so on. Such additions are all not treated on Commons as restrictions but as explanatory notes that reusers might but are not forced to fulfill.
  2. We had this discussion on de-WP about exactly this user's images two years ago. Two users now restarted it on de-WP, brought it to the Administrators' noticeboard (archived) and to the Village pump (archived), additionally to starting the exemplary DR on this first image. We will get mass deletions, not only of this author's images, if this one stays confirmed. --Martina talk 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support to all points of Martina. --Túrelio (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also argue that it was released under a CC-BY-SA-except-for-one-part license (the part which allows people to implement the credit in any reasonable manner), and not the full CC-BY-SA. Under that view, we have to delete unless the author relaxes his conditions so that CC-BY-SA can be accurately claimed. If you feel we can simply edit the license text to remove or relax that condition to a simple suggestion, then fine. I'm not entirely sure that is within our rights... if the author only consented to CC-BY-SA because they thought they could specify placement like that, it may be an issue. It is worded as an absolute condition and that wording can't stay. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The deleting admin seems to have been convinced to revise his keeping decision by the argument that it would be "impossible to use the image within our projects". This is not right. Wolfgang Pehlemann fully accepts the indirect credit inside Wikimedia projects and integrates them himself as usual. --Martina talk 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user seemed to indicate in the DR that it was only OK for Wikipedia to do that. That also can't work. Entirely possible that there are language barriers here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess not, because his German comments (as linked by Martina) have the exactly same meaning. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The file is released under CC-BY-SA + Own Restrictions. He insisted multiple times to keep this as part of the license. This means, he enforces this additional restrictions. As you might be able to read, the text is no bidding, its an an enforcement.
If the text isn't legally binding then it must be removed, to not provoke misunderstandings by re-users.
What is done in this case is simple. Its undermining the intentions WP:FIVE of the project. This is just another case to bend the basic project rules, going as far as it can get. Controversy over Wikipedia images, Misuse of Wikipedia, Warnings with Wikipedia, ...
Next time i will upload images "with a friendly enforcing text to perform the chicken dance and upload it on youtube as proof", if you want to use them beside Wikipedia itself. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That shows quiet well how unclean you are working in your argumentation. You're linking the same old case (my own case from 2009) three times (two of them are blogs of my case opponent with lots of wrong and half informations). That case didn't base on credit directly at the image but on lacking any credit on his site. It is quiet well known that I'm not the only one who ever brought violating reusages to a legal issue. We do not need explicit credit expectations for that. Do you want to let delete all images of these users? --Martina talk 22:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the images aren't licensed in a correct way (not only for Wikipedia) then i suggest the deletion. I believe it does more harm to keep them, as to delete them.
I linked this (your) case for one reason. It shows how easily re-users can fall over some issues, how hard it hits them and what damage is done to the project. In the actual case Wolfgang could sue re-users that implement the CC-BY-SA, but not the additional restrictions. I don't know if he will do this, but i also don't know if he would not. Regarding to project guidelines we have now a bunch of images that are unfree. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Lots of Commons' contributors do sue reusers for using images in a way that their authors do not agree with. That's totally independent of what they did write or did not write on the description page. I would even argument the other way round: If an author explains his expectations, resusers have a guideline and do not run into an open knife. That's why we have a link on Commons:Weiterverwendung at each image and a Template:Credit line and lots of additional individual explanations. See few examples like Special:ListFiles&user=Diliff, Special:ListFiles&user=Fir0002, or User:Raymond/licence. Shall we delete all these images? --Martina talk 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against further explanations. But I'm strongly against further restrictions (not recommendations) that are not part of the license. See comment from Carl Lindberg above. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong at all with User:Raymond/licence. Same with Fir0002 (though that may have been edited a bit). David Iliff's... hm. Not great, but a lot more arguable it's OK. The credit is required and you can't bury it somewhere unexpected. By no means do I want to delete stuff by this user... lots of great work there, obviously. But I do want to respect his wishes. Something truly licensed under CC-BY-SA explicitly allows licensees to implement the credit in any reasonable manner, and not only the one specified. I'm just not sure we can assume the author is fine with that, given the text he wrote -- it's possible that his condition was of paramount importance to uploading it here in the first place. If the author is fine with *anyone* implementing the credit in a reasonable manner, apart from the way specified, then great -- we can just change the text to be a suggestion instead. If that is a problem, then it is not actually licensed CC-BY-SA, which means we don't have a "free" license, which only leads to less-attractive options. The user is obviously OK with Wikipedia not using that implementation of the credit, but it has to be OK for everyone else as well, otherwise that amounts to a Wikipedia-only license (also not OK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Uploaders are welcome to request attribution in a certain place, but cannot require it. Not only would such a requirement, if enforced, prevent the use of such images (including this one) on most WPs, it would prevent their use in any book or magazine which collects credits in one place. If we were to allow users to add special requirements, it would not be long before we see an image licensed as CC-BY-SA+$100 or CC-BY-SA+No-Smaller-than-1200-pixels.

As a general rule of law, if you modify boilerplate (in this case, the standard license) by adding extra words, then the extra words override anything in the boilerplate that conflicts. In this case, that means that the uploader is requiring something that is outside our rules -- he must either change his license or be deleted.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file is released under CC-BY-SA + Own Restrictions. As long as the copyright holder insists on his own restrictions, we have to accept his restrictions. This means that the images have to be treated as non-free. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I informed the copyright holder on his German discussion page about the current state of the (un)deletion request. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Wolfgang Pehlemann, excuse me, as the author of the questioned photograph – and in total we talk about approx. 397 photographs since the year 2008 - I ask for a fair and objective judgement of the licensing under Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland (CC BY-SA 3.0-De) and not for subjective views and opinions.

1. Licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De is offered for use by Wikimedia and Wikipedia and so far not to be discussed. I am using this for licensing.

2. There is no place for argumentation about invalid licensing.

3. Licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De includes especially the following terms/conditions: "Sie dürfen...” (You are free...) “... Zu den folgenden Bedingungen: Namensnennung - Sie müssen den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.“ End of conditions to this part in licensed CC BY-SA 3.0-De.

There is no room for interpretation about this conditions about attribution: you (third party) must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. As explained under No. 3 the author or licensor is entitled to add the manner of specifying to his licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De. Why else there is written in the license conditions “in der von ihm festgelegten Weise” (in the manner specified by the author)? Specifying where? It has to happen additionally: the author or licensor is entitled objectiv to fix his manner of specifying in addition to CC-license – I did it as explained: mein Name direkt unter das Foto.

5. There is legally not “an elbowroom for interpretation” that this licensing CC BY-SA 3.0-De (by attributing this) has a result as a “not-free” license.

6. Inside Wikimedia/Wikipedia uploading a photograph by allowed CC BY-SA 3.0-De-licensing hat to be the only one point here. I can’t find limitations which explain to me what had to happen - legal or not legal - outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia by third party users.

Third party users are always responsible for their use of photos: for e.g. by law the use of photographs showing something inside of the residence of “Sanssouci” the use in commercial sense is restricted, even as it will be free for non-commercial use.

7. All this is not new and discussed years ago. Add. I spend my photos since years by the same manner of licensing specified by allowed attribution. Without any problems - the problems are only for theory in this discussion, often by subjectiv arguments and not following the written terms.

8. Some people try to discus a discussion, excuse me, and to press a result outside conditions, rights and terms as I explained above, not enough: User:Chaddy changed without any authorizing my licensing terms of my photo: [Linz Neuer Dom], free Wikipedia?

9. Strange discussions and doings without reading the terms as written? Deletion questions without legal basics, not reasonable discussions as “not-free” without reflections to given conditions, this way it feels for me as a discrimination of an author of photographs which is using legal and proposed licensing by Wikimedia, not more and for sure not less.

10. Otherwise the right to use a licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0 as explained has to be deleted in Wikimedia/Wikipedia. This is in total another point.

Feel free - best wishes -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To item 8: I reverted the change of User:Chaddy because I agree that you (the copyright holder) have the right to define the license in the way you like. Wikimedia/Wikipedia has the duty to observe your restricted license. Wikimedia/Wikipedia, however, has to right to decide whether this license is considered as free or not free according to the rules of Wikimedia/Wikipedia. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here may be one of translation -- either in the translation of the license into German (which I don't read) or in Wolfgang Pehlemann's translation into English. The English In the manner specified by the author means attributing with certain words, that is "Photograph by Wolfgang Pehlemann", or "Image taken by Wolfgang Pehlemann", or "Photograph courtesy of Wolfgang Pehlemann", or anything similar. It does not mean that the place and style of attribution can be specified. If that were permitted, then the author could require that the attribution must be a certain size, in a certain color, in a certain type face, or in a certain place, all of which would make the image impossible to use in some environments.
The whole theory behind the CC licenses is to make images easy to use in a variety of contexts. Consider use in a book. Almost all books have a consistent method of showing attributions -- they are either under the image, on an adjacent page if the image is a full page bleed, or collected on one page, usually at the back of the book. They are all the same size, in the same type face, and in the same color. Wolfgang Pehlemann's license might require his images to be attributed differently from all others in the book. It also makes it impossible to use one of his images in a full page bleed. If all the authors of all the images in the book did the same, then the image editor would have to pay attention to each different rule, which would be very difficult and would make the design of the pages much more difficult, in addition to looking sloppy.
The same arguments apply to the web -- it is much easier to lay out a web page if attributions are on the click through, not immediately under the image. That is one reason that it is policy on WP:EN (and other WPs, I guess) that we do not put attributions under the image. We are told that Wolfgang Pehlemann accepts that for WP -- but the same problem is true for all other web sites.
I should add that it is certainly Wolfgang Pehlemann's right to put any license that he wants on his images. However, it is also Wikimedia Commons right to say that a license which goes beyond CC in specifying the place, size, typeface, or color of the attribution is unacceptable and that, therefore, we cannot host images with his license.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the language issue: The German translation of the license doesn't make it as clear as the English original. Thats why some people think that they can make their own interpretations.
The correct assumption would be: Anything that is not forbidden or stated clearly by the license is allowed by the re-users.
The faulty assumption is: Anything that is not forbidden or stated clearly by the license can be defined by the copyright holder.
-- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It means..." and so on?! Interpretations?! Suggestions?! Implementations?! We close our eyes, so that we can't read what cc-by-sa-3.0 makes to an elementary part of this licensing? There is not only one other term in Wikimedia's proposed cc-by-sa-3.0-De-license than that it is explicitly allowed to require an attribution of the name of the author in the manner he specified. Basicly it was so in 2008, and it stays so up to today. - A thousands of additional words cannot change this licensing as given and proposed by Wikimedia/Wikipedia, sorry -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk)

