Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

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.

Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow

I nominated a number of images for deletion on the basis that there is no freedom of panorama in Russia.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as delete.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Romanian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nicaraguan Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg was close as keep.
• and so on. Just the one image deleted. For the benefit of curious non-admins, the Bulgarian embassy image can be seen at en:Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg.

I did raise the inconsistency of the Bulgarian image closure, but the administrator who closed that decision declined to undelete it here on the basis that the ugly blocks of flats in the background are not "industrial design". The results of these closures are inconsistent, and either all of them depict "industrial designs" or they don't. And those ugly tower blocks also appear in Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These are all Brezhnev-era buildings, which are a dime a dozen in terms of industrial design works. The Bulgarian embassy photo should not have been deleted as mentioned. --russavia (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When I deleted that Image I've mainly looked at the tower in the background, wich is imho not ineligible for copyright, and wich is not a "industrial building" afaik. Before I deleted I had not seen the other del-reqs, so if anyone would like to restore the image on his responsibility, feel free to do so. I stay on my point it should stay deleted. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The towers in the background are certainly as original as recent towers in Paris whose photographs have been deleted. Whether they are "ugly tower blocks" is a judgment of value that could be spared to us; on the other hand, it is obvious that a purely functional design would not feature several colours, and such a shape. I think that the images that feature these towers should be and stay deleted. Rama (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the background towers are eligible for copyright, but there are only partly visible, and not the subject of the image. So I would say undelete. This is the same issue as Image:Louvre (3).jpg (the pyramid design is copyrighted). For consistency we have also this Image:Paris 04 07 153 8x6.jpg, Image:Louvre (5).jpg, Image:Louvre 07.jpg, or this Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg (the Eiffel tower lighting is copyrighted). Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce the Russian equivalent for the Cour des Terreaux decision? You do realise, of course, that unless you can, it makes absolutely no sense to compare between photographs taken in France and those taking in the Russia. Rama (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you first talk about images from France, so... Yann (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, even if the background towers are eligible for copyright, COM:DM applies. Yann (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave an example of a modern building with particular artistic character; that is be located in France or elsewhere is irrelevant.

On the image at hand, the buildings in the background are plainly visible, they amount to a large part og the image, they define the framing of the photograph and its dynamic. Furthermore, it would have been easy for the photographer to avoid framing them, either by using another angle, or by closing in to his subject and using a shorter focal length. Hence, I am not agreed with the notion that De Minimis applies. Rama (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it'd be that easy. Sure, you could walk up to the front door of the embassy (assuming the staff allowed you to) and take a panoramic picture using an ultra-wide-angle lens (or take several shots and stitch them), but the resulting picture would be severely perspective-distorted and would completely fail to show any parts of the building not visible from the front door. In particular, looking at the North Korean embassy picture, I'm not sure if there's any angle (on ground level, at least) that would allow one to show the distinctive shape of the building, including the upper stories, without also including the towers in the background. I guess one possibility would be to photoshop them away, but that raises its own issues about factual accuracy.

(All that said, it would be nice if someone could take better pictures, with or without the towers: the current images have really lousy composition. Of course, I'm not sure how much trouble most people would be willing to spend on images that may or may not be suitable for Commons in the first place.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to get some input from someone who has a knowledge of Russian copyright law. Are analogies from French law meaningful? I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rama in his point, that the towers define the framing, we can simply remove the top of the image above the flags, that will of course destroy the composition of the image but it will make it acceptable i think. --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with the towers, any graphist could remove them with photoshop... even the car on the left side, or the road ... Lilyu (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Gaussian blur be an acceptable solution to the "factual accuracy" issue? Surely the basic massing of the buildings cannot be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

keep/undelete/whatever side of this tangled debate involves letting the pictures stay this is INSANE! i don't care what unworkably stupid IP laws the russians have enacted. it's going to break down, one way or another, in court or in practical use. no reasonable judgement of fair use can restrict picture taking in public to this degree. we are talking about whether it would be "ok" to use just the embassy & blot out the background. that is IP law taken reducto ad absurdam. i want to invoke wikipolicy about breaking rules & being bold & fearless here. if we actually end up applying the kind of standards under discussion in this debate, we might as well just all quit now & close up shop. there won't be anything worthwhile left on here to argue about.

undelete the pics & leave them undeleted, unless there's an issue about authorship &/or the uploader having the rights to license them here.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Sam & Max Comic-Con 07.jpg

I've been advised to come here to deal with this, so I shall. I'm not too good with this free image stuff, so bare with me and be ready to accept this may be a rather weak argument because I've not really dealt with these bits. (What has the world got to when uploading non-free stuff with a fair use rationale is less bureaucratic and complicated than uploading an image with a free license?) I got this image off of Flickr, here, where its licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution/Share-alike license. This was inspired on the presence on Commons of various images of a very similar nature, retrieved from Flickr uploads and released under the same license, although Elcobbola tells me its better to go on a case-by-case basis with images here. I was assured that the image was ok for usage over on en.Wikipedia, and the image was approved by an administrator (I can't tell you who because the page was deleted) soon after I uploaded it on the 7th of December. However, earlier today, Bayo deleted the image, stating that it was a copyright violation, despite the prior approval by another admin. Now, Elcobbola tells me that this is a rather grey area of copyright, but I feel that this deletion was somewhat in error.

The author of the photo didn't release all rights to the photo, some of them are still reserved by the company. However, I would have thought that the licensing provided at Flickr, along with the application of common sense that the company would have expected people to take pictures and share them (why else bother creating the suit in the first place?) would have been sufficient. In addition, I fail to draw the distinction between this sort of image and various others on Commons, such as racing cars or video games consoles, which by their very nature show copyrighted materials (such as Image:Atarisearspong crop.png, which was uploaded by Bayo just prior to the deletion of my image, but I'm not trying to call into question Bayo's uploading practices here). If necessary I will attempt to get an image off of the company itself, but for obvious reasons I would far prefer to have this image restored. -- S@bre (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment -- My involvement is limited to S@bre's query to me here and my response here. Эlcobbola _talk
• IMO, there are nothing copyrightable on the character design of Lara Croft, and i dont know about the Master Thing. There are nothing copyrightable on a consumation product (Image:Atarisearspong crop.png). We delete Sonic, Mario, Goomba, Yoshi, Pokémon... but we can find a lot of "free" photo about it on Flickr. Every body know every thing is not free. We only can manage all this thing case by case.
  Please, if you request agreement, request to Steve Purcell himself, maybe the real copyright owner. ~ bayo or talk 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm guessing this was an image of Sam & Max costumes at the 2007 Comic-Con International. If so, then the problem is not the copyright of the image, but rather the copyright of the characters depicted, which do in fact (AFAIK) lie with Steve Purcell, their creator. I know, S@bre, that copyright law can be confusing, but it's an unfortunate fact of life here. We can't publish an image of Purcell's characters without his permission, no matter who takes photos of them. Powers (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete. According to Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia foundation lawyer, photos of people wearing costumes of characters are not violations of the rights of the owner of the characters. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan/Mike_Godwin_mail and Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images. --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Undelete as per above; unless there is some issue about the costumed persons violating copyright by their actions while in costume, the action of dressing up is fair use (especially if the costume is a legally licensed product!). the image of said action is not a copyvio; technically it is a kind of derivative work, but it is "allowed" as fair use (so is parody); it just needs to be explained clearly that the image depicts people (fans, presumably) dressed up in costumes depicting said characters, & that it's not a part of the actual copyrighted work (like a still from a movie, or a page scan from a comic). god, i hate ip legal issues! lol Lx 121 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Mike Godwin, WMF legal counsel. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Niechorze_-_mapa_02.JPG

There should be no copyright problem according to Polish FOP (a map on a public display in a public space). Please also see User_talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009#Image_Tagging_File:Niechorze_-_mapa_01.JPG (why was one map deleted and the other not...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If this map really was located permanently in a public space, then the image should be ok. It is hard to tell, though, whether it was. --rimshot^talk 06:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Act requires the work to be located in "publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens". The uploader has not made it clear whether this was so located. It may have been indoors. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done, per MichaelMaggs. –Tryphon^☂ 12:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reopening per User_talk:Tryphon#Please_reopen. Reason: new information: the image was taken outdoors, its next to a major public road in the town. If you'd like me to answer quickly, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots.JPG

Also, Image:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots 2.JPG and Image:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots 1.JPG. Per new consensus on Commons:Fan art; they should go to the Category:Droids.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in Commons:Fan art allows you to upload photographs of copyright-protected toy robots. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done, per MichaelMaggs; derivative work. –Tryphon^☂ 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reopening per User_talk:Tryphon#Please_reopen. Reason: new information: WF general councel supports restoring those images. If you'd like me to answer quickly, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

file:European_Commission_outside.jpg

[1] This was an ongoing discussion without any consensus or conclusion. Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium says "The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder." No one objects to the law; we discussed a nuance. We discussed weather the en:Berlaymont building, a fairly ordinary office building in Belgium, really can be seen as a "modern piece of art". If the conclusion is that Berlaymont is to be branded "modern piece of art" and therefore be removed from Commons, then thousands of other images should be deleted also. This should set some precedent, it is that important. The system is rotten if this remains a sporadic deletion. Please undelete it, or start a deletion spree in the Belgian categories. Is a 20th or 21st century office building automatically a "modern piece of art"? - Ssolbergj (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this should not have been deleted. —Nightstallion (?) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The section at Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Architecture_vs_sculptures states that photos of buildings are OK in Belgium, but not sculpture. The Belgium section itself doesn't talk about buildings; just mentions "artwork". Does anyone know if there is a basis for the former statement that building photos are OK there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Art 22(2) (in English translation) says that the author may not prohibit:"reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself". The word used is "work" which unless anyone can find a specific definition to the contrary is the standard term for all types of copyrightable material, including architecture. My reading is that the taking a photo of a copyright work of architecture is not allowed unless the photo is not primarily of the work itself (ie it's OK if the building is perhiperal to the overall scene, as in France). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. On the other hand, that translation is from 1994 I think, and makes no mention of "architectural work" anywhere at all. Have there been any newer amendments? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Qur'an recitation

Following discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/113 Qur'an recitations I request the undeletion of files in Category:Qur'an recitation Per Article 168 of the latest Egyptian Copyright Law:

Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy financial exclusive rights, entitling such to exploit the broadcast thereof for twenty years starting from the date of first transmitting such broadcast.