Yes... you are not understanding what "manner" means in the license. It means you can specify the text of the credit, but does not include the ability to specify the placement of the credit, I'm sorry. The CC-BY-SA license explicitly allows licensees to implement (i.e. choose the placement of) the credit in any reasonable manner. This is the last paragraph of section 4(c). The license has always been that way, and you are correct, nothing can change that wording in the license. I believe the German version of that part of the license is Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden. Your restriction serves to override and actually alter that part of the license, meaning it is no longer the CC-BY-SA license but a custom, non-free alteration. You are the author, so you control the license to your works, and we are trying to figure out if the placement of the credit is important enough to you that you do not want your photos here if you cannot specify the placement of the credit. There are two choices -- you can actually license it under CC-BY-SA by removing the placement restriction (or changing it to a suggestion instead of a requirement), or otherwise the license is considered non-free and does not conform to Commons:Licensing, meaning (and I really don't want this) that we would have no choice but to delete them. I know your placement restriction seems reasonable but there are many situations where it is not, including on Wikipedia itself. If it is OK to implement the credit in a different manner (by clicking through to the image page) on Wikipedia, then it *must* be OK for *everyone else* to do that as well. That is what a free license means. You can't give that permission to Wikipedia only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the wording of the license in different languages, in this case the German version, i translated your cited part. In a very close translation it means: "The necessary indications, after this paragraph 4.c), can be made in every appropriate form/manner." So it is more less the exactly same wording inside the German translation. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carl, clear as usual. Again, Wolfgang, -- the issue is not what the license says, the issue is what Commons policy is. Commons will not host an image that requires attribution on the same page, or an attribution written in pink, or in 36 point type, or in any way that may be different from all the other attributions in the book or magazine or web page. That is part of free use. So, either you change the requirement on all of your images, or Admins, including me, will begin deleting them. We will regret it, but we will do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--- "Commons will not host an image that requires attribution on the same page" Please do not mistake what you wish with what really is consent in our project. Wikimedia Commons is actually hosting masses of images with the additon Attribution of this image to the author ... is required in a prominent location near to the image. (i.e. Diliff's, Kuebi's, THWZ's, PS-2507's and others'). And we have a lot more of this kind of explanatory user texts on Commons: near the photo, directly at the image (direkt am Bild) and so on. And mine has also been kept. Authors can write whatever they want; in the end only the legal code of the licence counts. --Martina talk 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is a good time that we stop with this bullshit. But on the other hand: Did you follow your own links? Most of the pages are written as "wish from the author" in a not restrictive/enforced way, which isn't an issue. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has unfortunately been an issue with a number of authors (if you note, User:Fir0002/5D 400 was edited for precisely this reason). We probably haven't seen all the others. Yours is perfectly fine; you can attempt to explain the license and it only specifies the credit text anyways. Nothing wrong with those. If the conditions are labeled as merely explanatory sections for the legal code, that helps too, as it makes clear the legal code (allowing any reasonable placement) is the only legally-binding text (although it would be a poor explanation, seeming to require one type of placement when in fact others are allowed). However, when something like this is done, which appears to be an additional condition for re-use, it actually contradicts part of the CC-BY-SA license itself. That becomes every bit as binding, legally, as the legal code does. And since it conflicts with a part of the legal code, it will actually take precedence, legally. License conditions like that actually mean that Wikipedia itself (which does not place the credit near the image, unless you consider a click-through "near", which may be the case) is not following the terms, and in reality is committing copyright infringement (unless it is fair use). There have actually been attempts to force Wikipedia to credit images on the article page, using conditions like this. Permission for credit implementations like that cannot be Wikipedia-only; everybody must be allowed to do it that way (or other reasonable ways). While it's terrible that it may now affect lots of images, it is a real problem, and letting all of these go will only cause it to get worse. These are always uncomfortable situations, and have not always ended well, but allowing non-free conditions because it is too painful to argue isn't a great approach either. I would definitely like a good way to explain all this better -- those extra conditions can very much have a real legal effect, as they change the legal code of the license the author is giving. Legally, authors are not restricted to the CC-BY-SA legal code -- they can alter as they see fit and give any kind of a license they want; it is merely a Commons (and Wikimedia-wide) rule that we only accept "free" licenses, and an altered CC-BY-SA license is in most cases not going to be free. We can't change such a license to what we want it to be; we can only either keep or delete. If the author agrees to be bound by the CC-BY-SA legal code and nothing else, then great -- we can edit the explanations to be more accurate. But otherwise it feels like we are changing the actual license against the author's wishes, which we absolutely cannot do. Most of these conditions are (understandable) misinterpretations of the CC legal code, but they have legal consequences which should not be ignored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I would also interpret the licence terms ("In the manner specified by the author") as covering the various aspects of the attribution, and not only the wording. If it only applies to the wording, it should be clearly stated. I must say as well that I don't see images whit somewhat complex attributions as "non-free", though the freedom degree of those images is certainly diminished. There is no black and white here, when one requires attribution, the freedom degree is already diminished as well. If there is a problem with the licence wording, it should be resolved before starting deleting images that comply to that licence. In this specific case, I don't believe this image in particular should have been deleted in those grounds.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. (I already stated this above) Anything that is not directly enforced by the license is up to the re-user. Any extension in a more restrictive way creates a new license that can be called: CC-BY-SA-except-for-one-part or CC-BY-SA-with-further-restriction. Such kind of licenses aren't allowed by our policies for good reasons. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking here about "exceptions-to-one-part" nor "further restrictions". The image continues to be free to everyone, only the attribution bit changes, and that is covered by the licence. Look, the licence says that for the manner of attribution, we must refer to the author specifications. It doesn't say it's only about the wording, as is pretended here. Nor says the licence that such manner of attribution is up to the re-user, I don't read this anywhere. Quite the opposite, it directly says that it's up to the author, not the re-user. If there is a problem with that licence, please solve it before starting deleting images based on twisted interpretations of words that are not there.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exact sentences from 4.c) are:
"You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: [...]"
"[...] The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, [...]"
There is no word about how a re-user has to implement the copyright notices. This is up to the re-user. But it has to be reasonable for the medium used. Thats all. The only logical consequence is, that a author can't add additional restrictions, while accepting to release an image under a plain CC-BY-SA license at the same time. In case he releases the image under CC-BY-SA he agrees with this terms of re-usage, that are allowing anyone to choose the appropriate method to mention the credits. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now fully understand your point. I apologize for having missed that part of the licence. I hope Wolfgang Pehlemann will understand it as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you only read the license that far. Further down in the legal code, it makes the clear that "the credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner", thus it distinguishes the implementation (i.e. location) from the manner. Conditions like these effectively override that part of the license, legally, and are a problem. They are a real-life problem for Wikipedia itself, let alone anywhere else which puts credits in different places; it is (perhaps unintentionally) restricting usage to only those situations where credits near the image are OK. In this case, it specifies "below" even -- so if you want it vertically up the right hand side, sorry, can't do that. If you want to use it on a wiki, with a click-through license page and credit, sorry, can't do that. If you want to use it on a postcard with the credit on back, sorry, nope. If you want to use it in a book, where the credits are in their own section at the front or back (very very common), then nope, that can't be done either. Want to use it in a collage? Stick the credit right in the middle of the collage then, possibly ruining the aesthetics, or don't use it. The idea of a free license is to not restrict things like this; even if it may seem reasonable, it often isn't. People seeing "CC-BY-SA" will often assume they have the right to put the credit in their normal place, which they should, and if that clause has been effectively eliminated from the license then it can be a huge restriction on re-use -- entirely against the "free" concept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. I was also reading here that no technical limitations should be placed on the content, and in this case a technical limitation is effectively placed on the image. The wording of the licence should be clarified, nevertheless, as at first sight seems that you can indeed specify the manner of attribution in more than the wording. Incidentally, I came to think what would happen if someone abuses of the wording, demanding it to be attributed to "whoever uses this image is a clown", Håimsøg Åay or some other joke.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can specify the things mentioned at the beginning of section 4.c). That means the wordings of your attribution, just because that is what the re-user has to use inside the credits. What you can't specify without extending the license is anything else. Otherwise the re-user had to follow the rules of the extension and not the original license. Both together means: Any additional restriction made by the author will create in a new agreement between him and the re-users. But it isn't a CC-BY-SA license anymore. It is exactly the same as if someone would write CC-BY-SA+100$. We surely don't want this, so we can't allow such an gray zone. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I asked for a fair and objective judgement of the licensing. Done?
1. For licensing my photos I used cc-by-sa-3.0-De proposed by WMF during upload of a photo.
2. This allows especially licensing by cc-by-sa De under “Namensnennung” (credit of the author's name) by re-users.
3. This allows further (by cc-by-sa De) on the point: “Sie müssen den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.“ (You (re-user) must attribute the name of authors/right holder in the manner specified by him (author))
4. I did not another licensing. This is exactly allowed and so there is no change in licensing to “not-free”.
5. Result: when license allows attribution in the way specified by the author then this will be added to the license for sure – where else this specifying can happen than additional?!

Most of the discussions here has a reflection to a question, why this cc-by-sa allows an attribution – but not to my simple licensing as especially admitted by this cc-by-sa-3.0-De.
I think here are people busy with encyclopaedic work. I'll wait what kind of decision we get. I think I can expect a correct decision and not a view to wishful thinking.
“You only can hold out to a defendant what he did” - and not what others could do.

File:Wolfsburg Volkswagen Logo auf Verwaltungsgebäude Foto Wolfgang Pehlemann Photo IMG 0138.jpg
for e.g. Volkswagen

I feel, here some people wants to start a problem, which is not to find in the world. I am uploading photos since 2008 by this licensing (as discussed years ago) and a thousand times my photos are used by re-users (especially my aerial photos and further my VW-, BMW- and LH-photos re-used with ref. to business news) – there was not only one problem or claim in the meantime. At all print media and websites I've seen the re-users are free without paying one cent, but spending attributions for normal.
So I believe I have to feel free to work in the WMF as others.
Or let me know that I've to stop with free Wikipedia. And for sure, I've no problems with a decision for deletion of all my approx. 400 photos, when this decision will be based on such discussion far away from right to license as proposed by WMF during uploading a photo.
-- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the other comments? If you are releasing an image under CC-BY-SA, then you have no right to define the placement/style/kind of the credits, since this can be decided by the re-user corresponding to the used media [read 4.c) of the license]. Additional restrictions interfere with the rights of the re-users you granted them with this license. So you released them under a CC-BY-SA + something else license, which is not allowed.
  • The only thing you can do: Removing the further restrictions.
  • The only thing we can do: Deleting the images if further restrictions remain.
I hope this makes it clear, even if it was stated multiple times above. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang, to be fair and objective: who was telling you that in der von ihm festgelegten Weise means that you are allowed to specify the location and not only the wording? Is this your personal interpretation, did you get some legal advice, or did some other users say that this is allowed? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm asking for a fair and objective reading too. If you agree with the CC-BY-SA license, then you also agree that: Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden.' Do you agree with that? Since I can't speak German, what is your interpretation of that? The English version is pretty clear though. You can't agree to that statement and then impose a restriction which conflicts with it, which is the basic problem. The last thing we want is for you to stop contributing, so we need to come to an understanding of what the license actually says (in full). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All was said, Mr. Lindberg, but with respect to your trying another way: I wants to work in the WMF to be pleased (and not spending my time to Mr. NeoUrfahraners requested discussions with never ending statements).
May I feel free to spend my time better here? Or working to be pleased here? Or here?
I need no further discussions to discuss the next discussion. My idea was adding some more photos to WMF as done since 2008, not less and not more.
But it seems not a good idea for all involved people here, if you can understand, Mr. Lindberg. Best wishes -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one forces you to contribute to this project. No one want's you to not contribute to this project. But if you want to contribute, then you will have to follow the rules. Putting on pressure to leave, if your wishes aren't fullfilled, is not the way it works. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 14:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do what you want. There is no pressure - there is only one rule: your rule. -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ones pressuring other contributors are you Niabot and your co-campaigner NeoUrfahraner, not Wolfgang Pehlemann. He contributed >170 quality images since 2008. There were never any real-world problems with them, except your activist-generated "problems". Checking for the remaining 10-20 percent copyvios among our 10 mio files would be far more productive than pestering valuable contributors. The 40,000 characters wasted in this discussion might have been used better for wikipedia articles. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only pressure I put is that I want to clarify the rules. If we agree that the rules allows additional restrictions, it will be fine for me, and if we agree that the rules forbit additional restrictions, it will also be fine for me. But if the rules remain unclear, much more characters and energy will be wasted in the future. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't create the problem. Its the missunderstanding of the license that lead to this issue. No image needs to be deleted if Wolfgang is willing to change his liscensing to an actual CC-BY-SA, as 99% of our contributors do. That he wants the attribution closer to the image can remain as a bidding to the reusers, but it can't be enforced in the current way or with the current wording. A little bit of insight and we wouldn't need to dicuss anymore. Thats all. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"...the current wording. A little bit of insight..." - I'm citing you, Mr. Niabot. Please, but more of this: Mr. Niabot, please you are going on and going on - I said to you qiet and a little bit less, but clearly as above, you wish there were only your rules.
And just a few minutes ago I read the same: your rules. You didn't understand my (a little bit quiet) words. Take a look into a mirror, Mr. Niabot.
Here is a mirror of your own words as above to others in this community:

"Then it is a good time that we stop with this bullshit. But on the other hand: Did you follow your own links? Most of the pages are written as "wish from the author" in a not restrictive/enforced way, which isn't an issue. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)"

For sorry, your words, your thinking, your feeling, your doing sometimes against people, where you must take another respect for sure, should be far away from Netiquette in the WMF, I miss in your words any respect against other people here. Using "bullshit" without any excuse to others, it's a disqualification with ref. to talk about rules - and in this question you've not only one second an understanding for an argument about written terms and conditions, sorry. I told to all people here, and if you read it then for you too, that I'm in an age of 64 years old, and I resume: there is indeed no excuse to me from your side with ref. to your discussions with your attack using "bullshit" as cited. When your stile, your thinking and your egoism is this what WMF means, then I stop without pressure, but I'm ashamed for you. But I think you can't realize your own words as cited on the piont. Learn to listen to other people, sorry for this directly words, but it seems to me, it's time to tell you this about your own stile here in WMF.
-- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish that "my rules" are followed. I wish that the rules of the WMF, Free Media and the Creative Commons License are followed. I wish that that free media is created, shared and put to good use. But all without creating snares for the reusers. Saying that you are willing to contribute while laying out traps (bending the license, adding your own and wrong interpretations) is contradictory. This kind of behavior is rightfully called "blullshit" by myself.
You don't need to repeat steadily that you uploaded # images or that you are much older then myself. This has no relevance to me at all. Since everyone/every contributer/every user should be treated equal. There are no exceptions. Neither for you or for me.
PS: There is also no need to get personal. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang, the people above have a point, though I, as Turélio, don't believe it to be of some utter importance. Could you please rephrase your licence so that it would cover the exceptions where the direct placement of attribution below the image is not feasible? It would end this whole, rather unfortunate, issue.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely don't want this to get confrontational. There are indeed worse copyvios around for sure, but at the moment these are effectively Wikimedia-only permission files, which are still problems. It does seem there is something of a language issue, as I do not entirely understand Mr. Pehlemann's response -- he may very well be saying he just wants to do whatever WMF needs to host the images. On the "manner" issue though, Creative Commons itself has a FAQ which describes it better:
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:
  • They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
  • They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
That is the interpretation from the Creative Commons folks themselves, which seems quite consistent with the legal code. We are mainly asking to limit the requirements to those above items. You can certainly ask for particular placement though as a preferred way of doing it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean, you would be satisfied if Wolfgang Pehlemann inserts the word preferably, thus preferably directly at the image? And that's it, image restored and discussion finished, no more going on with tons of discussions? And in the same moment you accept several thousands of images that require attribution in a prominent location near to the image? Obviously I need somebody to teach me logic fundamentals. --Martina talk 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would do it. Lot of wrangling over that one word, but... it changes things quite a bit :-) I think people copied Fir0002's template, which used to have that "near" wording, and yes those all *should* be changed (as Fir0002's was). You could at least interpret the definition of "near" to claim compliance with that condition in most reasonable circumstances, but it would be better to use terminology actually in the CC license if possible. The specification of "directly below" does not leave much room for interpretation; that is a very specific condition and very little room to claim compliance with Wikipedia's click-on-the-image approach. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you want to change the wording for this one image just "quite a bit" and do not want to touch or delete all the other xx thousands? --Martina talk 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it on this one image will get this one image undeleted. If the same or similar conditions exist on other images, they should be changed as well, otherwise they may get nominated for deletion again under the same rationale. I have not gone through all of the user's uploads to see if the same text is there (from memory some recent ones did not contain it). Adding just that one word ("preferably") will alter the interpretation considerably, enough that it no longer conflicts with the CC legal code and so there is no more free-or-not-free problem, and no reason for us to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "preferably" (which German translation: möglichst/vorzugsweise/wünschenswerterweise?) for all additions (position, file names etc ) to the CC licence would also be okay for me. I still hope that by far the most copyright holders will prefer to add this word instead of having their images deleted. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, though IANAL, I would read out of CC's FAQ comment that if a copyright holder requires things he/she is not able to require per the CC license, these requirements would simply be (legally) invalid, which actually reflects the long-held community opinion on Commons. I don't see that such invalid requirements do either invalidate the CC license itself nor could base a litigation for infringement of copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL either, but I do think it would be a legal problem in real life. Authors can license their copyright (or not) as they see fit with any conditions they like; there is nothing whatsoever wrong about taking the CC license, and then modifying it a bit, and calling it your license for this photo. It may not meet the definition of "free", but that is more arbitrary -- there is nothing legally invalid about the license whatsoever. You can't call it CC-BY-SA anymore since it is different, but it would still be a valid license. Unless maybe since CC-BY-SA is claimed by name, and some of the language in there could be used to invalidate any extra conditions. Basically, the situation is that you have conflicting clauses in the legal code versus the very specific requirements spelled out by the author... in that case, I believe that legally the specific conditions from the author would take precedence over the more boilerplate CC legal code (James woodward mentioned something like this, buried somewhere above in this discussion). The way the license reads to me right now, is that credit placement directly below the image is an absolute requirement for use, and anything else would be using the image without permission. He appears to give Wikipedia itself a waiver on that, but... Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as it seems that we all are NAL and as this question, thanks to our campaigners, might decide over the fate of >30,000 images (likely the high quality type) on Commons, wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask WMF's new legal counsel for an expert opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, couldn't hurt. This is not the first time we have had this discussion here though... they have generally all gone this way and they often don't end well, unfortunately. I think Fir0002 stopped contributing, which was a shame. In some cases the conditions were added well *after* they were clearly licensed under a regular CC-BY[-SA]; in those cases the conditions usually just get removed but that can still get confrontational, usually getting heated and ugly as each side is sure their interpretation is right. The CC FAQ linked above makes it more clear, but if the counsel could better state the legal ramifications of such additional restrictions, that may help in this and future cases. Or, if we are completely wrong about all this, maybe we are just making much ado about nothing (and have been for years). It's not the first time something like this has caused issues though -- there was something vaguely analogous in the software world a few years back; see here. That first occurred in 2004 and there are still related battles over it even today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, could you eventually draft our questions to the legal counsel? (should not be restricted to the current "case", but possibly include past/different scenarios, if you remember any) --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've filed a rfc to the legal counsel of WMF about the most important questions that surfaced in this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not fair if we give the copyright holder the impression that his additions are legally vaild while we are thinking that his additions are invalid. This means that we have to inform the copyright holder aboout our concerns and get an agreement with the copyright holder. Otherwise one could say that we "stole" some rights from the copyright holder. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"to inform the copyright holder about our concerns" is something alltogether different from what you and Niabot are currently doing. In past cases that such credit requirements became known or caused questions, it was communicated to the copyright holder that we assume requirements beyond the CC license to be invalid. So, this would be nothing new. If a copyright holder would still cling to these credit requirements it would be his/her "problem" (of invalidity), but would not require deletion of images from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was informed multiple times before this deletion request to change the wording of his addition to the license. Every time he opposed to make any change. After that i started the deletion request. He opposed again during the deletion discussion. He did as well in this discussion. He must be more then informed. :::::Keeping images with inaccurate licensing is not an option for me. Just because we are not surely on the legal side. May a judge decide that the claims of the uploader are valid. Then the WMF or the reuser is in trouble, despite we told the author that this additional restrictions have no relevance.
We make sure that we don't violate rules and do no go beyond legal borders (step into grayzones) every time. I just remember the cases of freedom of panorama and cars/trains/busses in germany. To be safe, the images will be deleted. Why should we react in another way in this case? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: We have to assume that if the copyright holder insists on his restrictions, then he thinks that they are legally valid (en:WP:AGF). If we tolerate such restrictions, this means that we either create the impression that we agree that the restriction is legaly valid, or we "steal" the rights from the copyright owner. Both is dishonest, independent from whatever any judge would decide in such a case. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wolfgang's comment on his discussion page, it seems that he contributed under wrong assumptions all the time. This I think is the real waste of time: nobody told him what rights he will abandon when he offers his work in Wikipedia. We have to clearly inform the copyright holders about this, otherwise we will create a lot of disapointment. I like the images from Wolfgang very much, but for sure I do not want to "steal" them. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a task of real importance

For all good-willing participants of the above discussion who want to take care of a somewhat more real problem on Commons, I suggest to take a look at our CC-license message boxes, that should inform re-users about the license terms. For example, let’s take the most commonly used CC-BY-SA 3.0 license:

  • w:en:Creative Commons

attribution share alike

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

What conditions does it present to the re-user? Attribution and, in this case, Share-Alike

Looks fine, as we are accustomed to it. But is it correct? No, it is not. As the legally binding license text clearly states in § 4.a., 2nd sentence:

  • You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.

(I don’t want to claim unwarranted credit for this finding, as we were notified about this by a user on COM:FORUM already 2 months ago![4])

Without complying to this third condition of the license, the use of CC-BY-xx-licensed works is not allowed/unlicensed/illegal in all or at least most cases of use. However, neither our english nor our german message box for CC-BY-SA 3.0 does make re-users aware of this. I didn’t check other language versions, but likely they have the same problem. By this incomplete information we expose re-users to litigation for infringement of copyright.

Is it relevant? Well, it seems so. Our Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0 contains 1,450,512 files, Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated has 1,035,467 files. However, the problem is the same with our message boxes for CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-SA-2.0, Cc-by-3.0, Cc-by-2.5, Cc-by-2.0, etc., though I checked only the english language versions.

Anybody to take charge of?