The reciter (performer, not an author) worked mainly for the official Egyptian broadcasting corporation as any Egyptian would know [2]. Egyptian copyright law protects broadcastings for 20 years. His Saudi recordings are also PD as they were broadcast in the 50s and 60s (Saudi law protection is for 25 years). --Obayd (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could u please state which law and which article this is stated in? And proof that these recordings were published at these dates? The site says that he started working there in 1954, no more.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's obvious which law I am talking about - link. --Obayd (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The Commons:Deletion requests/113 Qur'an recitations was filed this morning, the uploader was not notified, but after only one hour User:Adam Cuerden deleted more than 100 of these audio files. He had not closed the DR though, so there is some discussion there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The images were deleted because "the rationale wasn't enough to result in an acceptable licence" (User talk:Obayd). So the images should have been a speedy more then a normal deletion. That's why the images were so fast deleted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the law Mr. Obayd is referring to, this law wasn't in craft on the URAA law date of 1996 which re-licensed all foreign copyrights in the USA to conform with its copyright length. Something that wasn't PD in 1996 isn't PD now. Please read {{PD-Egypt-1996}} and you'll find that because there is no proof that the images were PD before 1996 under the 1954 Egyptian law, a deletion of the files is acceptable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless Egyptian copyright law is completely different than most, the person making a reciting is not the "author" of the recording, which appears to be the assumption upon which the files were deleted. The author is the person making the recording (much like photography -- the author is the person making the photograph, and not the person pictured). There may be performer's rights, but those are usually of much shorter duration if they exist (or existed). Who made the recording, and (unless current egyptian copyright law is retroactive) what were the performer's rights at the time the recordings were made? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Recitation is a creative performance like singing. Recording it is a copyright breach unless the author of the recitation released his rights to the recorder, which could be assumed. Still the copyright of it lies with the Author (Abdul Basit) because he's the performer. You can't record a song by Michael Jackson and say you're the author of it. So the law to look for now is the performers rights. Which are not explicitly stated in the Egyptian law of 1954. The law has two points:

• "Photographic and audiovisual works published before 1981 which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes (Art. 20, § 1)"
• "Other types of works whose author(s) died before 1946 (Art. 20, § 1), regardless of the work's publication date (Art. 22);"

The only article that applies is the second one. Because it has a creative character and is not a mechanical reproduction of a scene.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Vocalizations are not works in the sense of copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the first article would appear to be the applicable one. Performances are generally not considered "works"; you need something tangible that you can actually copy. The U.S. pretty much has that requirement... Europe less stringently so, but that is usually the situation. Performers often have the right to allow recording (or not), but they do not own any of the copyright of the recording itself (unless specified by contract or something like that). If you are reading from a book, then obviously a recording would be a derivative work of that book if it was still copyrighted, but that does not appear to be an issue here. A songwriter has a separate copyright from the recording, so similarly the Michael Jackson recording would be a derivative work of the (written) song, but the actual musicians do not own the copyrights of either the song nor the recording. Does the 1954 law have a list of what it considers "works", and does it mention performer's rights at all? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:BomBom for help he's the one who wrote the {{PD-Egypt-1996}} law.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, recording the singing of Michael Jackson of PD song would not be a copyright breach. If so then the recording of the sound files wouldn't be a copyright breach. This would be seen as a reproduction of a none creative character. Still to be determined is a free license by the website or proof that the sound files were recorded before 1981.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

$Whypre1981?$ --Obayd (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the recording itself is copyrighted, like photographing a pd statue. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

$Whypre1981?$ --Obayd (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Photographic and audiovisual works published before 1981 which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes (Art. 20, § 1);" The recording of the work is copyrighted under this law as far as I understand. If the recording wasn't done before 1981 it's copyrighted. If u want to know why this law exists and why is it made that way you should read about the US public domain and the URAA law. Don't repeat the question. If one doesn't understand it the first time he wouldn't understand it the second time. $Explainpleasewhatudon'tunderstand.$--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from self-politedness and your concept of author, how can you answer if you don't get the question? --Obayd (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make things a little bit clearer. The whole issue at stake here is neighbouring rights. Sound recordings are generally protected by four different copyright-type rights:

• a) the authors' rights of the composer of the music;
• b) the authors' rights of the lyricist;
• c) the performers' rights of the singer(s);
• d) the producers' rights of the person or corporation which made the recording.

In the case of the Quran recitations we're dealing with, the rights of the lyricist (b) clearly do not apply since the text in question is the Quran. Since there is no music per se, I also don't think there are any issues with regard to the rights of the composer (a). As for the producers' rights (d), they have clearly expired since broadcasts are only protected for 20 years in Egypt (article 168 of the 2002 law). That leaves us with performers' rights, and that's where the whole problem really lies. Article 138 (§ 12) makes it clear that a Quranic reciter is to be considered a performer ("Persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim..."). Performers' rights are protected in Egypt for 50 years "from the date on which the performance or the recording took place" (article 166). Any post-1959 recitation by Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad is thus still protected. Since he started working for the National Radio Station in 1951, the only recitations of his which are currently in the public domain are the ones he made between 1951 and 1959. The burden of proof rests upon the uploader to show that the recitations uploaded were indeed made during this time period. Of course, this does not apply to the recitations he did in Saudi Arabia, which may very well be free. I don't know anything about Saudi copyright law, so I can't provide any information with regard to this. --BomBom (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is according to the 2002 law. What was the copyright status of performances before that? Was the law retroactive? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

BomBom, if recitations were recorded for the ETRU or Saudi official broadcasting, wouldn't they be work for hire with no rights apart from the now expired broadcasting rights? --Obayd (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we have this discussion closed at some point? We should just get some wiki lawyer who decides this. The files that were uploaded didn't have any proof that they were made at the specified date. Their deletion was therefore justified. Forget all the rules and laws in the egyptian law. This deletion was justified because of the lack of information on the files. If a user has a source that says the files have been created on this date and therefore in the public domain then a deletion wouldn't succeed. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an indication that the 2002 Egyptian law was retroactive (i.e. applied to earlier works, and restoring copyright to works which had become public domain), just that the 1954 law was "revoked". In the U.S., the 1976 Copyright Act completely replaced the 1909 Copyright Act and its amendments (which were similarly completely revoked) but it was not retroactive in any way, applying only to works published in 1978 and later, with earlier works still being subject to the 1909 law. If the Egyptian 1954 law contained no provisions for neighboring rights (or they were much weaker in what they could prevent), then these works may not be protected that way at all (since they were at least made before 1988). Laws do often extend terms for works still under copyright at the time they were passed (so if they were still copyrighted in 2002, I could see the terms being extended) but restoring copyright to public domain works is relatively rare (though it certainly happens). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2002 law isn't retroactive.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then the terms of the 1954 law remain would seem to often apply for pre-2002 works, and probably apply here. Did that law mention anything about performer's rights, and if so, how long were they? I don't think those rights cross borders as easily, especially in the United States, so there is no URAA-type thing to worry about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2002 law appears to be retroactive: Template:PD-Egypt-1996.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on that tag states whether it is retroactive or not; just that the 2002 law completely replaced it. As I mentioned before, the U.S. 1909 Copyright Act was similarly replaced in its entirety with the 1976 Act, but was not retroactive, so "replaced in its entirety" has no bearing on whether it was retroactive (in terms of restoring copyright status to works which had previously lapsed into the public domain) or not. And thus my previous question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the discussion progressing very slowly and becoming too long that I have lost track. Revert the changes but with a template that indicates why the recording is PD. Mr. Lindberg could u please just put in points why these files are PD? As far as I understand:

• Produced before 1981 as an audiovisual work
• No performers rights at the time
• The 2002 law doesn't appear to be retroactive (even though this template stipulates otherwise)

That's as far as I can see why this would be a PD file. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That would basically be it. Most copyright law changes are not retroactive, or at least do not make works previously public domain copyrighted again. I was mainly wondering if there was a reference for it being retroactive; the tag you mention is speculative as well. Joining the Berne Convention will force works to be retroactively copyrighted up to Berne minimum standards but beyond that I think it's pretty rare. I haven't seen any indication either way yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Nordic Council}}

I have created the template {{Nordic Council}} a few months ago, not realizing that it was a recreation of the {{Norden.org}} template, which failed to survive a deletion request some time ago. For this reason, my recreation was deleted as well. Having reviewed the original deletion requests, however, it became obvious, that the rationale for deleting it is no longer valid. It seems that Norden has standardized their copyright notice and the non-commercial / educational clause is no longer present anywhere in any language. See this: "You can search in the image database Nordbild here. The photos can be used freely provided you quote the source". Toggling user languages will result in "Täällä voit tehdä hakuja sivustomme Nordbild-kuvapankista. Kuvia voi käyttää vapaasti, kunhan lähde ilmoitetaan" (Finnish), "Här kan du söka i bilddatabasen Nordbild. Bilderna får användas fritt så länge bildkällan uppges" (Swedish), etc. These are exact equivalents of the English notice. I therefore ask that either template be restored. Óðinn (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We still have some of their images here, under various licenses: linksearch. The problem if derivative works are allowed or not is still not answered, see Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags. Press photos are to often restricted, this should be clearified directly with norden.org and then a Custom license tag should be recreated/created including the OTRS ticket and the attribution license. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Flag of Okinawa File:Flag_of_Okinawa,_Japan.svg

An image of the Flag of Okinawa File:Flag_of_Okinawa,_Japan.svg was deleted with the following reasoning: "The Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1972, after the end of the US occupation. (1) According to Japanese Copyright law, Copyright lasts for 50 years after publication for works published by an organization (2). Flags are, except for some cases, eligible for copyright." There is no Law regulating the flag in this area.

• The flag itself is a representation of a design set down in law. The law of Japan specifically states here[3] in Article 13 of the Copyright law "(Works not protected)" that nothing issued by the "government, organs of the state or local public entities" is protected.
• Next: The Copyright law of Japan here[4]in Article 38 "(Performance, etc. not for profit-making)" further goes on to explicitly allow a free license for all non-commercial use.:
• Next: Article 46[5]"(Exploitation of an artistic work, etc. located in open places)" adds a unique privilege in that it even goes so far as to allow for 'commercial use for profit' of works located in "Public Places".