With an advance apology as this may border to WP:POINT. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply include a resumed version of 4a in the license text, under "under the following conditions" as a third point?--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be my same thought on this. ([ii] title if supplied, [iii] to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work) -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: But shouldn't this be discussed on another page like COM:VP? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Darwin, it's not that easy, because as per this reply to my question at the CC forum, it seems that "uses that don't include distribution or performance don't trigger the URI requirement". So, first we have to define which uses do "trigger the URI requirement" and which do not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the attribution requirement to me, though as mentioned I guess it is not required in all situations that the attribution is. Our tags follow the summary CC themselves give... not sure we really need to go further. There are quite a few nuances in the legal code not explained in the summary; making it too complex sort of defeats the purpose. Also note that a simple label like "CC-BY-SA-3.0" qualifies as a URI (don't need a full URL link, necessarily). So... I don't think we need it, but if there is a good, concise way of wording it without getting into too much legalese, it could be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"label like "CC-BY-SA-3.0" qualifies as a URI" - any source for this claim? --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at w:Uniform_Resource_Identifier a notable, if not reliable source, a URI can be a URN or URL. A URN is simply the unequivitable name of some resource. Can "CC-BY-SA-3.0" mean anything else any more than say an ISBN number could represent anything other than a particular publication? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems I had wrongly equated URI with Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in my mind. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the legal code for CC-BY-SA-3.0-de, which is originally in German, CC seems to have a different opinion, as the code says in 4a "Sie müssen dabei stets eine Kopie dieser Lizenz oder deren vollständige Internetadresse in Form des Uniform-Resource-Identifier (URI) beifügen." (italics by me; following transl. by me: You must always include a copy of this license or the complete internet address in form of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).) This is indeed a marked difference to CC-BY-SA-3.0, where the same part says "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work ..."[5]. This tells me that our license message problem is even more complicated that I had initially thought. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


After fixing that (consensually) on de-WP I thematized this issue in February 2009 (!) on Commons:Licensing and Commons:Forum. --Martina talk 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion above, I feel urged to express my opinon, too, but I must do it in german, because of my limited abilities in expressing my thoughts in english. Maybe, someone wants to translate? Als wichtig sehe ich die Frage, ob die ergänzenden Texte von Wolfgang Pehlemann in den Lizenzen der Fotos in den letzten Jahren schon einmal Anlass zu Problemen zwischen den Nutzern der Fotos und Wolfgang Pehlemann gegeben haben. Dies war nach dessen Aussage nicht der Fall. Also gibt es kein praktisches sondern nur ein theoretisches Problem. Und bei dem theoretischen Problem geht es um nichts anderes als um das Prinzip. Nach meiner Lebenserfahrung machen die Leute, die auf Prinzipien pochen, den Menschen das praktische Leben einfach nur schwer. Wir können diese Diskussion gerne beenden mit der Wiederherstellung des gelöschten Fotos und die Diskussion nur dann noch einmal beginnen, wenn das erste praktische Problem zwischen einem Bildbenutzer und Wolfgang Pehlemann auftauchen sollte. Is this a fine suggestion? --Brühl (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davon halte ich sehr wenig wenn es um Rechtsstreitigkeiten geht. Lass doch mal einen ein Bild von Wolfgang korrekt nach CC-BY-SA verwenden, aber gegen die Einschränkungen verstoßen, da er sie gutgläubig übersehen hat. Können wir sicher sein, dass der Nutzer dann nicht von Wolfgang verklagt wird? Es muss jetzt nicht einmal Wolfgang selbst sein, wobei ich ihm das nicht einmal unterstellen möchte. Dennoch würde wir wohl kaum davon erfahren und dass so etwas sehr schnell gehen kann, dass hat Martina ja eindrucksvoll präsentiert.
Zugleich verwenden wir überall das Prinzip auf einer möglichst sicheren Seite zu sein. Sei es Panoramafreiheit, Beiwerk, usw.. Warum gehen wir hier zur Liebe der Nachnutzer, wovon es ja durchaus die meisten ehrlich meinen, nicht auf Nummer sicher? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beim nächsten Anwurf gegen meine Person mit Falschdarstellungen gehen wir auf die hiesige VM. Ich habe überhaupt gar nichts "eindrucksvoll präsentiert". Was du zu meinem Rechtsstreit von 2009 im Internet findest (und weiter reichen deine "Kenntnisse" hierzu offensichtlich nicht), wimmelt von Halbwahrheiten und Falschdarstellungen und hatte - ich schrieb das neulich schon, du könntest es also inzwischen besser wissen - mit "direkt am Bild" herzlich wenig zu tun. Versuch mal, einfach bei der Sache zu bleiben. --Martina talk 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich schrieb aber auch bereits, dass ich darauf gar nicht abziele, sondern auf die Möglichkeit auch wegen solcher Nebensächlichkeiten wie bei Wolfgang (nicht nur auf ihn bezogen) Probleme zu bekommen und das die Konsequenzen nicht minder bitter für die Beteiligten sein können. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rechtliche Probleme kann - theoretisch - jeder Nachnutzer bekommen, der den Credit an der falschen Stelle anbringt oder den Link auf den Lizenztext nicht anbringt (sondern z.B. auf "CC-by-sa" abkürzt oder nur auf den Deed verlinkt). Dafür ist es völlig egal, was ein einzelner Autor unter seine Bilder schreibt. Die mir bekannten Fotografen, die massenweise Nachnutzer rechtlich und finanziell belangen bzw. sogar von einem Anwalt mit risikolosen "Flatratevereinbarungen" belangen lassen, stellen keine explizite Aufforderung zur Namensnennung direkt am Bild. Fazit: Schutz der Nachnutzer heißt, ihnen möglichst genau zu erklären, was sie zu tun haben, damit sie die Inahlte sicher verwenden können. Und genau nicht, diese Hinweise zu löschen. --Martina talk 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe nicht darum gebeten die Hinweise zu entfernen, sondern die weitergehenden Restriktionen. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuation

List the thousands of images and i will fill in the deletion requests, bidding the authors to change their mind or wording. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you several links above. But okay. Time is nothing worth. attribution required in a prominent location near to the image (9.020 images), Attribution: I want my name ... near the photo or on a page associated to the image (27.800 images), directly at the image (16 images / there also is no wish or preferably or whatever less binding wording) Go ahead requesting deletion for all of them. Starting with the few last ones could enhance your chances to accomplish your mission. --Martina talk 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)/ edited 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for feedback about this special case on info@creativecommons.org and the creative commons mailinglist cc-community@lists.ibiblio.org and will come back with their feedback on this topic. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia policies do not request to publish a file under a specific license like cc-by-sa-3.0. Wikimedia policies merely generally request a free content license. The "by" attribute of cc-by-sa is a restriction, but this does not make the license unfree. In the same way, the requirement indicated by Wolfgang Pehlemann does does not make the license unfree. As such, the requirements of a free license are met even if the restrictions should exceed those required by the cc-by-sa licence. Therefore, I cannot see a violation of the Wikimedia policies in the deleted image and thus no reason for a deletion. The image should be restored.
Imho, the question whether this restriction is legally valid is of a second importance. This, however, is the risk of the uploader who by his own will put his images under the cc-by-sa licence. There is nothing "stolen" from an author who puts his images under a free license. However, in the past re-users appear to have respected Wolfgang Pehlemanns restrictions. There is no real problem with these files, only a hyptothetical which might arise (or not) in the future. This is not a reason for deletion either.
I therefore vote for Undelete. --Bjs (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the license of this image is valid after your argumentation? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This, however, is the risk of the uploader who by his own will put his images under the cc-by-sa licence". When you are saying this, your are not honest to the uploader. We have to explain our uploaders what it really means when they put their images under a free licence. Since your are speaking German: Please read Wolfgang comments on his Wolfgang comments on his German discussion page. For years, nobody told him the truth, and all his images were contributed under wrong assumptions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "stolen" is of course not the best word. In German I would say "Wir haben uns die Rechte an diesen Bildern durch Täuschung erschlichen". Could be something like "We obtained the rights on these images by malicious fraud". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment In addition to Bjs ("the question whether this restriction is legally valid is of a second importance") I'd like to give an information from one famous and very often cited site about image copyright (Germany) which says also for images under CC: "Kennzeichnung in unmittelbarer Nähe des Bildes" ("marking straight near the image"). That's the current way in at least the German picture market and thus fully according to CC-by-sa 3.0 de, that Wolfgang choosed for his images. --Martina talk 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it would be handled inside Germany that way, then there is still no need to do it the same way for re-users from other countries. Thats why the license makes no restriction to the "how", beside the notice that it must be reasonable to the media. Beside that, the linked blog article doesn't go into the deeper facts and doesn't make it clear what is meant with "unmittelbarer Nähe des Bildes". -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The German version of the license also contains the text Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden, so that right is explicitly given to licensees, and any conditions otherwise imposed cannot conflict with that (at least if you are claiming the work is actually licensed by cc-by-sa de 3.0, and not a modification). It's possible that site is misinterpreting the license too, but "near" wording is at least more vague and could be interpreted to allow clicking through, or placement on a different page in a book, etc. If they mean that it should be visible on the same page, then that probably conflicts with the explicit permission already given in the license above. For reasons like this, I would prefer to not invent wordings that significantly stray from Creative Commons ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's quite obvious that the author does not understand the licence, at least he doesn't understand the difference between the deed and the licence. (Points 3 and 4 of his statement). Martina says: "Wolfgang Pehlemann fully accepts the indirect credit inside Wikimedia projects" which i understand as: He accepts it for Wikimedia projects but not for other usages. In the end this means we have some kind of a "only for Wikipedia" licence which does not qualify as free.

Besides this specific issue this case touches some more general issues. People are often juxtaposing the impact of the CC licence to the licensor with the impact to the licensee. Martina says "Authors can write whatever they want; in the end only the legal code of the licence counts." which is a good example for what i'm suggesting. While it is true that authors "can write whatever they want" assuming that the presence of a CC boilerplate will limit the freedom of the licensor in any way is a mistake. The licensor and only him/her chooses the appropriate licence. If the licensor chooses that his work shall be obtainable as CC-BY-SA+further conditions this is perfectly fine. You can licence your work CC-BY-SA for all except al-Qaida members and that's fine. No Al-Qaida member will be able to claim that "in the end only the legal code of the licence counts".

Martina also claims that the additional conditions are just a "kind of explanatory user texts" but that isn't true either. If we look at the wording of the additional conditions we will find words like "require" and "want" etc. which do not look very "explanatory" but demanding. Even if we credit the wording to any form of language barrier this won't help anybody in the end. Even if the user intended a just explanatory text in the beginning and changed his mind later, he will be successful in sueing users because the wording is quite clear.

The same applies for the requirement of a (hyperlinked) URL. As discussed above by Turelio, Carl and Tony, CC only requires a URN and nothing else. Therefore by demanding hyperlinked URLs we have the same case of "CC-* + further conditions".

Bjs got the point when he says "Wikimedia policies do not request to publish a file under a specific license like cc-by-sa-3.0." It's a mess that there is no appropriate process for introduction of new licences on commons. Basically, anybody can cobble a personal licence text together. It isn't very astonishing when there is much clamor if those personal licences are contested after years of usage. Bjs has also a valid point with "In the same way, the requirement indicated by Wolfgang Pehlemann does not make the license unfree." In the end, this is a debate about where we will cross the borderline to "unfree". --Wiggum (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations. You brought it up to the point: Which kind of free licenses do we accept and which not?
That everyone would be able to create his custom licenses is a big issue. I uploaded this image as an example yesterday. Everyone should see that "Free License + Own Additions" can easily lead to absurd conditions. Drawing the line what would be allowed and what not would be impossible. One clear solution would be to accept only a set of approved licenses, with no custom additions. This would draw a clean line. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Custom licenses would be open to community discussion and voting. Many types of restrictions are explicitly not allowed (such as denying the license to a certain class of people, or requiring further communication with the author such as notifications of use, etc.) But it's not impossible that there could be other conditions which are OK. Custom licenses are definitely discouraged though, as it is very easy to make mistakes, and there are practical compatibility problems -- any custom license immediately becomes incompatible with CC-BY-SA or any other license, causing derivative works issues in many cases. But, we can't just bar non-standard licenses which are still free just because of convenience. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiggum's post is mostly correct -- the user however specify an additional URL as part of the attribution, provided the URL contains information related to the licensing (i.e. it can't be any URL at all). This is separate from the UR*I* of the CC license itself required for distributions. Custom licenses, provided they are "free", are OK but discouraged. They are a practical problem as they greatly limit the use which can be made in derivative works... in other words, since the license is no longer compatible with CC-BY-SA, works from this author cannot be mixed with actual CC-BY-SA works. But in this situation, the extra condition amounts to a significant restriction on reuse, which in my mind does make it non-free. Wikipedia itself will not be adhering to that condition, which is an immediate problem -- and as you note, we can't keep Wikipedia-only licensed work, which is what this then becomes. This is moreover misleading in that it references CC-BY-SA without making very clear that is is modifying that license with an extra condition. Anyways, yes, I believe the extra condition makes it non-free. It can be used in very particular situations, but really gets in the way of many many others. That's not the idea of "free". Conditions like this have been used to try to force Wikipedia to change their crediting practice, or to try to not allow watermarks to be removed from images, and that kind of thing. The larger problem here is that users fully believe they are within the bounds of the CC-BY-SA license itself, which they are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Commons:Licensing demands: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Wolfgang Pehlemanns image generally meets these policy requirements. What nevertheless clearly can be seen in this discussion is that we are lacking project rules about where exactly the frontier lies between an unbinding wish/explanation/interpretation and a binding requirement set by author's additional texts, and in which cases author's additional texts could eventually make content "not free enough" for Wikimedia project. We will not find a consens about this questions in a single deletion/undeletion request. Unless we do not have a clear guideline for this issue there is no justification for deleting this one image while about 30.000 that have quiet comparable or even more demanding (required) user's texts and stay untouched. --Martina talk 21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Niabot: Yes, custom licenses may become absurd as your example shows. But Wolfgangs requirements are not absurd and can easily be met. It is not a case of a "for wikipedia only" license, either, since Wolfgang permits everyone to use his pics for any purpose free of charge.
I agree it is desirable to clarify more in detail which licences should be allowed on commons. However, I disagree that this should only be specific pre-defined licenses without any additions. This question, however, is of such importance that it cannot be decided in a deletion request of a single image. And as long as additions to pre-defined images are not explicitly excluded by Wikimedia policies, there is no reason to delete Wolfgangs images. --Bjs (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjs: "This question, however, is of such importance that it cannot be decided in a deletion request of a single image". I agree, but up to now we did not find a better place for this discussion. And yes, we should agree on the general policy before we delete Wolfgang's remaining images. But we should not wait too long because the problem becomes worse and worse if we continue with the unclear situation that we currently have. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the detail that this creates new licenses which aren't compatible to each other. In this case it wouldn't be possible anymore to combine this images with other CC-BY-SA licensed images. This is already an issue with the currently allowed or proposed licenses, which would even increase further then needed. Until we have a clear rule what is allowed and what not - so we can draw a sharp and straight line - we should stick to a set of licenses to prevent further damage. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 23:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason to discourage custom licenses, but it does not prevent them altogether. If a license is still free, we should accept it. It's not always perfect, but we look to the definitions at freedomdefined.org to help with the determination. However, it is very easy to add conditions which artificially (and probably accidentally) restrict people's ability to re-use the work, and that often will cross the line. It becomes a community decision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can not (always) easily be met. Wikipedia doesn't meet them, so there is a problem already. It falls down on the "for any purpose" part of freedom -- freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions has some discussion on the matter. This particular condition does significantly impede normal use of the work, in many situations (including Wikipedia itself and more). It seems reasonable at first for the most common use (illustration on a web page), but there are many uses beyond that which are effectively blocked. I gave several examples earlier -- one was to point out it is not possible to use one of his images on a postcard, having the credit on back. It seems rather arbitrary to deny that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It always is possible and quiet common to print the name and the CC licence link directly into/on the image (like a watermark). Freeware, two clicks. So, there is - technically - no need for kicking the attribution somewhere else. --Martina talk 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what is unwanted. Because any re-user from the re-user (viral effect) doesn't have the original anymore, leads to a needles losses in quality over time. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with a requirement to put the credit directly below the photo, it is not possible to use that common method either. But, even if the credit is there, the freedom to make derivative works needs to include the right to remove/crop the credit and place it somewhere else. Authors cannot require the credit to remain in the image either (if they want to release it under a free license). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Martina: "Wolfgang Pehlemanns image generally meets these policy requirements". On other places you said something like "in 99% of the cases". Just to make our different POVs clear: You are always speaking about these 99%, I am always speaking about the remaining 1%. It is no problem for me to admit that in maybe 99% the attribution should appear directly under the photo. The problem is that we also have to consider the special cases where this requirement cannot be met. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 99% of all usages attribution directly at/near to the image is clearly requried. For the last 1% nobody can know for sure what reasonable manner could mean in a single case. That's why I always recommend to reusers attribution as near as possible at the image. --Martina talk 21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't buy that wrong opinion of yours. Which 99% percent, in which country and at what circumstances? This is boundless exaggeration. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly the right one to talk about boundless exaggeration. :-) Again: Have a look at further discussions on de-WP where we gathered more than enough links about picture attribution in Germany, and have a look on WP:WN/M how images from Commons mostly are used. Whe're talking about images licenced under the German CC version so that German law is applicable. --Martina talk 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even after, or because of, german law this are false claims, that got rejected multiple times at de:WP:URF. Stop making false claims without sources. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a couple times, what would your interpretation of Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden be? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether it is 90%, 99% or 99.9%. The question is what to do with the remaining 10%, 1% or 0.1%. Recommendations to reusers are also fine, but on the other hand our contributers must be informed what "free" really means. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that should be done in any case is restricting use of licence templates to cases where the licence applies, without further restrictions. Anything else is misleading, especially where reusers use automated tools to check which images have to be removed or taken special care of. The uploader could be notified that by using one of the standard licences he accepts that licence as is.

In the case under discussion the problem is with the unclear wording in the licence (may be clear to an English speaking lawyer, but not to e.g. me and Pehlemann). The deed is even worse, at least in Swedish. Notifying users that use such extra restrictions and replacing the templates with {{custom licence|cc-by-sa|further restrictions=...}} or something similar would be one partial solution (but I cannot think of any automated way to do this).

--LPfi (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could agree with that. If an author intends to modify a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license it should be very, very clear it is not the same thing, and should not use the standard CC tags. I still think in this case the author thinks he is within the boundaries of the unmodified license though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ends far away from the basics to questioned deletion/undeletion of my photo (it seems there are only interests in WMF-politics for future times, then in the question of allowed/non-allowed licensing during upload of my photo at Wikimedia). So a kind of summary will be needed as follows:

  • Uploading a photograph on Wikimedia there is licensing requested and proposed by WMF with various licenses to add with a click. Why there is during upload process a cc-by-sa-3.0-xx license proposed (this one with name attribution), if not wanted?
  • I did my licensing with this WMF-proposed cc-by-sa-3.0-De license. There is not only one term, that this may not happen.
  • The license cc-by-sa-3.0-De (for name attributions) explained by itself, that author/copyrightholder has the right to define such an additional attribution to this license indeed: You (it means: the re-user) must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (Why this is WMF-proposed, if not wanted?). This has as conclusion, that licensing whis such an additional specifying is in total a guilty licensing and it will be not an invalid licensing.
  • Next point is absolutely: this has to take place ‘’’in the manner specified by the author or licensor’’’. This determination “in the manner” and defined/specified “by the author” is licensors right and cannot be interpretated to re-users right(s), as licensor has given an exact specification/definition! (Only if there’s not an exact specification there could be place for re-users attribution as required further by license conditions, for e.g. 4.c.) This juridical definition is missed in the whole discussion, sorry.
  • In a kind of mixing of arguments in the discussions to seems the Commons License “cc-by-sa-xx” would be a for WMF/WP only – that’s wrong. The Commons License “cc-by-sa-xx” can used by anybody and has to fulfil more (then only interests of WMF/WP) especially to protect copyrightholders work by defined terms and conditions proposed by licensor for the case of re-use-interests. It’s a “no-go” that re-user can fix what’s allowed for a re-use of a photo licensed by “cc-by-sa-xx” with ref. to described attribution specified by the licensor.
  • In the discussion was talked a lot about the constellation between Copyrightholder and re-user – this has nothing to do with legal uploading and legal licensing in the WMF/WP as admitted and explained above. In WMF/WP is following the upload rules an additional attribution not forbidden, a ban rule isn't written – wishful thinking may be another…