The flag exists through it's enactment/description/layout in law and is located prominently in "Public Places". There is no basis for deletion/prohibiting the display of this flag. 99.151.168.32 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you are reasoning that this image could fall under article 13. But the corresponding license template {{PD-Japan-exempt}} tells explicitly: Note: This does not apply to flag and emblem announced by the local governments. In this regard, we accepted the interpretation of this law by the Japanese wikipedia, see here.

Secondly, you are quoting articles 38 and 49. Both of them, however, do not grant commercial use which is a requirement according to our policy.

Given all this, I second the deletion of this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the author of the template to give his opinion on the Okinawa flag. He appears to be grounded in the language, flags of Japan and copy status of said flags. 99.151.168.32 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user that wrote the template has commented on this image of the same flag: [6] but only about details of its creation - he did not delete the image on straight copyvio grounds. Is this not sufficient evidence that the grounds for deletion of the image being discussed here are in error and should be reversed? 99.151.168.32 20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Knua tagged this flag as copyvio. He cannot delete this image himself (he is not an admin) and it is common practice, even among admins, to tag images instead of deleting them immediately to have a second check. But thanks for the pointer, I've just deleted it. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence that a misinterpretation exists can be found here, in the images of Okinawan flags uploaded by user:Knua, the creator of the template. Obviously if this basis is true: "The Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1972, after the end of the US occupation. According to Japanese Copyright law, Copyright lasts for 50 years after publication for works published by an organization." Then Knua, the writer of the template, would be in copyvio for uploading these images of Okinawa flags:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] There are more, but you get the point, you can not prohibit the image based upon the end of American occupation plus 50 years as your basis. It is incorrect. This, coupled with Knua's obvious awareness of the flag here and clear lack of action to speedy delete on sight leaves you with absolutely no reason to delete and a rock solid basis to undelete immediately. 99.151.168.32 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken as the other flags were uploaded by Ch1902. Please do not mix different cases as each one of them can be different as some of them might be old enough to be indeed public domain. I still stand to the analysis I have given. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If your basis is that Okinawa did not exist before 1972 then how can any of them be old enough to be in the public domain? And how do you address the fact that the template author has already been confronted with an image of the exact same flag and had no comment on copyvio? 99.151.168.32 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Each of those flags, and an image of the flag under discussion, have all been addressed by the author of the template - and none of them were found by him to be a copyvio. This must be addressed. 99.151.168.32 21:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand from the contents of Knua's user page and his recent activities that he is currently in the process of checking all these flags. Hence, more deletions are likely to follow. When we accept Knua's analysis, which has not been challenged so far, I see only one possible argument to keep some of these flags: Are some of these flags ineligible for copyright as some minimal threshold of originality is not met? But I have absolutely no knowledge about Japanese case law and hence I cannot undelete this flag unless we hear informed opinions about how this is seen in Japan. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The one person who appears to claim qualification and who wrote the template wording you are referring to has SEEN THE IMAGE AND CLEARLY CHOSE NOT TO DELETE AS COPYVIO. We cannot ignore the fact that no basis exists for deletion and firm concrete evidence exists for keep. I have to admit I'm bothered that we are ignoring such a crystal clear precedent - it is your authority that has seen the image and already passed judgment allowing it to stay. 99.151.168.32 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1879 (Tempolary occupied in 1945-1972). So some flag of okinawa's municipal might be old enough to be public domain. For example, flag of Naha city (capital) is announced on December 19, 1921. I'll check all these flags.

"File:Flag of Okinawa, Japan.svg" was tagged as {{PD-Japan-exempt}} and {{PD-self}}. But you know, this emblem was announced on May 15, 1972. I asked contributor about ineligible for copyright because this flag is very easy design. But He/She had tagged as {{PD-self}} again, and He/She judged that flag had copyright. So unfortunately, This flag was deleted.--Knua (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Knua for your message of 06:50, 2May09. Thanks for your informed opinion. To AFBorchert for your message of 20:58, 1May2009 that you inserted back in the conversation out of time order. The image was tagged with a request to claim authorship, it was not tagged with a deletion request. You are free as an admin to do as you please and find excuses to justify your behavior later if called upon it. It doesn't justify your actions. 99.151.168.32 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Okinawa ken flag.jpg was tagged with the {{No license}} template. To cite from the description of this tag:

This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added.

The image was tagged on 15:44, 22 April 2009 by Knua who also notified the uploader and I deleted it on 20:47, 1 May 2009, more than 7 days afterwards. This was justified as the image indeed carried no license templates. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of course academic, but if the file was at that time tagged for license, doesn't it mean that it passed the first test of straight copyvio at that time? At least as far as the tagger (Knua) is concerned? Clearly a straight copyvio would take precedence over license. 99.151.168.32 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no precedence here. If there are multiple reasons to delete a file, it is sufficient to name just one of them. Naturally we check if an image tagged to be without license fits obviously under one of the accepted licenses. In this case it can be saved. But the burden of the proof that an image can be kept here usually rests with the uploader. According to our precautionary principle we have to delete images where we have significant doubts about its freedom. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm pretty leery of deleting user-made versions of governmental flags. They are often defined in law, and the text of such laws is public domain. The copyright of any rendering made based on that text would be owned by the artist, not the government, if sufficiently complex to have copyright. So depending on the complexity, I could see copyright being held on individual depictions if there is enough artistic freedom allowed. If an image was directly copied from a government website, I could see that as being a problem, but this was apparently a user-made SVG, which makes it much less clear. Especially this one, which is just the letter "O" on a red circle. I don't think user-created versions of national or subnational governmental flags should ever be speedy-deleted; copyright ownership is always clouded by public-domain definitions (and possibly images, if included in the law) and merger doctrine issues (if there aren't many ways to depict the design, then depictions of the design are often uncopyrightable, or maybe limited to verbatim copying of exact files; see the last paragraph of w:Idea-expression divide). I can't read the justifications on why people think that the Japanese government owns the copyright on all graphic versions of flags no matter who the artist is -- have there been any court cases on that issue? A graphic image is not a derivative work of a written design. I would  Support undeletion in this case mainly on PD-ineligible grounds, but I would be interested in knowing what the more general arguments are. (Oh, one other comment -- Article 46 does not allow reselling reproductions of artistic works which exist in public places -- read it more carefully). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I did misread article 46, thanks for the heads up on that. 99.142.2.135 03:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done, {{PD-ineligible}}. –Tryphon^☂ 11:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Painting by Jacob Lawrence

Please undelete File:Douglass_edited_the_first-Jacob_Lawrence.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). According to the page on NARA, there are no restrictions on use. The outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Douglass edited the first-Jacob Lawrence.gif is incomprehensible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As discussed at length in the DR, NARA does not hold information about artists' copyright, and "Unrestricted" does not mean copyright free. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The line for "use restrictions" is about copyright. Thousands of examples can be found by this google search. And for this image, the professionals at NARA state that there are no use restrictions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NARA does put copyright info in that field (the "Access restrictions" field is the one which has nothing to do with copyright). I wonder why they feel confident there is no copyright, but perhaps they did a search. The painting is Frederick Douglass series No. 21, from 1938-39[17]. It could be either PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed I guess. The NARA work is a photo negative of the painting, maybe they added "Unrestricted" accidentally by habit when they own old negatives, or maybe they did some sort of search. The fact they discussed the issue in the collection notes may indicate they do in fact have further information. Hmmm... it appears he was a member of the WPA Federal Art Project (where he got his training), apparently between 1937 and 1940[18]... so this may be part of that, and may actually be PD-USGov-WPA. He joined the Coast Guard from 1943-5 and did some paintings with them as well. More info here. On the other hand, NARA also has "unrestricted" on File:Jacob Lawrence-During World War I.gif, which was done in 1941, and I'm not sure how they would determine that status. It is apparently owned by the Phillips Collection[19][20], with a note on that panel's page that it was copyrighted in 1942, and the copyright is still claimed by his wife's estate and the Artist Rights Society. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even when the b-w photo was published without a copyright notice and be public domain, the heir's estate may still have copyright on the painting, I think. Anyway, without clear evidence that NARA (or the Bundearchiv) made a mistake, Commons should assume that the professionals know what they are doing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is still a copyright on the original painting, they would still control distribution and derivative rights of the photograph. There have been U.S. cases where the copyright in a film expired (due to no renewal or lack of copyright notice), but distribution by others was still prohibited because it was a derivative work of a still-copyrighted novel (or even a copyrighted screenplay) and only the original studio had a license to distribute it. Besides, the photo is pretty close to a PD-Art situation -- a copy which has the same copyright status as the original painting, and not a derivative work. I spot checked a bunch of the 371 works they have under that collection -- almost all of them seem to be direct copies of artwork, and all except one which I looked at (by many different authors, some of them foreign) had "Unrestricted" in that field. Ironically the only one which didn't was this one -- a photo of an 1805 painting. Here is NARA's page on their archive; it does appear that the Harmon Foundation donated all their photographs, so those would be PD-author, except that it still mentions that they have no information on copyright of the underlying works. Dunno, but I'm guessing the "unrestricted" just refers to the expression in the photograph, but I still don't think that alters the derivative work situation. I could buy this one on the WPA argument, but not all of the works which the Harmon Foundation took pictures of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Your research is impressive, it seems to me this can be undeleted with a {{PD-USGov-WPA}} template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

SMS_Koenig_(1916)_Modell_1-350.jpg

I have built, painted and photographed the model by myself. It contains parts from various manufacturers as well as parts designed by myself. Therefore I do not think that uploading a picture of it should be a violation of anybodys copyright.

Muskelkater

The explanation provided on your talk page should be sufficient to explain this.  Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

Wacky Races cars images

This is a request to reverse the deletions from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wacky Races - turbo terriffic.jpg You can see the actual photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-ashb/509805899/in/set-72157600246022894/ and so forth. I believe that with Mike Godwin's (attorney for the Wikimedia foundation) ruling that it is not a copyright violation to take a picture of a person dressed up as a copyrighted character (Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan/Mike_Godwin_mail), it follows that it is neither a copyright violation to take a picture of a car dressed up as a copyrighted character.