So there is no room for a deletion – by juridical points the file must be undeleted. Best wishes -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are still not able to understand the license or your are willingly bend it: "author/copyrightholder has the right to define such an additional attribution". A Joke? He can define the wording, but not the implementation. To choose the implementation is a right granted to the re-user by yourself. Thats what 4.c) is about.
So i question you again: Do you accept 4.c) of the license? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 13:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you didn’t read my third and fourth point. Therefor, I must not agree to that, what you want to have by your opion only. Sorry. -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Creative Commons FAQ:
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:
  • They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
  • They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
That is the interpretation from the Creative Commons folks themselves, which seems quite consistent with the legal code. You can specify items within those bounds. Your interpretation of "manner" contradicts the license itself, later on in section 4(c), which makes clear that the credit can be placed in any reasonable place (and giving some guidelines on "reasonable"). The rest of the discussion is basically what the legal effect is when an author has a condition which directly contradicts the language in the license. In this case, the language being contradicted is "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner" (English version) or "Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden" (German version). If you agree to CC-BY-SA in its entirety, then you agree to that statement as well, and cannot restrict that right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mr. Lindberg, with your FAQ as cited, there are the same problems as with this never-ending-discussion. With ref. to contractual licensing you mentioned in your explanation following points after my first contractual conditions as I explained above, especially under my points three and four.
Licensing is - juridical - a contractual solution, and if licensor proposed a licensing at first under (allowed) additional specifications (as to read in combination with the photo in WMF after upload) and further with the rest (point 4.c is a part of rest) of proposed contractual license conditions, so the re-user has to question himself, will he take it yes or no. And I didn’t proposed another licensing then re-use with attribution “my name directly under the photo” – third-party-re-user don’t must take, it’s very easy. And all the contractual conditions between licensor and re-user are not a question of deletion in the WMF, contractual conditions between third parties can’t be a reason for deletion of legal licensed photos in the WMF.
And a Million of re-users every year can live with an attribution “name under photo”. But all the re-users, especially the re-users which wants to use downloaded files from WMF/WP for commercial works, cannot expect a total free use under protection of proposed licensings. Not for re-use of articles or files from WMF/WP. In the WMF/WP always is said, there may be something correct or wrong. But for any re-use there may be rules under law or terms or conditions or restrictions. WMF/WP cannot guaranty that all this is free! Any re-user is responsible for that, what he want to do (that’s life)!
For e.g. a photographer may take photographs inside Sanssouci in Germany only for non-commercial use without permits from third party. Using this inside Wikipedia it’s a non-commercial use. Using this file for re-users commercial works, the file like this under license cc-by-sa or another is not “free in total”, re-user must ask for an additional non-free-licensing from www.spsg.de! Another: the whole illumination of the Eiffel tower in Paris is completely restricted by special copyrights, another: restriction against free use you have in Belgium by copyright law, further all the freedom-of-panorama-problems in various countries. Free-free-photos unrestricted from WMF/WP and even all around the world: this is wishful thinking – a re-user must inform himself about restricted or forbidden use.
But this way of discussion shows, that we discuss(ed) indeed not a deletion of my photo, but WMF-politics for future times... Mr. Lindberg, this subjective discussion take a lot of time, time we loose. I'm looking to various papers and I see attributions like "Photo:Wikipedia" "Photo:Mr. or Mrs. XY". Our discussion shows opinions for theory, but not a legal problem.
Mr. Lindberg, have a nice evening -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But all the re-users, especially the re-users which wants to use downloaded files from WMF/WP for commercial works, cannot expect a total free use under protection of proposed licensings." Yes this is the crucial point. The re-users expect a free use according to the WMF/WP rules, and WMF/WP can only host files that are free according to their rules. There are already too many external copyright laws to observe, it makes no sense to add some additional internal restrictions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can make contract with the re-users by releasing the image under a free license or you can create your own rules.
  1. Releasing an image under a free license grants everyone the right to reuse the image as stated inside the license, without any further condition.
  2. Releasing an image under another license agreement creates a new license, which is incompatible to other licenses. This means, that you can't claim to release an image under CC-BY-SA 3.0 while adding additional restrictions, which are not part of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license itself.
The result is:
  1. You have to choose between CC-BY-SA 3.0 or Custom License
  2. In case of a Custom License the WMF or the community has to choose if it accepts images under such a license.
  3. In any case: Images released under a Custom License can't be marked to be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Last point: Your images are currently not released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is more than a theoretical question. Last week I ordered a book using the Wikipedia Book creator. This is clearly a commercial usage, since PediaPress will earn some money. As usual in books, the image contributers are not listed directly below the image but in the appendix. Let's hope that the book does not contain any of your images (I did not check all the 400 pages). --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend the uploader use the language "The author requests, but does not require" followed by whatever the hell they want. The author should not offer their own interpretation of the license as though it were legally binding. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I want is this to get heated -- and yes, we seem to be going in circles.
  • You say you chose CC-BY-SA, but to truly do that, you have to agree with everything in the license. This includes allowing anyone to implement the credit in any reasonable manner.
  • The part of the license which says the author can choose the manner of the credit, therefore, does not mean they can specify anything about the implementation, but rather only the content of the credit itself. The FAQ I cited is not mine, it is not WMF's, it is by Creative Commons themselves -- i.e. that is the correct interpretation of their CC-BY-SA license.
  • You then added a condition which is not allowed by the CC-BY-SA license. You are entirely correct that, as the author, you can impose pretty much whatever conditions you like. However, once you do that, you can no longer claim to have licensed the file with CC-BY-SA, but instead are using a custom license.
  • At that point, users (including WMF) have to decide if they can live with the conditions. Yes, attribution in the manner you require is perfectly fine for many users, but not all.
  • Most importantly, the requirement is not OK for WIkipedia, which does not credit images that way. They rely on the CC-BY[-SA] clause that you are not agreeing with. Therefore, we are using it without permission, and against the license. If you say you agree to allow *only* Wikipedia to do that, then we effectively have a "Wikipedia permission-only" license in addition to the one you have listed on the page -- but those have been disallowed for years. You must allow anyone to credit the image in the same way Wikipedia does.
  • A central part of all WMF projects, particularly Commons, is the concept of "freedom". While this concept may seem somewhat arbitrary, it is pretty well-defined (and was not invented by WMF either). Commons policy then is to delete any images which are not available under a "free" license. Since you have a custom license, we need to determine if the license is "free" or not.
  • I don't think it is free, but that could be up for community discussion. Any conditions which do not allow Wikipedia's normal practice (crediting or otherwise) are inherently non-free to me. Your condition imposes significant restrictions for derivative-work situations (i.e. where someone is not just making a copy of the photo, but using the expression in some other work, like maybe a drawing, or collage, etc.) There are many many examples of where the condition is a problem. If you wish to disallow all of those uses, that is your choice, but to me that is "non-free".
  • I think the key point is understanding that your condition is not allowed by the CC-BY-SA license. You may disagree, but that point is made quite clear by the license itself (since the wording on the implementation clearly constrains the meaning of "manner" to matters not involving the implementation), and also their FAQ. If you choose a different interpretation, it is then not licensed with CC-BY-SA and this gets messier.
I'm certainly hoping there is a way we can resolve this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Creative Commons just issued a clarification on this point, which can be found here. As that FAQ states:

Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work?''

No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the means used by a licensee to re-distribute the work. There may be differences based on the format in which the content is re-used. For example, providing attribution to the author when re-distributing information via a blog post may be different than how credit is provided to an author in a video remix. All CC licenses provide that attribution is to be provided in a manner “reasonable to the medium or means” used by the licensee, and for credit to be provided in a “reasonable manner.” This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees – minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.


Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this link and joining the discussion, Geoff. The FAQ still does not answer the two central question in this UR: 1.) Does the licence really get more restricted by additional user texts like attributon directly at the image or do such user texts only have a recommandory, but legally unbinding meaning. 2.) If making the reusage conditions more restrictive - does such an attribution requirement violate our project's guideline (free usage by anybody for any purpose) or is this central requirement for contributions then still met? Or more specific: Is CC-by-sa + a special attribution requirement less free than or still comparable to other accepted licences like, for example, GFDL 1.2.only (verbatim copy of the license document) or the FAL(composed work falls under the same licence what make this incompatible to content under CC licences) --Martina talk 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the text does not explain the license to help the reuser, but instead is written as contract condition, then it is legally binding. In case of Wolfgang we can't assume anymore that this is an accident and not intentional. He released the images only under the condition that the credit is next/under the image. Even if we are not 100% sure how a court would react to this, we have to assume that it might be valid, to ensure the safety of the reusers. In this case we have a completly new license, which is incompatible to any of our current licenses. In short: We should ensure to use as less different licenses as possible to have the best legal options. Anything else would be careless. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting questions. I cannot formally advise on the contruction of the Creative Commons license since WMF is not a party to it. That said, here are some personal thoughts that may be helpful: (1) There is an arguable risk that a court could construe a "required" attribution as a modification of the CC license, in which case the attribution arguably becomes mandatory and the CC license+mandated attribution would no longer be compatible; and (2) although this is a Community decision, I personally believe a mandated attribution is inconsistent in principle with the project's guideline. That said, to avoid taking down too many images, I suggest that the Community take advantage of the new CC clarification in the FAQ, using it as an opportunity to educate our contributors and convince them to substitute preferences for mandates (but, of course, this is a Community decision). Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying image in File:Osama bin Laden (CIA photo).png is, apparently, the subject of several other ongoing deletion attempts 1, 2. Like this speedy deletion the other deletion attempts are all based on the false premise that photo image republishing services never add public domain images to their libraries, and that if an image is available from their library it is a proprietary image and that the service owns the intellectual property rights to that image.

The deleting administrator apparently thought the image was a copyright violation because they saw an instance where the image was credited to the Associated Press. However, this widely republished image is also credited to at least four other image republishing services, Reuters, GETTY,AFP wire service, SCANPIX. As I noted in the village pump, wire services add images to their libraries from several sources, including new images taken by their employees, images purchased from freelance photographers, and images released into the public domain.

I urge administrators considering exercising their discretion to speedy delete material that looks like a copyright violation to see this as a cautionary counter-example, and to show more caution. Geo Swan (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. We have some more images with a similar status, such as File:Omar Khadr, apparently holding a land-mine.jpeg, File:Arafat Helal Clinton.jpg and File:George W. Bush Paul Rusesabagina 17 February 2005.jpg. It's a tricky situation for us (admins), as a credit of a recent image to Getty Images is a speedy-speedy reason due to the history of Getty Images agency sueing everybody using their images without having paid for. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Can you tell me where I can read more about these GETTY lawsuits?
  2. How often do these GETTY lawsuits fail?
  3. Has GETTY ever threatened to sue the WMF?
With regard to this particular image, did you give any thought to my suggestion that being credited to at least five different photo republishing services is sufficient proof that an image is in the public domain, as, otherwise, it would only be offered by a single service? Geo Swan (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it seems you didn't get my comment at all. I was actually with you, but tried to offer an insight/understanding to the problem admins are facing in such a situation. Now I will not put any more effort in this thread. Just that, 1) you know how to use Google and 2) my concern is not about the WMF, but about our re-users. To get an idea, € 10,000 (=US-$ 13,900) for 6 unlicensed images from Getty. Feel free to ignore my comments as they only refer to the last sentence of your initial posting, not to the undel req. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "tricky" with these pictures (e.g. File:George W. Bush Paul Rusesabagina 17 February 2005.jpg). The pictures were created by official White House photographers in the course of their duty, so it's a very clear case of {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}. Trycatch (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Difficult, but there's not really anyway to bypass having to prove that they are public domain. There are many photos that we don't accept which are very likely to be public domain due to apparent age, but we can't use because we can't show when they were first published and/or who the photographer is. Who do we suspect the photographer is, where do we suspect the images came from? If we suspect it is a US Govt source then surely the images are available from that source direct? How does an agency get to hold copyright, do they not need to show who the photographer is, and hold some sort of transfer agreement? Isn't it about time these agencies were taken to task for copy-fraud if it is a common occurrence with these agencies? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legal requirement to identify public domain works as such. There is only a prohibition against attaching a fraudulent copyright notice to any work, including public domain works. Photo agencies typically do not actually attach copyright notices to public domain works. In the case of Getty Images, they watermark images with their logotype (not the same as a copyright notice), label them as "rights-managed" (not the same as copyrighted), offer them under a license with an indemnification clause (not a pure copyright license), and insist on "credit" (not the same as a copyright notice) being given to Getty. News organizations use them as a source, probably for the convenience of having a central repository and for the indemnification. In order to gain these benefits, the news organizations have to pay the fees and comply with Getty's other requirements, including crediting them as the immediate source. Nothing in this procedure actually constitutes copyfraud, although it certainly appears to be deliberately designed to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in anyone wishing to use genuine public domain works without going through an agency.
With respect to this specific image, a likely course of events is that the photo agencies collected a photo distributed by the CIA or other government agency. Given Osama bin Laden's situation for the last several years, it is likely that the photo was taken by an al-Qaeda member without the means or inclination to defend any copyright that they may hold. The CIA and the photo agencies may well be distributing the photo as if it were in the public domain, without regard to its actual copyright status, based on a simple risk-versus-benefit analysis, concluding that they are unlikely to be successfully sued. We do not allow ourselves that luxury. While it is quite clear that the photo agencies credited are not copyright holders, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the photograph is in the public domain. LX (talk, contribs) 08:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that bit of background info, should be in a FAQ somewhere :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for the info.

    FWIW while OBL and other senior al Qaeda members are routinely identified as Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, they became Afghan citizens. So if this image was first published in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be {{PD-Afghanistan}}? Geo Swan (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment -- When I initiated this deletion review I thought the image had been deleted in response to a speedy tab, or on the sole authority of an administrator who felt authorized to do so on their sole authority. I learned later a full deletion discussion was initiated -- but was closed early, after just a day or so -- FWIW. Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File appears to have been deleted on a similar basis to the deletion requests for File:Alexander Binder-3.jpg and File:Alexander Binder retouched.jpg (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alexander Binder-3.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alexander_Binder_retouched.jpg), which have just been closed as keep. This image is cited as the source image for one of those other two and so needs to be retained if the derivative is retained. For consistency we need to keep all or delete all. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. Though I had initially deleted it, I agree to undeletion to allow for discussion of all 3 related images. --Túrelio (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this category, it's a useful redirect. It's bad enough to see Nossa Senhora da Piedade turned into "Our Lady of Sorrows", please keep the alternate form, as it really is of some help.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do not understand why this category was moved to "Our Lady of Sorrows churches". Churches of Our Lady of Sorrows seem to me much more intuitive, and in line with what is generally used here in Commons, or am I missing something?--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and create it. It was probably deleted by error. --  Docu  at 06:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deleted by User:Jcb. His justification was subjective ("disturbing") and highly speculative ("could be dangerous"). Both these arguments had already been effectively rebutted in some detail in the discussion, and have no basis in policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Dezidor (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Could be dangerous? What kind of rationale is this for that picture? The more dangerous (if you can call it that) is the kept one since it explains in detail how to prepare such a bag. The deleted one would be less dangerous if we kept it we then have one showing how it looks like and maybe prevent others from creating another picture for Commons to illustrate it. And IMO disturbing is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Cecil (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive comments explaining why the file is in COM:SCOPE. It has been restored. --Dereckson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted after a long discussion with many delete-votes. It's quite impudent to speedy restore the file without have the decency to wait for some more comments - Jcb (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad comparison. Snuff videos are illegal. Demonstrating a "suicide technique" without actually performing it isn't. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you now that? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - picture is that explicit that it could form a serious danger to depressive people. Also it doesn't have educational purpose, because education is a way to enhance somebodies capabilities, while suicide obviously causes the contrary. Jcb (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this picture i would strongly assume the opposite effect, showing a rather uncomfortable ending. I also have to remind you, that the deletions have also to follow the same rules as undeletions. So it shouldn't had to be deleted in the first place. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 18:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had the impression that you cared about re-users (even more than about our contributors). Seems to me now, Wolfgang should consider himself lucky to escape such kind of care. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jcb, you deleted this image, correct? Didn't you do so without even one word informing the rest of us why you discounted the keep arguments? No offense, but all we have is AGF for the rest of us to trust you actually read the keep arguments. You had to know this would be a controversial closure, since the "keep" opinions outnumbered the "delete" opinions. As an admin you are not bound to go strictly by counting opinions. Rather you have an obligation to discount opinions that are counter-policy; that seemed based on mistaken assumptionsl or have been superceded by improvements to the material. But, surely, when you do discount civil and coherent opinions, you have an obligation to say why you discounted them? Surely, if you don't have the time or energy to explain why you made a controversial closure, you could always just ignore that discussion, and allow some other administrator who did have time to administer the closure? Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was undeleted by user:Dereckson: "File:Suicide bag.jpg" ‎ (17 revisions and 4 files restored: In COM:SCOPE." . For the people who don't agree: Please open a new regular deletion request. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way things work here. Undeletion may take place after reaching consensus, which was not awaited in this case. In other words: undeletion was inappropriate that quick. Jcb (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill and all: You are aware that Dereckson's undeletion during an ongoing Undeletion request violates Commons:Undeletion requests#Instructions for administrators? --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1! What the hell is going on here? I donna see any (new) argument for keeping it, so just face it. Undeletion requests should not be a second chance in that respect, only if NEW arguments are provided. Otherwise we can get rid of deletion debates cos everytime you will find someone criticizing the admin's decision. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the logical eventual outcome of the argument you've proposed is that whenever an admin makes a deletion closure which we (some sizable chunk of commoners) believe to be obviously wrong that we must go request to have their adminship removed, right? Because if all the good arguments were already made then the only way to review an admins actions is to pressure him to reverse. I think thats terrible. It's okay if admins occasionally reverse each others decisions. Commons will eventually settle on a solution. However, I don't agree with Multichill's decision to close this discussion after people had begun participating because doing so has inspired commons like yours and mine: Arguing about process instead of the image, and thats bad for commons. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with undeletion requests, but it must be given some time (e.g. at least a week) to see if there is some consensus to undelete or not. This undeletion was premature and disrupts the process. Jcb (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion violated COM:SCOPE. This is a new reason after the deletion. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 19:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-process undeletion finally gone to COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion -- This was a bad deletion, the closing administrator appears to have lapsed and failed to bring objectivity and neutrality to this closure. They didn't even explain why they discounted the "keep" arguments.

    Shouldn't the closing administrator instead have weighed in, in the discussion, with their opinion, and relied on another administrator, one who could cite policy, and explain why they closed in favor of one side, not the other to perform the closure?

    WRT whether undeletion was premature, surely it was the bad deletion that was premature, and the undeletion was a fix to the premature bad deletion? If non-administrators are going to be offering informed opinions of the future of the image then it should remain undeleted at least until the original deletion discussion is properly concluded? Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. While I do accept images should not be deleted per "personal opinion", this image is IMHO, beyond just personal opinion. We should not keep every single media that seem to be "educational", or as one user said more clearly: Not every shit is "in scope". This image has the potential of actually supporting a real suicide (aka "could be dangerous"); just because we "don't have enough coverage" on such a topic doesn't necessarily mean that we should fill in; some parts of the knowledge grid should be left hidden/empty, especially for a project like Wikipedia/Commons. I think it is time to work on a policy to deal with such images in the future. Rehman 01:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What qualification do you have, to judge about this? Alone the wording "IMHO, beyond just personal opinion" can be considered a joke. What makes you sure to believe that this image supports suicide? Looking at the image, i see exactly the opposite effect. If you treat this as an instruction to do suicide, then what about firearms or actual combat footage? Does it inspire the viewer to grab a gun and run amok? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically censorship -- shying away from controversial topics. Under that rationale, we should probably avoid having Wikipedia entries or Wikibooks discussing the subject -- because some "information should be hidden". Wikimedia Commons is honestly the *last* project which should be doing that, as it is a technical service to support all the other Wikimedia projects. If *they* need or want an image, we host it, period. If a work is in legitimate use in one of those projects, then it absolutely needs to stay (unless there is a copyright or other legal issue) without question. Otherwise, we are using Commons as a medium to dictate policy to other projects, and we just can't do that. I will tend to agree with you if someone is just uploading stuff to see how gross an image Commons will accept or games along those lines, but if a work is in legitimate use on a Wikimedia project, and the license/other legalities are OK, that should be the end of the discussion. If it is OK under the policy of that project, then we need to host it for them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As the editor at Wikibooks that made use of the image I must say that the reasons for support the deletion process are extremely flimsy and personal. One must accept that the image is just that an illustration, it does not promote nor condemn nor even teach anything, only the viewer can make those interpretations and so promoting the view that this picture can help someone to suicide isn't rational but emotional and so personal. In any case after the deletion I made an effort to find another image that would illustrate suffocation and I couldn't find one, deciding to enforce the deletion at Commons would therefore force Wikibooks to host the image locally or a recreation of the act of suffocation, this is something that is not beneficial or wanted, we can even argue that it could promote someone to incur in a risky activity, if we were to support the rational that lead to the deletion in the first place. --Panic2k7 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If we're deleting images based on what is "disturbing", I've got a long list of others I would delete well before this one. Frankly, it's a bit odd that the closer chose to keep the first image in the DR - the one that actually explains how to create a suicide bag. That image actually disturbs me more. Wknight94 talk 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The image serves to illustrate a particular subject and was being used by a Wikimedia project and so is therefore within scope. Personal sensibilities are not grounds for deletion in policy, and definitely shouldn't override the desire to use the image in one of our projects. The closure was made with a personal opinion with no justification provided as to how positions for deletion outweighed those for keeping. There are a lot of deletion requests, yes, but controversial ones need additional care. There were a lot of complaints at Wikipedia about images being deleted as copyright violations. Well, what if we started deleting perfectly legitimately licensed images that were in use at Wikipedia because we didn't like them? How long would Commons last as the image repository of choice? Just because Wikibooks is smaller, that doesn't make it any less legitimate a user of content and this would set a poor precedent. – Adrignola talk 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info For all who push the "it is in scope"-buttom: Please provide us with some pictures of a rape or murder since it can be used for the corresponding articles.
  • 2nd: We donna need now another deletion discussion, and the scope-issue WAS discussed in the last one, so we need new arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the arguments where ignored at deletion time, then there still a lot of valid arguments. The main arguments are COM:CENSOR and COM:SCOPE. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was improper. And you're still using the same argument as before. I do not need to come up with new arguments if the admin who closed the deletion request ignored them. – Adrignola talk 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you really suggesting that none of us can argue this image is in scope unless we first upload images of rapes and murders? Frankly, this does not seem to be a serious suggestion.

    As Niabot and Adrignola pointed out while many good faith contributors offered civil, collegial and coherent arguments about scope and educational value, the closing admin ignored those comments, and, for all we know, couldn't even be bothered to read them. So far as I am concerned, our administrators should see their closing arguments as being an educational tool. For all we know the closing administrator here may have been able to offer convincing explanation as to why they discounted the "keep" arguments. If, for the sake of argument, the closing administrator could offer that compelling explanation, and couldn't be bothered to write that explanation down, they are doing a grave disservice to the project. No good faith contributor wants to keep making mistakes, even innocent good faith mistakes. Yet, by failing to offer that theoretical convincing explanation as to why they discounted the keep arguments this closing administrator is leaving the rest of us in the position where we are going to be making the same mistake, over and over again.