Also you will notice that these cars are a popular attraction from a popular UK annual event, the en:Goodwood Festival of Speed, and have been for a number of years. If making them would be a copyright violation, I suspect Hanna Barbera would have objected to the festival organizers itself. But that's hypothetical, of course. The Mike Godwin ruling is pretty definitive. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Michael Maggs' deletion comment was that these aren't utilitarian cars. True, but neither would the Spiderman costume mentioned in Mike Godwin's ruling be a utilitarian costume. The cars are actual cars, not just mockups, they actually work in going from point A to point B. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fpaJLEUwb0 for example. --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that Godwin may speak for the legal side of Commons, but not the policy side (which is way stricter than the law). This has always been an area in copyright that I just can't grasp. I would support undeletion if only I could formulate a logical reason. I mean how does a copyright protected character become unprotected simply because you can drive it? How does a derivative of a character become free if you can wear it? Rocket000 (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because in turning a two-dimensional picture of a fantastic character on a comic page or celluloid cartoon that could never exist in life, into a physical costume that someone can actually wear, or a working car that can actually drive, sufficient originality has been displayed. I can't speak for Godwin and am not a lawyer, and everyone knows that laws and logical reasons don't necessarily have a lot to do with each other, but it's at least something that we can grasp. It's also essentially what the IP contributor argued in the deletion request, so I'm not alone in thinking so. There's not a lot of point to us having a copyright lawyer and not listening to what he says.

The places where Commons policy is stricter than what the law allows aren't arbitrary "more strict because we like being more strict", they're strict because we want to be "common", in other words legal in most countries, not just according to one set of laws. The main example of that is US "fair use" which doesn't exist in many places. This doesn't seem to be such a place where we need to be arbitrarily more strict. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not a derivative work of the character. It could possibly be a derivative work of graphical representations of the character, but ... we are stretching the definition of derivative works to its limit on stuff like this, and we are possibly going overboard. It is a tangled question though, more often a matter of trademark than copyright, but the line is ill-defined. Fabric patterns can be copyrighted too, but deleting pictures of people wearing clothes because they have a pattern on them would be going too far. I have periodically searched (online anyways) for some court cases which would be relevant, and haven't really found anything, indicating that such photos are well beyond the line. There are many cases about people making costumes of trademarked (and possibly copyrighted) characters, and they usually lose, but no cases at all on photographs of same as far as I have seen. Photographers do routinely sell such images, so you'd think there would be *some* lawsuit at some point if it was realistically a problem. If anyone knows of any, the info would definitely be appreciated. I'm not sure that Commons should delete images in areas where there haven't been any legal indications at all that they are problems, though following our definition of "free" can lead to areas which are difficult and probably would realistically never be litigated. These images are pretty squarely in that area; it is pretty hard to imagine what market there could be for these "works" in the first place to be adversely affected by selling photos as derivative works. But... while the design of a car itself is not copyrightable, copyrightable elements which can be "separated" (such as sculptural elements) would be, and it is definitely arguable that some of those cars have those. Not an easy area for sure, and deletions (and keeps) are sure to be controversial, since we are trying to interpret legal language in technical areas where "real life" has never bothered to litigate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just to explain the closure - it was on the basis that the artistic designs of the bodywork are conceptually separable from the utilitarian function of the cars. In Carol Barnhart v Economy Cover Corp (2nd Cir 1985), 773 F.2d at 418 it was held that conceptual separability exists when the artistic aspects of an article can be "conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function". This independence is necessarily informed by "whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment independently of functional influences": Brandir International, Inc v Cascade Pacific Lumber Co (2nd Cir 1987), 834 F.3d at 1145. (Quotes from Gorman & Ginsburg, Copyright: Cases and Materials, 7th edn 2006, p243). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the separability; clearly having a statue of a lummox stuck on the top doesn't make the car move any better, it's just artistic. However, the same would apply to the Spiderman costume specified by our lawyer: a skintight red and blue full head, foot, and body costume with webbing under the arms and a spider on the chest doesn't make the wearer much more comfortable, it's just artistic. If a picture of the one is neither a copyright nor a trademark violation, neither is a picture of the other. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that a costume is not sculpture; the U.S. Copyright Office typically does not accept registrations of costumes. One company tried registering some as "soft sculpture", but a court ruled that was essentially fraudulent and invalidated the copyrights.[21] Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some US cases, that I can look up when I get home, that hold costumes generally to be unprotectable but things like masks, animal heads and so on to be protectable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, masks can be a little bit different, as they aren't necessarily utilitarian. But if you find something which says photos of masks are a problem, that would surprise me :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Undelete. Mike Godwin specifically said that photos of fan made objects that are derivative work of copyrighted objects are ok: Commons_talk:Fan_art#Star_Wars_droids_still_not_ok.3F. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Release artwork from nedla detsmlo - user created art

Hello. The following files all fall under self - copywrite {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}.

• File:Unknown_the_world_over.jpg
• File:HB All natural.jpg
• File:I remember it was red T shirt.jpg
• File:Alden Olmsted.jpg
• File:Homestead_Bicycles_Butterfly_Main_Logo.jpg
• File:Homestead_Bicycles_Art.jpg

Thank You

---

Closing for now; the rest may be restored when OTRS permissions come in. --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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

File:Leal_Senado_flag.gif

This image was an official symbol per PD-MacaoGov/detail. This image is {{PD-MacaoGov}}. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was said this image was a copyvio from http://www.fotw.net/flags/mo-mau.html. But the webmaster explicit says this flag was used by Macau, so he cannot claim it's copyright for himself. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Official texts are not copyrighted, but renderings, including flags based from official texts, are copyrighted. To that end, rendered flags are not part of official texts.  Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:08, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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

Why is Retrosharelogo.png a copyright violation ???

Please explain this to me.

This logo is the logo of a GPL free software, and I'm in the team of its developers.

Could you please tell me what I did wrong there ?

Thanks Cyril — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csolus (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted since "RetroShare svn repository" is not a valid source (You should say were you got it from but also link to the site/software's licensing) and I also checked the tinyeye link which the sites in the results seemed to no longer display the image but doesn't really prove the logo is licensed as GPL. If you're the developer please send an email to COM:OTRS (See the link which gives you more information on what to do), after you've sent the email please post here or on my talk page and I'll restore the image and tag it with waiting for permission. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow logo.png

Requesting file undeletion for this logo, as it's only a derivate work from several medieval fonts, such as Schwaben Alt and mainly Fraktur. Also, the C in the beggining is a simple crescent moon. Furthermore, all that was added for visual style was a blue/black gradient filling, shadow and the use of the "dodge tool" (drawing a lighter line in the middle, horizontally). Regarding that, {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} applies here. Mr.Yah! ^msg 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This case looks like the one about Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-05#File:Castlevania_Aria_of_Sorrow_logo.pngMizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost a week later, still waiting. Mr.Yah! ^msg 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm waiting here. And there are other people waiting too. Come on... Mr.Yah! ^msg 02:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the persistence, but is there anything wrong with my request? Mr.Yah! ^msg 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's goin on guys? I see you dealing with some cases and this one is freezed here more than a week. We are waiting and in need of some decision. Please, don't make us wait for so long. This is really upseting. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not agree that this is no more than {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}}. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, please compare it with [22] and [23]. The logo itself is a mix of both fonts that are Fraktur = {{PD-textlogo}}. Then, a moon shaped for the "C" and a rhomb for the "I"'s dot = {{PD-shape}}. That, plus border, a simple 2 color gradient filling (black and blue), and the clearer line in the middle, make the logo. (btw, finally a reply on this). Mr.Yah! ^msg 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no conclusion? Man... does a undeletion request always last this much? Mr.Yah! ^msg 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to just remember you guys of this request here. It's been about 20 days that I'm waiting for this image to be undeleted (or not!). See, I really need it to complete the correspondent article so that it may be featured in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I put a lot of effort in it, and sadly it may just don't be featured because there's no image for it as this one was deleted. If this image is too detailed, what about this little bit simplified version? Mr.Yah! ^msg 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done, restored per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-05#File:Castlevania_Aria_of_Sorrow_logo.png. It would be faster without asking and asking again, that only makes the post longer and disatract to look into it ;) Also a faster way would be to ask the deleting administrator. --Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of the Marshall Islands.png

Requesting undeletion as Marshall Islands apparently has no legislation on copyright as per [24], making this work public domain. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have read the associated DR? The copyright of this coat of arms could rest with Vector-Images.com or someone else not coming from Marshall Islands as COAs are in many cases artful interpretations of a blazon that are themselves eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The associated DR says that Vector-Images.com does not own the rights to any of their images. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright in a work rests with the author -- coats of arms can have many different versions, so there can be many authors and many copyrights (and many "free" versions too). It sounds like vector-images (a Russian company I believe) drew this particular version of the arms, so they would seem to own the copyright, and it would be a Russian "work". They do take submissions from other authors, so those contributors may well retain copyright... still no evidence it came from a Marshall Islander. They were a U.S. territory until 1979; many works may still have valid U.S. copyrights (and the U.S. may well respect their newer copyright anyways, given the special relationship between the two). Their government website has a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

coats of arms can have many different versions - no, no they can't. There's only one version. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

COM:COA. --Eusebius (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete all other 3,221 images in Category:VI.com images (tag have been updated), then. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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

Category:Shefa-'Amr

Please undelete, i would like to transfer images from both Hebrew and English Wiki's to here. Why was it deleted in the first place? Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it was deleted because there were no files in it. Feel free to recreate it after you've uploaded one or two images to go in it. (Note that you don't have to create the category page before adding files to it; the category will just show up as a red link until you do.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

kiitos! :) --kippi70 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.==File:Men of southern Afghanistan.jpg== I requested to keep the above file and have this one (File:Seed vouchers.jpg) deleted but someone did the opposit. It's an image of men in southern Afghanistan so can we undelete mines and have the Seed vouchers deleted? Mines has better name. Thanks!--Executioner (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the other name is better; you wouldn't name this image "Men of northern America", would you? –Tryphon^☂ 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done, the file exists already, with a descriptive-enough name. –Tryphon^☂ 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Original contents of Category:One Hundred Famous Views of Edo

The background of this request is to be found here. In summary: Melesse found high resolution variants of these artworks on the web site of www.brooklynmuseum.org and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons as {{PD-Art}} applies. See the original information template of one of these images:

 {{Painting
 |Title = Kinryuzan Temple, Asakusa
 |Artist = {{Creator:Hiroshige}}
 |Year = circa 1856–1858
 |Technique = Woodblock print
 |Gallery = Brooklyn Museum
 |Location = Brooklyn, New York, USA
 |Source = http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/edo
 |Permission = {{PD-Japan}}{{PD-Art}}
 |Notes = From the series ''One Hundred Famous Views of Edo''.
 }}

All these images were deleted (take File:99 - Kinryuzan Temple, Asakusa.jpg as example) out of courtesy to the museum because low resolution variants are available as well and the high resolution scans were on the web site just published by accident. I do not know if this was initiated by a request of Brooklyn Museum but I am surely not happy when a 4,394×6,296 resolution scan gets replaced by a ridiculous 384 × 580 resolution. As far as I can see, the uploader did neither request this deletion nor did he consent to it, he was just informed of the deletion. The deletion comments just state deleting print-quality version in favor of images donated by the Brooklyn Museum of Art, as courtesy without any reference to policy. Hence, I ask for an undeletion of the whole series. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This was not a copyright question, but a political one, and decided above our capability as Commons users. We can technically undelete these images, but WMF might not like it. It was more of an en:WP:OFFICE action than anything else. Patrícia ^msg 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the museum did actually get in touch with the foundation, which is how we became aware of the situation. The museum will be sending some somewhat lower resolution versions for us to use (still working on the details), since aside from the resolution, the color and details of their scans are quite superior to what we have currently. --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a shame to lose some high resolution images, but the action was correct. In the long term, establishing our good faith and building our relationship with museums such as the Brooklyn Museum is much more important in advancing our goals than the fate of a few specific images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed. The foundation's {{PD-Art}} ignores copyright laws of European countries, but when a museum in the US comes with a request to withdraw images that are legally free, wikimedia just obliges. Why these double standards? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to believe that, if an European museum would ask the same thing, we would take the same action. Our current PD-art policy is highly insatisfactory in this aspect. I believe we should rethink it, but that should be done elsewhere, not on this undeletion request. Patrícia ^msg 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Absolutely. While the circumstances of this case are a bit unusual, I think we would do the same thing for any other museum or institution. The situation here is that they accidentally put these files on the public server, resizing using IMG SRC variables rather than actual thumbnails. They were all duplicates of images we already have, though (again) better quality, and they're going to provide us with lower res scans of those high quality versions. Our goal with all such institutions should be to encourage them to become active in providing materials for our community. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit with Pieter Kuiper here. There may be some talks going on with the Brooklyn Museum which might bring both more scans and also building a good relationship with them, but the the first impression is bad. Yann (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempts to explain the background of this action. I am, however, not happy with actions like this on behalf of the Foundation taking place silently and even without referring to the foundation. And we do not know even how this was handled or decided at Foundation level. This is not a privacy related issue where I would understand when things are done this way. Yes, this resides on the servers of the Foundation and we respect that, of course. However, we are also bound to some extent to our uploaders who trust us that we handle their uploads in conformance with our policies. It is common practice at Commons to ignore copyfraud claims and we even went to the extent to ignore local law if it does not support {{PD-art}}. Please remember the case of the National Portrait Gallery. So far, we just deleted images temporarily to protect individual users who were threatened by museums and uploaded them afterwards through other accounts (see, for example, this case where the deleted image was uploaded by someone else). I personally have no good faith in museums whose idea of open access is restricted to 384 × 580 thumbnails that do not allow to inspect these pieces of art. A growing number of museums, archives, and libraries understand open access as support of high resolution images. Examples include Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Coloniensis or Irish script on screen. The Brooklyn Museum should be encouraged to do the same. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to maintain good relations with organizations, just as a general practice. In this particular case, it seems a good thing to me to acquiesce to the request to remove the ultra high resolution images, since they were not intended to be shared with the public. The museum has indicated they will share better scans than the ones that remained behind. Please remember that the museum expended funds in creating and hosting the images, and it is courteous to respect that investment. (As a note, GPL licenses allow for requesting reimbursement of costs in making material available... this is an extension of that principle, to my way of thinking). If our {{PD-art}} template, or the policy behind it, needs fixing, we should do that. But that's a different matter than this. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: These are no "ultra high resolution images". Depending on the size of the original scans with maximum resolution tend to be more than 100 MB in size, see this discussion for some background. Hence, we had now for some limited time resolutions which allowed, for example, to read the Chinese characters in the artworks which is now simply impossible at the current thumbnail resolutions. But the high resolution images we had are still far away from the maximal resolution of high-end drum scanners (as, for example, the Heidelberg Chromagraph 3400) which deliver a real (not just nominal) resolution of 12,000 dpi. What we had was still below 1,000 dpi. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The source link of File:Sparvagnspalatset.jpg now says that "high resolution" images have been taken down, and as the Swedish museum explains here that is because they were uploaded to commons. The action by the Foundation is arbitrary and it sets a strange precedent. There are also private people that scan old books; I have uploaded some from here. Will the Foundation delete my uploads as a courtesy when the person who is hosting this material at his own expense would request that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Brooklyn Museum does already participate in Flickr Commons, so they are providing an immense amount of stuff. Given the very specific circumstances... I can understand, although if they were user-taken photos the situation would probably be different. There is no copyright violation though, and it is somewhat unsettling as to what extent the Foundation will accede to requests from museums, but I can understand this one. PD-Art is a copyright position only, this is unrelated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey let's get a few things straight:

1. This was not an office action. The office might or might not have acted if no-one from commons was willing to do it, but office reps asked if we could do this within the community instead. With that in mind, please don't let this get bogged down into a discussion of what the WMF does or does not do: I deleted the images, and I do not take orders from the foundation.
2. Melesse did not break (or even bend) any laws by downloading these images from the B'klyn Museum's site. This is not a copyright issue, at all. He/she acted as a good commoner/-ist/etc. and found an amazing find here, it just so happens that the museum goofed a bit in how they set up their website. The point is that they didn't intend to make those available in the way that they did, and when dealing with museums I don't think we should take the "finders keepers, losers weepers" approach.
3. This is a very rare case, and completely unlike some of the examples given above. The museum (presumably) paid some money to get these very high quality images made, and (presumably) wants to re-coup that cost by selling prints (small prints, I would guess). They goofed up a bit on how they displayed their thumbnails. They asked (nicely) if we could not take advantage of their error.

I completely understand the legal/wiki-policy view on this, but this is actually more of an ethical choice. We as a community don't have a "governing body" that sets the rules and is answerable to complaints, which makes us a rather confusing organization to deal with for institutions that do have that kind of structure. So we as a community as a need to act in an ethical manner if we're to be trusted. We have nothing to offer but good faith and hard work, and we need to maintain an image as a good faith community at all costs. Even at the cost of a few images. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is by no means an exceptional case. Many institutions do object to their digitization work being uploaded here, for example the National Portrait Gallery in London. Also German, French and Italian museums have complained. As I mentioned above, a Stockholm museum withdrew all its digitized images from the internet because some were uploaded to Commons. Will SB_Johnny now replace File:Sparvagnspalatset.jpg with this thumbnail? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, even if this weren't an organization, I'd like to think we would grant such a request. "per user request" is used often enough when someone accidentally uploads the wrong image (or the wrong quality, or whatever). So, regardless any copyright issues, we actually do give copyright holders the benefit of the doubt in such situations. That it was a third party and not the museum itself who uploaded the images seems irrelevant to me. In the interests of encouraging either an individual user or a large organization like a museum, we should tend to cooperate where possible. Here, it is certainly possible, since we either have or can fairly easily get replacements of good quality. In the best of all possible worlds, they would be giving us the highest-quality version possible - however in this case they don't want to. Free content isn't about grabbing everything we can get our grubby paws on and damn the consequences - it's about voluntary cooperation towards shared goals. If they (whether we're talking about an individual user or this museum) don't want to cooperate in that way, it is not our place to force them to do so. Instead we should view this as an opportunity to extend an invitation to increase participation, and build a relationship which will benefit the free content community.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, why did your grubby paws close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Goodricke John.jpg with keep? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no mistake involved, only copyfraud. Nobody here is asserting that the images are copyright violations, only that they were not intended to be made public.  — Mike.lifeguard 02:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"your grubby paws" ??? Pieter, you need to tone down the rhetoric here, you're verging on rather unpleasant behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason to preach the gospel here. Keeping the Royal Astronomical Society's painting was a decision with which I did not disagree. If you had been reading you would have noticed that I was quoting Mike's own words, which probably express how the RAS feels about commons. And according to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#UK, the RAS has the law in its side. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

@Lar, he was just citing (we can get our grubby paws on and damn the consequences) Mike. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this deleting was a clear break of all relevant commons policies.

• To avoid intransparency all Office Actions have to be declared as such.

• There is no place for "political deletions" without discussions here.

• All deletions have to be made in a transparent way.

• There is no legitimation to cancel the principle The Public Domain has to be remain the Public Domain (and this means: in each image resolution) because of good relationship to a single museum.