    I just took a look at the closing administrator's contribution history. So far as I can see they STILL have not offered an explanation as to why they discounted the "keep" arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not, maybe, ...
Arguments inside deletion discussions usually don't count for JCB. I came to this conclusion after watching some of his recent closing procedures. Deleting or keeping images without any given reason. Changing his mind rather quickly if arguments are collectively put on the table. I'm wondering if he even reads the discussions or arguments. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should emphasise that when closing a deletion request, if there has been some dissension you should really explain your reasoning when closing. My personal opinion (note I have not actually looked at the image in question) is that an image being "dangerous" or "disturbing" is not a reason for deletion, especially since the image was automatically in scope since it was in use. We host lots of pictures of war, disease, etc, all of which may be disturbing (ignore for now that disturbingness is relative) but are still educational. I support the undeletion in principle, but since I don't want to actually look at the image I can't give a full verdict. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't believe the image is more shocking that the kind of stuff you'll frequently find without special warnings on sites like reddit. It's an image of a person with his eyes closed with a plastic bag over his head with the air sucked in and the bag pulled so the plastic is firm against his face. He looks rather uncomfortable. I think it would be fair that to say that the image would be in poor taste in most contexts, though that is also true for many of the classes of images you just enumerated (war, disease, etc). The image was created as part of what appears to be an art project where each day the photographer simulated a different method of suicide. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's like the scene near the end of Lucky Number Slevin? That's not so bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was said long before at en:Talk:Suicide_bag#Image that the description of this file is almost entirely wrong. The argumentation by Uhai is not crazy. The file needs a rename to "fictional demonstration of how suffocation with a plastic bag may look like" or "Keep bag away from children, Danger of suffocation! as playfully demonstrated here". I doubt that especially this file serves any purpose to illustrate such topics or that a topic (the photographers fiction) is educational. Therefore I also give my "vote" here to  Oppose undeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if it is a real attempt of suicide or at least a possibility or a simulation of what not to do: There is no reason to randomly delete images here (which even are in use) without valid reasons just because of I do not like it. If the name/description is wrong there are other ways to change them. We do not need to delete a image therefore ... as you might know. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin: Do you mean "arguments" like "You will end up having your IP banned if you continue this!"? If you want it rename to "fictional demonstration of how suffocation with a plastic bag may look like" or "Keep bag away from children. Danger of suffocation! as playfully demonstrated here.", you can try it. I am not against. --Dezidor (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The true reason why hosting these images is irresponsible is well described in en:Copycat suicide, de:Werther-Effekt, and in 12 other wikipedias, in case somebody really didn't knew it already. >90 percent of suicides happen in people suffering from undiagnosed, untreated or undertreated depression or other mental disorders, not in fully conscious persons who made an informed decision. Therefore, responsible media refrain from detailed reporting about suicides, let alone showing suicide instructions. Correspondingly, many countries have journalism codes or guidelines for that. However, responsible behaviour was never a strength of this community. --Túrelio (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We surely are not responsible for the reactions of people looking at an image. Used in context it is no instruction to suicide, it is the opposite. Does this image look like as if it would be nice method to end your own life? Surely it doesn't. If the german article should be an argument, then it shouldn't start with: "Als Werther-Effekt wird in der Medienwirkungsforschung, Sozialpsychologie und Soziologie die Annahme bezeichnet, [...]". Calling the subject itself a hypothesis. The quite well sourced article even states that self censoring of media and freedom of press are contradictory. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a confusion with this image File:Sari-and-Mundu.png. Another image which was a copyright violation was uploaded with a part of this image and was nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mundu-and-Saree.png. To me it feels like both the images were deemed as copyright violations where only the first one was ideally a copyvio. I do not have access to the image but as far as I remember, File:Sari-and-Mundu.png was created by combining File:Kerala-girl-left.jpg and File:Kerala-mundu.JPG. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I see now. The confusion came because File:Sari-and-Mundu.png is a collage and did not give credit to either of the images that make it up.
I am not a particular fan of collages -- you can simply set the two images together on the page if required, so, in my view, they are a waste of time and space.
File:Kerala-girl-left.jpg File:Kerala-mundu.JPG
However, we do permit them -- if you want to recreate this one, go ahead. Be sure to credit both of the constituent images. The licenses on the two parts are the same, so there is not problem there.
 Oppose I do not support simply undeleting this one because its history and attributions are messy and best left behind -- since both of the parts are available on Commons, start with a clean slate rather than carrying the messy history forward.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Its better to re-create with correct orientation and license tag with attributions...or can be undeleted if all the informations are available in the picture page......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a building. --  Docu  at 17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with a piece of art on it. You know well that it's the artwork that's the problem, not the building. I'm open to arguments that the artwork is de minimis or some other explanation, but you do actually have to provide something to go on. Powers (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't even see the image to judge if this would be an issue or not. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looked similar to [6] or many recent images of the building as there is an ad space located in the center of its main facade. --  Docu  at 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No legal problem at all. Otherwise we had to delete such images File:Fashion Show Las Vegas.jpg, File:Opentop tour in Ginza, Tokyo.jpg, File:Tora_no_ana_Akihabara.jpg as well. The result would be clear: No images from city centers. Which sound irrational to me, since you can't take a photograph of this kind of buildings without capturing advertisement as well. Simply can't see the (legal) problem. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the photo looked like, but if it's only the poster, i could make an edit to remove the poster if needed, as suggested in the DR. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Send me an email and I'll attach a copy of this photo and send it back to you. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Im waiting for your response. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of any interest, I have created a blank canvas version of this one, if the page is restored (without image) I will upload it, or email me if you want a copy. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a building. Not covered in DR. --  Docu  at 17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per my comment above. These are images of the same building. It is clearly within Jim's capacity as an administrator to apply this sort of discretion to delete. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question If I upload a new version with the artwork blanked, or replaced with a simulated piece of artwork, would that satisfy everyone? --Tony Wills (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I had written in the DR (but got no response): "I can retouch the image to blank the canvas if there is agreement that the original version is not allowed." Yes I think a blanking would be best. Of course it should not be a 100% white. ;) It needs to be the color of the canvas.
    • If no one else does it I would do it - the file was deleted a bit too fast. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ad is already hardly recognizable (at least Saibo didn't recognize the Dutch queen), so there isn't really much us in blanking a part that is secondary. The problem with blanking is that it destroys the photograph for an practical use. --  Docu  at 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think blanking the canvas will 'destroy the photograph'. I have forwarded a copy of a carefully edited version, that just looks like there is a blank canvas awaiting a new advert, to the deleting admin and asked for the undeletion request be closed. I you want to see what I propose, email me. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted against consensus and despite of relevant reasons for keeping. --ŠJů (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Not much purpose served in deleting this at all, let alone against consensus. If I'd seen it at the time, I would've voted keep. It's not like there is some ulterior motive to the picture. Wknight94 talk 20:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - out of scope, I would have deleted this file as well - Jcb (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Jcb. Out of scope, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose First, the closing Admin is not required to consider the number of comments on each side of the debate -- the comments are there only to inform his or her decision. Closing Admins are required to apply their knowledge of policy and law to each decision.
Second, the comments were tied at two each (nominator and closer on one side, uploader plus one other on the other side). If you discount the uploader as naturally biased, the comments were two to one.
Third, any photo has something it can illustrate. If you point a camera down, no matter where you are, and push the button, you will get a picture that will illustrate "earth", "paving", "floor covering", or something similar. That does not mean we need to keep the result.
Lastly, "There are limits to our willingness" referred not to the comments in the DR, but to Commons. While I probably should have said "There are limits to Commons' willingness", accusing me of "false comments" is out of line.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, in case of file which is OK by copyright and does not contain any child porn or something like that, the admin should not ignore the voice of the community and arguments that users write. The question was whether the file is out of scope or not. There were two reasoned votes why it is not out of scope, one unreasoned and very generally worded nomination. Jameslwoodward deleted the file with meaningless phrase about limits to his willingness.
Second, the uploader is naturally biased like every other editor. We have no rule why somebody should discount the uploader or that his/her arguments are less valuable.
Third, the world around us is beautiful and interesting. You did not explained why photos of floor covering should be excluded from Commons. 94.199.40.135 is right.
Lastly, you falsely wrote about our willingness. In this case it was not about limits to our willingness or limits to Commons' willingness but about your personal limits. You should wrote concrete reason why you want to delete this file not hollow and vague phrase like you wrote. --Dezidor (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I agree with arguments written by ŠJů and Dezidor in original request. "Paving", "floor covering" Category:Floors... can be also subjects of photos with educational value. That photo was exactly the same case as File:Longboots1.jpg. The only difference is that one is currently used by many projects and the other one is potentially usable in a similar way. --94.199.40.135 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support No single valid reasoned vote for deletion was written. Claims about personal willingness of one admin or unjustified claims like "out of scope" can not be taken seriously. Some people speculate like "no foreseeable use". I can give you practical evidence. Undelete this file, I will crop it and if it won't be used after three months by some Wikimedia projects you can delete it. --Dezidor (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak  Support. I'm extremely skeptical that this low-quality image has any conceivable educational use, but if Dezidor wants to use it on a real project (and there is no clearly superiour alternative) then we should let them. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong  Oppose. The educational purpose has not been demonstrated. If you like to upload personal photos, go to FlickR. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was demonstrated. --Dezidor (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, next time we claim that the educational value is the blue sky in the background...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
en:Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy. --Dezidor (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
en:Chewbacca defense, and btw: the educational purpose wasn't demonstrated, which I tried to show with that comparison. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say the same. I am always amazed at the contempt this project shows to long-term good-faith users. And we wonder why so many Wikipedias hate Commons... Wknight94 talk 10:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dezidor, if you accuse me of lying again, I will ask my colleagues to block you. I may disagree with you. I may be wrong. I may be misinterpreting Commons' policy. But I am not a liar. Accusing me of lying is a serious violation of our policy. I cut you a little slack the first time you did it because I know that English is not your first language. But you should know that "false" and "falsely" apply to lying. If you want to say that I am incorrect, then use words that are not accusatory.
As for my "point the camera down" example, Yikrazuul's blue sky example is better. We can put a category on any image. The fact that an image has an applicable category does not make it within scope.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact, that it was in use, makes it in SCOPE. I ask you again: What is the problem with this image? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to debate the topic that attracts attention on something different than undeletion. I used words false and falsely in the meaning that also Wiktionary explains them = Untrue, not factual, factually incorrect / Based on factually incorrect premises. [7] [8] I don´t think that you are liar but I think that you deleted the file with vague phrase, without any factual reasoning (no one explained a valid deletion reason) and you incorrectly identified your personal opinion as consenual limits to Commons' willingness. --Dezidor (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
  1. w:Hygiene#Laundry hygiene - "A child with soiled clothing in the Czech Republic."
  2. w:Dirt - "A child soiled with dirt in the Czech Republic."
That's just in en.wp off the top of my head. Wknight94 talk 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my oppose above. I still think it is a picture that is poorly laid out and not a good illustration of anything, but it is not worth this level of discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Igou.jpg (File:Igou.jpg)

The picture [Igou.jpg] is not a missing permission image.

And I have already send a written permission to OTRS.

Peakleo (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been deleted yet, so no need to ask here. Also, it has an explicit copyright credited to "FRANCIAGE", so you need to be a representative of that company (or whatever the name refers to) in order to be able to give permission in the first place. It appears to be a screenshot of a flash app seen on igou.cn, for example here... just so you're aware, making the screenshot does not make you the copyright owner; you must have been the one to actually draw the images in question. Anyways, if the OTRS checks out, then it will be cleared up, if not, then it will be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 11 May 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]

  1. File:ISN 8's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  2. File:ISN 7's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  3. File:ISN 6's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  4. File:ISN 5's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  5. File:ISN 4's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  6. File:ISN 3's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  7. File:ISN 2's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  8. File:ISN 44's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  9. File:ISN 45's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  10. File:ISN 78's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  11. File:ISN 39's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  12. File:ISN 41's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  13. File:ISN 40's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  14. File:ISN 37's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  15. File:ISN 35's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  16. File:ISN 34's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  17. File:ISN 33's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  18. File:ISN 32's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  19. File:ISN 31's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  20. File:ISN 30's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  21. File:ISN 27's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  22. File:ISN 24's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  23. File:ISN 20's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  24. File:ISN 19's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  25. File:ISN 18's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  26. File:ISN 17's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  27. File:ISN 15's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  28. File:ISN 16's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  29. File:ISN 14's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  30. File:ISN 12's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  31. File:ISN 13's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  32. File:ISN 10's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  33. File:ISN 11's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  34. File:ISN 349's JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment.pdf
  35. File:ISN 963's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  36. File:ISN 569's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  37. File:ISN 579's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  38. File:ISN 550's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  39. File:ISN 252's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  40. File:ISN 171's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  41. File:ISN 118's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  42. File:ISN 1453's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  43. File:ISN 10014's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)

  • A few comments:
  1. 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).
  2. 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]
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]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:POV oral sex.png; image at google images.

This was no COM:PORN low quality "porn". No valid reasons for deletion have been given. This was the only image from this point of view. So, contrary to abf's mentioned COM:PORN, it contributes anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images!

The argument that it is not in use in any articles is void. By far most of our images are not "in use". It is indirectly in use; for example in (commonscat link!). Commons is not just a place for images you/all like.

Please stop deletion useful pictures and time wasting at (un-)deletion discussions. --Saibo (Δ) Argh. This is a year old..

Unbelievable... the deleting admin is unable to look in the files log.. Please undel: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-06#File:POV_oral_sex.png --Saibo (Δ) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done - was undeleted before, no reason given why it should be deleted now. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the most clear photo that has been taken of Milton Friedman. Every other photo on his page [Milton Friedman] is flawed in some way whether it be that the photo is blurry, distorted or what not. It seems like this photo is the best photo for Milton and his page, and thus should be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuski (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file File:06116.friedman.jpg never existed. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]