• Each museum cooperating with us has to accept OUR rules, not: we have to cancel our rules in courtesy cases --Historiograf (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to make enemies, and make the "Stockholm museum approach" more attractive than the Brooklyn Museum's approach. Public domain isn't a license, it's the lack thereof. Just because something is PD doesn't mean the person who holds the work is under any obligation to share images of it, and doesn't give you the right to invite yourself into their attic and make copies. Museums are not our enemies, unless we make enemies out of them. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Historiograf: If we implemented your suggested approach, why exactly would a museum want to cooperate with us? I'm not seeing the good neighborliness and mellowness that is a hallmark of the Commons I enjoy contributing to in your approach. Instead, it comes off as rather belligerent. Is that what you intend? ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

These images are not in the attic, they have always been in print. The Brooklyn museum itself is using their PD status, they are not paying any royalties to the aithor's heirs. Would it be a belligerent thing to do to upload scans from the exhibition catalogue? Would the neighbourliness between the Brooklyn musuem and the Foundation result in another office action? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what we should do: Get the highest-quality version possible which is publicly available. BTW, in case you didn't notice, the Foundation took no action here.  — Mike.lifeguard 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still not very statisfied with all this. A lot of museums don't want their PD materials published on Commons. What will you do when a museum will request deletion of images citing this case as a precedent? Yann (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We will refuse. The only "precedent" is that we try to encourage good relations by not taking advantage of the innocent mistakes of others. In your example there is no mistake. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just today, User:Dcoetzee deleted lots of files, because the Foundation had received legal mail from the National Portrait Gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bad. At least he could wait for someone to save the images before deleting. :'( Yann (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The innocent mistake that museums in some European countries make is that they rely on the protection by law. A few days ago, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Midvinterblot.jpg was closed with the rationale that "Commons' policy does not care about the neighbouring right status in Sweden". Well, that would open up for uploading almost all Swedish photography to commons, because most photography in Sweden is protected by the same law paragraphs that protect this photo. I am more and more amazed by the different standards here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that closing rationale was IMHO wrong and overbroad. The correct rationale would've been the one at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are confusing what we CAN do, legally (which is what that post speaks to, and what our policy speaks to) and what we SHOULD do, to be good citizens in overall society. As the next post by Shelleyb7 outlines, the museum wants to work with us and is asking this as a favour. We should be nice people and work with an organization that has done us a lot of favours in the past. It's not going to kill us, and getting uniform 1200px images for everything will be a benefit over what we have now. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I work at the Brooklyn Museum and wanted to pop my head into the discussion to answer any questions that you may have. I was the main organizer behind Wikipedia Loves Art - an event that brought together 15 cultural institutions and their communities to generate 6,000 photographs for the Wiki; a project we devoted more than 200 staff hours to and the model has now been copied for the Wikis Love Art project in the Netherlands. As an open access advocate who represents a cultural institution, I see and respect both sides of the issue. As mentioned here, this is a bit of an unusual situation. We contacted the WMF after discovering that high-resolution copies of the "100 Views" were uploaded as a result of a programmer error on our part. Understanding that the images are in the public domain, we hoped the Wiki community would take into account the situation at hand and our past contributions to projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and work toward a compromise -- in part because the Edo images represent a substantial amount of earned income that the our struggling institution cannot afford to lose in the current economic climate. Specifically, we went to WMF to see if the higher-resolution files could be replaced with 1200-wide (on the long side) files -- which are three times the size of the files currently on the wiki and of much better quality. While I acknowledge that reducing the resolution is a substantial compromise on the part of the Wiki community and its users, we believe that the 1200-wide images will fulfill the educational mission of Wikipedia -- the prints will be able to be seen clearly and in detail, but not substantially impact the institution's revenue. It should be noted that we are currently working with the editors to find additional ways to make valuable contributions - as a start, we are looking to automate cross-populating the files we are currently uploading to the Flickr Commons. The museum takes its role as a good citizen very seriously, and hope you will agree that compromises like this help all of us and allow for future collaborations. Shelleyb7 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I appreciate that someone from the Brooklyn Museum comes on the wiki to explain the situation. I also thank the Brooklyn Museum for the files it provides to our project. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help replace the fuzzy old ones with the new ones, please chip in: the files are at http://drop.io/hiroshige_edo (in a zip file). It should probably be done by hand as re-uploads of the ones we have rather than making duplicates. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a bunch, upward from number 70 in the zipped collection. Resolution is much better, but the colours are less fresh. How do the colours compare to the images that Melissa uploaded? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, they are the exact same files as were there prior, just sized down - the files in the zip and not overly compressed jpgs, so they should be exactly the same just smaller. Colors will vary depending on which one you are looking at and condition of the print. Shelleyb7 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Michel trinquier 2 002.jpg

Permission was received and has been forwarded by email (copy attached) regards --Odilebe (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file, pending final confirmation by OTRS staff. However, I'd strongly suggest that you obtain a formal declaration of consent from Brigitte Scott regarding the use of her photographs under a free license. It is not clear from the message you've quoted above whether she's actually allowing them to be freely licensed or merely consenting to their use on Wikipedia (which is not sufficient). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done, but will be deleted again soon if permission does not arrive. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Ragini shetty Pictures

Please do not delete http://www.flickr.com/photos/36919223@N08/3601917978/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandlove (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, noone even requested deletion on File:Abhijatha umesh.jpg. However, if we already here: You are the photographer? I have the small suspicion, that you only the person who uploaded the image to Flickr and than to Commons. Thats ok, if you are the photographer or holder of all copyrights, but its not ok if you dont own the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Close. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:39, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

MarekV files

All files sent by MarekV was upload by its author, Marek Vanžura, Brno. Undelete them!!!! You can ask him at his amail addres at www.aispotter.eu!! Karel x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel x (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Suporte DVD Fundo sábado wikipedia.jpg

This is an Image created by me to the brazilian documentary O "Lapa Azul", that was produced by me too. So what's wrong with that image ??!

Esta é uma imagem criada por mim para o documentário brasileiro O "Lapa Azul" do qual também sou o produtor. Então qual é o problema desta imagem?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durval Jr. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an image that i have this copyright and used in a brazilian documentary O "Lapa Azul" that i produced too. So what's is wrong?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durval Jr. (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Konqueror4logo.png

konqueror is a free software.licence is gplv2.this file is konqueror's logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konqueror — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiii2006 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done by AVRS: The correct license is GNU LGPL 3+. –Tryphon^☂ 13:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Kpresenter2logo.png

this file is logo of koffice.koffice is free software ,licence is gpl v2 .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiii2006 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Portrait with hat good.jpg

I have full copywrite to use this photo. please restore. Niteflyer (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The photographer is Edward Norman Jackson (June 28, 1885 – November 11, 1967) [25]. Are you someone from his family? If you own the copyright of this file, please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request for "Yad Mordechai Main.jpg"

Hello, as for the deletion of the file File:Yad Mordechai Main.jpg- I'm the owner of the image and it was upload as part of documentation project for Yad Mordechai Apiary history and story. Please return it. thanks. Elad. Eladra (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file, and still negotiating if the copyright holder really want to release the logo, or prefer it to be uploaded to the Wikipedia as fair use. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To make things clearer, we're chatting at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Stockholm vapen bra.svg

The image is a heraldic svg-illustration created by myself in Inkscape. It is a version of a historical coat of arms for the city of Stockholm, Sweden. The image was deleted for copyright reasons on the basis of "similarity" to the official coat of arms of Stockholm [26]. But the deletion is in error:

• this version of the coat of arms was entirely created by myself, and is actually not that similar to the official version
• the official version is itself a derivative of a historical design which dates several hundreds of years back, and which is therefore not subject to copyright

The original design from which the coat of arms is derived, is this statue: , made in the 13th century AD. This is the corresponding coat of arms / seal: (from 1376). From this seal, the current official design has evolved gradually in many small steps. For some of this development see: [27].

Moreover, in Stockholm there are dozens (possibly hundreds) of different versions of this coat of arms, on buildings, in print etc, that are very old and none of which are subject to copyright. This svg-version is more similar to many of those designs, than it is to the official coat of arms of Stockholm today. Koyos (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 Support According to COM:FOP#Sweden, one is perfectly free to make derivatives, also when they are modern, when they are permanently situated outdoors, and a modern representation of the coat of arms can usually be found on the facade of City Hall etcetera. Also, according to COM:LICENSING#Finland, which has the same threshold of originality as Sweden, CoA's are often ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any interest from an administrator in resolving this? This CoA cannot be a "copyright violation" (see explanation above); it was created by me. The image is useful to Wikipedia; could someone please restore it? Koyos (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong, but this is the way I see it:

Option #1: The COA is copyrighted by the city of Stockholm. That means that the COA is original and different enough from its models. In this case, would not File:Stockholm_vapen_bra.svg also be original (and not derivative!), as it differs from the COA as much as it does from the models?

Option #2: The COA is not copyrighted by the city of Stockholm. That means that the COA is not original and different enough from its models, and it's in public domain like the drawing made by Koyos.

(And I wouldn't mix Finland into this. Finland and Sweden are, after all, two different independent countries.) Samulili (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't really copyright all versions of a COA; only particular representations. An SVG, unless pulled from a vector source like a PDF, is already not a direct copy and the authorship probably is with the uploading user. If the precise outlines were traced and the representation essentially copied, that could possibly be an issue, but I can't see the SVG I can't tell for sure. But yes, the amount of copyrightable expression in a COA is much less than typical artistic works and in most cases I think a user-created SVG should be considered an original work. Directly copying bitmaps from websites is not a good idea, but creating SVGs is an entirely different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have - of course - made an original drawing, and have not traced the outlines. The CoA is supposed to show a golden, stylized young mans head with slightly longer hair and a crown on a blue shield. Very simple. There are only so many ways this can be portrayed. My interpretation of the shape is more similar to old PD-interpretations, than to the current CoA of Stockholm. Koyos (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Samulilli: Finland and Sweden (and the other Scandinavian countries) have coordinated their legislation in copyright. These countries have in priciple the same thresholds of originality (similar in spirit to Germany). That is why the opinion of the Finnish copyright council is relevant, much more relevant than the opinions of commons administrators. Of course the Finnish opinions are not binding for a Swedish court, but a Swedish judge would probably reach the same conclusions because the laws are the same. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a consensus in favor of granting this request. Koyos (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Catequina.jpg

Please restore the image. It does not need a licence since it would be licensed under Template:PD-chem. Thank you --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I restored it. Please provide a description, a source and an author, otherwise it will be deleted again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done by Yann. –Tryphon^☂ 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel 2009.jpg

as well as File:CDU Parteitag Stuttgart 2008 a.jpg and File:CDU Parteitag Stuttgart 2008 b.jpg.
I contacted Mr. Guido Speiser from the CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle he is the head of Marketing und Interne Kommunikation. he allowed me to use these pictures for wikipedia. 9002redrum (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A permission where the use of an image is restricted to Wikipedia is not sufficient. We accept only freely licensed media, see COM:L. If the copyright holder of this image is willing to put this image under a free license, the permission has to be forwarded to our OTRS team. As soon as we receive a valid permission, this image will be restored. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I already told User:9002redrum, he needs a OTRS-ticket. --High Contrast (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg

The deletion of CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg is absurd! Yes, I made a screenshot from the film, but the film is made by me and a bunch of other people and the contents are all in the public domain! I can't belive it's such a hassle to contribute to wikipedia, it's as if you don't even want people to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakirr (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not at all clear from the image description that this was own work, but it shows that it was not a good idea to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg so soon. I suppose you will need to send permission via COM:OTRS for getting this undeleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I still can't understand why you make it so hard for non techies to contribute to wikipedia. --Drakirr (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconveniences. While it's not always obvious to new users, the policies regarding copyrights and permissions have evolved to do what we can to insure that licenses are accurate (images with free licenses really are free). Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Content that has been published outside of the Commons needs to be verified via e-mail. We do this to help protect the copyrights of others, since anyone can in theory upload anything they want to the Commons. If you want to contribute something that you have published somewhere else before, you either need to add a notice on your website stating the nature of the license of your content, or you need to send in an e-mail, from an official e-mail address, declaring you are the content holder. Otherwise, anyone could upload an image they just found on the web and claim they own it with no further evidence. I apologize if the process isn't clearly states or confusing, but once you get the hang of it, it really isn't that much of a bother. The best thing to do, instead of bothering with e-mail and OTRS is to simply add a copyright/licensing notice on your website. You say your project is in the public domain, is that stated anywhere on the web for verification?-Andrew c (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Undeletion Request

Please, this is my own work and I consider it Public Domain File:11a Nelio Guerson Video Forro Dos Cumpadre 1.JPG Any other code please advise me.Thanks ! Nelio Guerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelioguerson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2009 June 14 (UTC)

You based your work on copyrighted material from last.fm, which means that your work cannot be freely licensed (it's a derivative work). –Tryphon^☂ 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done, derivative work. –Tryphon^☂ 11:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:KRISBERNAL.jpeg

To Whom It May Concern,

I would just like to Request to Please don't delete my Screenshot of Kris Bernal teaser in All my Life..It has a Copyright Logo now...

Thank you..Please review it soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljurians (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2009 June 15 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference whether there is a copyright logo or not. We only accept free content, and you are not allowed to publish this image under a free license (because you are not the copyright holder). –Tryphon^☂ 05:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done. –Tryphon^☂ 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please don't delete the HKP1944.jpg file

I'm trying again to use the File:HKP1944.jpg file in an article on Karl Plagge and the HKP Slave Labor Camp. This photo was taken by an unknown author in 1944 and is found in various archives around the world. This particular file was obtained from the archives of the Ghetto Fighter's House in Israel. I have their permission to use it and published it in my book "The Search for Major Plagge" published by Fordham University Press in 2005. I tried to use it in the past, but the photo was deleted. I find your instructions regarding appeals of automatic deletions to be difficult to follow and frankly inscrutable! I would appreciate any assistance and plain English instructions on how to keep this file from being deleted.

Many thanks, Michael Good

Hi Michael. Thing is, that most copyright lasts 70 years from date of publication or author's death, so if we assume that's 1944, it won't be public domain until 2014. If it's in several archives around the world, that's all well and good, and if it's used in your book, congratulations. But just because you could use it in your book doesn't mean it's allowed here. Files on commons have to be freely licenced - that means that anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial use and making derivatives, all without consulting the original author. Unless we have specific permission from the copyright holder - whoever that is - that they release it under a free licence in full understanding of what that means, we can't host it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It could help if we would know the photographer, or at least where it was first published. Yann (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done, per mattbuck. –Tryphon^☂ 10:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of Guru Shyamala G bhave page

Hi,

I created a page by name Guru Shyamala G bhavededicated to great musical personality, and it was one of my first article on wikipedia. After uploading I learnt that, I would require a written permission from the original site where I took the contents from... and I did that through mail. The mail was sent to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org... and I got a cc mail of the permission mail. Meanwhile due to delay of a day to get the permission, my article got deleted.

I am hereby requesting your to undeletion of the same article, to make the seekers/historians/studnents of music to get benefit from this article. Shyamala G bhave is a child prodigy with lots of awards to her credit as well as lots of concerts around the world. Kindly let me know if any other thing I need to do to get this article oline.

Looking forward to favourable reply...

Few links

http://www.shyamalagbhave.com/home.html http://www.shyamalagbhave.com/reachher.html

Regards, Srinath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhatjis (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2009 June 21 (UTC)

I see no deleted article by that name here on Commons. I guess you want to ask for undeletion at the (English?) Wikipedia, because on Commons, we only host free media anyway. –Tryphon^☂ 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done. –Tryphon^☂ 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

file:CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg

OTRS:3154495 appears to grant a PD release for this image. I am not a sysop here though so I can't verify it. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The official website, http://citysymphony2009.blogspot.com/, states the film is CC-BY-3.0, not public domain. Not sure about the cover artwork. I'd be inclined to undelete based on the CC claim of the official website, as personally I'm not sure the OTRS e-mail is tied to the official project, and PD contradicts what is publicly stated on their website.-Andrew c (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Aguilar.jpg

Can you restore File:Carlos Aguilar.jpg, as a derivative work from CC-BY-SA File:Seijun Suzuki and Carlos Aguilar.jpg? --Dereckson (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Bruna_Ferraz_3.jpg

Freely licensed picture of the most famous Brazilian pornstar: pt:Bruna_Ferraz. Admin deleted it saying it's "out of the project scope", but he/she is probably just worried with the NSFW nature of the image (which is not grounds for deletion, let alone speed-deletion). --Damiens.rf 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More censorship here: File:Morgana_Dark@Erótika_Fair.jpg. Famous pornstar (Morgana Dark), file was in use at pt. --Damiens.rf 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The second one is not available on Flickr. Furthermore other images from this user are tagged "All rights reserved." Yann (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You know this is not grounds for deletion. The image was Flickrreviewed by a trusted user. Why did you speed deleted it? And what about the first image? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since no policy based explanation was given, I'll be reuploading this image shortly. Please refrain from misusing your admin tools in the future. --Damiens.rf 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't do that. It was deleted because it is out of scope. A portrait would be within scope, but I don't think Commons should host porn, even if the person is famous. Yann (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think is within the scope because it shows how a pornstar is on his/her work. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Support undeletion of both files. If there is doubt about scope, it should go through a regular DR; speedy deletions for being out of scope should be strictly for very obvious situations, like private pictures of a non-notable subject. Same for copyvio; they both seem to be copyvios on flickr, but it is not obvious without finding the original source, so a DR would be in order. –Tryphon^☂ 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Restored and moved to a proper DR. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruna Ferraz 3.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Abapuru_Malba_Buenos_Aires_07_2005.jpg

Picture taken by a PT-Wiki user of a museum interior. Admin deleted it arguing if the painting is visible enough that you can make out what it is (especially if it can be used in an article about the painting!) then it is a derivative work and, therefore, a copyright infringement.

I completeley disagree of this very ackward and somewhat individual definition of what is a copyright infringement (if the painting is visible enough that you can make ou what it is ?! Are we sure of that or is this just guessing?). And I think commons also disagrees, since there are some hundreds (as I checked) or thousands (as I believe) of pictures exactly like that one. Just some examples, related to non-free artworks displayed in museum interiors views wide accepted and used on Wikipedia projects through commons: see [28], [29] [30], [31] [32], [33]. Dornicke (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are refering to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abapuru Malba Buenos Aires 07 2005.jpg. I agree with the deletion. One painting is in focus, thats a derivative work of someone else work, and its too much to be de minimis. That it is not deminimis is shown by the fact, that the photo was used or is able to describe the painting. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And according to your links: Im unsure about the Jesús Soto Museum of Modern Art photos especially that with Sculptures by Soto - but I dont know of Venezuelan copyright law. File:Ruehende Schiffe (1927).jpg is a copyright violation, Klee died 1940 so his works are in copyright till January 1 2011 (70 years pma), File:Aksel Johannessen - Munch mit dem Porträt von Jappe Nilssen big.jpg is also not ok, also in COM:L#Norway 70 years pma applies, so this is a copyright violation too. --Martin H. (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are hundreds (I do believe in thousands) of the same kind used in many projects. If they're all copyright violation, well, dura lex, sed lex. What we shouldn't do is erase one image amongst one million, pretending that the problem is solved. Soto's works are obviously copyrighted, there's absolutelly no difference at all between the erased image and Soto's ones. What difference could Venezuelan copyright law make here? Was there any Argentinian or Brazilian law checked before erasing Abapuru? I really don't think so. See also these ones[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

And many, many others... Dornicke (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploaders are instructed to pay attention to any third party rights, of course this is always a problem with photos, not only for paintings and "obvious" artwork like in (most of) your exampels, but also with architecture in some countries. Feel free to nominate images for deletion if you think, they are derivative works of artwork and not covered by freedom of panorama in this country or only de minimis. This particular deletion request was correct and was not intended to clear all copyright problems on Commons at once ;) --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to do so. I was just trying to understand what kind of rules are these ones that allows a picture that is a copyright (?) violation (like Abapuru) to be deleted but at the same time keeps another copyvio of the exactly same kind (like [41], which was already nominated do deletion and kept). So I see clearly that this project is not about rules. Is about personal taste. As what depends on me, all copyright violations largely known, used and tolerated are going to be kept. And from time to time I'll appear here to talk about this when we delete a less popular painter's work because it's an "obvious copyright infringement". Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is based on rules, the first delreq on the Munch photo was because of the copyright status of the photographic work. Dornicke, no one can always remember all rules of 193 copyright jurisdications, all rules of third party rights and all exemptions from it. I now marked this undeletion request as done because the deletion was ok and saying that other photos with the same problems are still on Commons does not affect this deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Patricia Medina-Siren of Bagdad-Promo-Van Pelt.jpg

I have serious doubts, that the claims of the tagger and the deleter were correct. btw: Here's the reverse 92.228.82.72 10:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. As you pointed out on Infrogmation's talk page, a regular DR would have been in order, especially considering the number of files involved. The deletion summary in the deletion log is confusing too: it says no license, where clearly there was one (contested apparently, but it's really not the same as no license at all). –Tryphon^☂ 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support undeletion. If something is conisdered uncertain a deletion request might be appropriate, but I see no reason for unilateral speedy delete to have been applied. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

---

• Undeleted for further discussion to take place. Please file a DR if the copyright is in fact in doubt. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo1.jpg

I have serious doubts, whether the claims of the tagger and of the deleter were correct.

• The deletion of this version File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo2.jpg is also dubious. 92.228.82.72 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lacquered Liubo Chess Set.jpg

The photographer have changed its license on Flickr from CC-BY-ND to CC-BY-SA :) --Dereckson (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

More deleted files

I have serious doubts, whether the claims of the tagger and of the deleter were correct.

1. File:Anne Francis-Clifton Webb-DREAMBOAT-Promo..jpg log
2. File:Ann Sheridan and David Wayne.jpg log
3. File:Ann Sheridan without David Wayne.jpg log
4. File:Ann Sothern-HOTEL FOR WOMEN-Promo.jpg log
5. File:Anne Baxter-YOU'RE MY EVERYTHING-Promo.jpg log
6. File:Marilyn2-by Cronenweth.JPG log
7. File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo1.jpg log
8. File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo2.jpg log
9. File:Abby Dalton-Vintage Original Publicity Promo.jpg log
10. File:Peggy Moran, Robert Cummings-Spring Parade,1940.jpg log
11. File:Louis Jourdan, Lilli Palmer, Dana Andrews,1948-Promo-1.jpg log
12. File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG log
13. File:Ann SHERIDAN-James CAGNEY-Angels Dirty Faces-PHOTO2.jpg log
14. File:Gladys George, Bob Burns -I'm from Missouri,1939.jpg log
15. File:Gladys George, Bob Burns -I'm from Missouri,1939-2.jpg log
16. File:George Sanders-Debra Paget-Movie Still.jpg
17. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico1.JPG log
18. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico2.JPG log
19. File:Lynn Bari-Tampico3.JPG log
20. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico5.JPG log
21. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico4.JPG log
22. File:Rochellehudson.jpg
23. File:Anne Shirley and John Beal in M'Liss, 1936.jpg log
24. File:Audie Murphy-DW ORIGINAL PUBLICITY PROMO PHOTO.jpg log
25. File:Dolores Del Rio-I Live For Life-2.JPG log
26. File:Dolores Del Rio-I Live For Life-1.jpg log
27. File:Anne Shirley and John Beal in M'Liss, 1936.jpg log

• In Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Gladys_George,_Bob_Burns_-I'm_from_Missouri,1939.jpg (btw: The decision was keep) you will find 2 links, f. e.: The only way to determine whether a film or television show is copyrighted is to do a copyright search at the Library of Congress http://catalog.loc.gov/ . This applies to all works prior to 1988. Or this study of 1961 about books, Publicity Photos , Film stills and more:
• Interesting: fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed at that time. So it looks like a task for people with too much time. Or is anyone here, who believes that this troll-tagger has proofed his claims? Or that Zirland, the deleter, has proofed Klodl's claims?
• For all photographs without a copyright notice see this
• Btw: Some more promotion photos are tagged by Klodl, but not deleted in this moment 78.52.61.68 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• PS: Proposal: How about somebody adds - after undelition, of course - a note, that cropping of these files is strictly forbidden. Because the company's lines on these film stills and lobby cards are the only proof, that these files are correctly hosted on commons 78.52.61.68 22:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:200px-Adidas Logo.png

I request undeletion on Pieter Kuiper's advice. Apparently the logo can be PD-textlogo because Adidas is a German company and their logo is simpler than the walking eye, lower bound of the German threshold of originality. File was previously tagged as PD-textlogo but speedily deleted as a copyvio. --Eusebius (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I cannot see the image file, but maybe this is de:Datei:Adidas klassisches logo.svg. It is simpler than de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg, which a German court ruled not eligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The file of this en:File:Adidas Logo.svg. Bidgee (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Doesn't seem likely to be copyrightable in the U.S. either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Not even in Brazil. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Koyos (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done. –Tryphon^☂ 07:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lockwoodnzflag-1-.gif

Deleting this image broke the attribution path of File:Kyle Lockwood's New Zealand Flag.svg.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted (in 2007) as superseded by SVG... yeah, should undelete. We don't do that anymore.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done. –Tryphon^☂ 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t remember anymore whether I uploaded this file originally or one of its versions improved by me in Photoshop. It is an old Polish postcard popular with articles about Przemyśl. The image originated from low res copy but was improved. I don’t understand how come the {{PD-Polish}} could have been missing, but that’s what the deleting admin said. Please reinstate the file adding to it template {{PD-Polish}}. Thanks in advance. By the way, it would have been nice if I was informed about the deletion request ahead of time if there was one. --Poeticbent talk 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The PD template was present, what wasn't present was an explanation why it should be PD. In particular: if it's a postcard, one would have to see the reverse to be sure that it was published without a copyright notice. --rimshot^talk 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Template {{PD-Polish}} defines the timeframe and deadlines for copyright validity of course. This particular image appeared in encyclopedias and in books (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1990; or The Holocaust by Sir Martin Gilbert, published by Collins, London 1986; and so on) and is featured in an outdoor display in the city if I remember correctly what I once read (take a look at an example: same place, different angle). That's what I mean by the postcard. The image is well known because the synagogue was destroyed in World War II with little visual record. According to Polish copyright law the image is in the Public Domain. --Poeticbent talk 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support restoring the image, per Poeticbent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Soyuz TMA-11 Patch.gif

This image was tagged {{No license}} when it already had been tagged {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I beleive that the file was legitimately licensed and should be restored (as other projects still use this file). --Stux (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gilad Shalit on Hamas poster.jpg

The file was voted to be kept, but somehow got deleted here. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose In the occupied territories the British Mandate law of 1920 still applies, which is basically the United Kingdom Copyright Act of 1911. There is no FOP for 2D in that law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you could provide the references for all your claims? I mean it will be really strange if a poster made by hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch will be protected under United Kingdom Copyright Act. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See the reference given in the deletion discussion by Sean.hoyland about what copyright law applies in the regions administered by the Palestinian Authority. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First-of-all Sean.hoyland voted to keep the image. Second of all they explained what has happened to them after reading the document:"Unfortunately I blacked out and banged my head on the desk shortly after starting reading it." I know, mr. Kuiper, that you do not like me, but I am sure you do not want me to "black out and bang my head on the desk" don't you? . Besides the work you refer to proves absolutely nothing. It is just a research. And as I mentioned earlier no copyright low could or should be applied to an organisation that is designated as a terrorist group by the country that established the low.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Sean.hoyland did not vote to keep the image. The master's thesis is not that terrible. It is quite logical. British copyright was introduced in the Mandate, was affirmed to be valid on the West Bank, also after the merger with Transjordania (although a different law was in effect on the East Bank). Israeli occupation did not change the law. And the Palestinian Authority has not yet come around to modernize its copyright legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sean.hoyland only commented "It would be a real shame to lose this one" not voted. Once again the poster was created not by the Palestinian Authority. It was created by hamas which has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. Therefore no copyright low of United Kingdom is applied to that poster. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the link in that discussion, the active copyright law in the West Bank (and Gaza Strip, albeit through a different legal history) is the UK Copyright Act of 1911 modified by a 1924 British Mandate ordinance (to make it Palestinian-specific). It is not the current UK Copyright Act, and I'm not sure it listed things like exceptions for freedom of panorama. There is a copy of it on Wikisource. None of the entities which have controlled those areas since have made any changes to the copyright law, instead keeping previous laws intact. Palestine is obviously not a signatory to the Berne Convention, but usual Commons policy is to respect whatever copyright laws are there. I can't see the image since I'm not an admin, but the situation does seem to be muddled. Deletion requests aren't votes, either -- they are there to present arguments, and the closing admin has to decide which argument seems best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The situation is not that muddled. Also in Israel, the same law was valid with minor modifications until the 2007 Copyright Act. Its form in 2005 is here. The FOP provision is in 2(iii), s:Page:The_copyright_act,_1911,_annotated.djvu/45. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thule-gesellschaft emblem.jpg

• Deleted for copyvio
• Published in 1919 or sooner.
• No known author since more than 70 years

Should be undeleted and tagged {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. --Dereckson (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment If this is the same as de:Datei:Thule-Gesellschaft_Emblem.jpg, it is signed "G." My guess is that this (together with the drawing style) would make authorship traceable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well seen the G. But at left, isn't strange? Couldn't be for Gesellschaft? No I think this visibility corresponds more to a signature than an abbreviation. --Dereckson (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Why are you deleting my file?"

Why are you deleting my file?

Why don't you tell us who you are and which file you are talking about? You can sign your posts with ~~~~. --rimshot^talk 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marilyn-by Cronenweth.JPG

There was no copyright notice 79.193.105.194 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tom Keene-OUR DAILY BREAD-Old Tinted Publicity Photo.JPG

[42] Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain 79.193.105.194 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, do not tell a lie. Only older star headshots unrelated to movie are public domain. [43] Production Stills (photos taken on the set of the film or TV show during the shooting) must be cleared with the studio and can cost anywhere between $150 and $500. --Klodl (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your edits every time with a new date, when you are changing them 79.193.105.194 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of cursing here, answer my question. --Klodl (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And why you have tagged this file File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG for a speedy delete? 79.193.105.194 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludwig Donath in Gilda, 1946.JPG

Speedy delete while a DR is running 79.193.105.194 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

 Not done The DR has since been closed as delete, per the speedy. -Andrew c (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lake Meredith NRA Fish Fry Tournament.jpg

Got deleted, because the original source could not be found on the NPS-web site anymore. I found it at http://home.nps.gov/imr/customcf/apps/CMS_HandF/GreenBoxPics/LAMR_fishing.jpg so the rational for deletion is obsolete. Please restore. --h-stt !? 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done Yann (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Wkboxfront.jpg

GFDL permission received in OTRS ticket#2009070610054867. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done-Andrew c (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)