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.

This cropped image was created following the Request for Deletion of its (terrible) parent image. The original image had one of those ghastly green MSPaint boxes over the face of the subject, so this crop removed the entire face and focused on the actual subject - the tying of the breasts. However, it was deleted as a "Derivative of a deleted work", which seems like terrible reasoning - pictures are often derived from deleted works because there is a way to derive them as to render the earlier issue moot. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif and some others (50? I did not count [1]) were speedy'ed as "no source or license since May 2007". They were tagged with {{Military Insignia}} which states that:

"If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of images tagged with this template and uploaded cannot be confirmed as free, they should be listed for deletion."

So speedy is not a valid oprion here. Files were old so they should be nominated for deletion if it is not possible to find proper source and license.

There is a lot of files like these - Category:PD tag needs updating has 8,456 files that need an update. Problem is that it takes time to fix and there is to few users to fix all problems on Commons here and now. I think it is a bad idea just to speedy them all. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the request that uploaders be warned before their files are deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides we have [2] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support: We need to get rid of deprecated licenses, that for sure. But speedying all those 8000+ files without even making a DR and notifying the original uploaders isn't appropriate. If there's a specific problem with one of these files or with some of them, they should either be tagged with {{subst:nld}} or brought to a DR. I think it's important that the users who did this in good faith aren't passed over. It's still Humans who edit this media database. Fed up users can do the Commons more harm than 0.16 % of possibly unfree files which are marked for reusers that they might not be free. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support undeletion -- it is essential that those who enforce our policies strictly comply with both the spirit and the letter of it. Those who point out that the image was uploaded when the liscense was valid make an excellent point, and that proper notice, not a speedy deletion, was the appropriated response when that liscense was deprecated. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support} reasons as stated above, & see my comments in the section below: "The general problem" Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A directly related problem, that we may further discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? Sv1xv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.

However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.

I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Someone appears to have marked all old military Insignia files with no license. Since you were all complaining about not getting notice I figured I'd tell you. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at some of the deleted files: File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif, File:IT-Army-OF2a.gif, File:POR-Army-OF3.gif, and File:Bp aut hptm schulter.gif. All these files were speedy deleted without any warning to the respective uploaders and without anyone tagging these images first. Three of these candidates can be considered as {{PD-shape}} and the last one is most likely a case of “amtliches Werk”, i.e. {{PD-AustrianGov}} could apply. I agree with MGA73 and others that this calls for a DR which allows the uploaders and others to inspect the individual cases, obtaining missing documentation, and switching to proper licenses as far as possible. It is correct that this is long overdue and many of these files cannot be kept at Commons but we shall follow proper procedure. I suggest that

• all the speedy deleted files will be temporarily undeleted,
• one or more deletion requests will be filed for them (it might be useful to group them into countries),
• a proper deadline will be set (I suggest one or two months), and
• all uploaders will be notified and all will be invited (possibly through the village pump and the other forums) such that we have plenty of opportunity to save what can be saved.

--AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 obvious points:

1. we need to track (& check/pay attention to) alterations in the permissions/licensing of files, & be able to differentiate between changes made by the uploader & changes made by 3rd parties (& reasons for each)

2. if a license tag is valid at the time of the original upload, then it should not cause the file to be nominated for deletion, if the tag is later deprecated/altered/eliminated/etc.

the only valid exception to this rule, that i can think of, would be if/when there is a change in the legal status of the file, i.e.: alterations in relevant copyright law.

otherwise such files should never be deleted for this reason!

the fact that this is being done would seem to constitute a fairly major bug/flaw/loophole in commons procedures.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support suggestion by AFBorchert -- if there are admins willing to set it up and follow through. What's important is, after all, not that images are to be deleted, but that copyright violations are to be deleted and all other useful material kept. Now Zscout brought attention to the issue so it should be possible to resolve in the way suggested by AFBorchert.

Fred J (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible for a bot to look at all the images that use deprecated license templates and compare the upload date with the deprecation date. If the upload date is before the deprecation date (category A), the bot should notify the uploader and mark the image as:

• Needing it's copyright status investigating (so as to warn reusers)
• Explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion.

If the upload date is the same as or later than the deprecation date (category B), then the bot should notify the uploader and mark the image as:

• Needing it's copyright status investigating (so as to warn reusers)
• Explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion until after $TIME (where $TIME is 7×24 hours after the timestamp of the bots edit to the uploader's talk page)
• Being strongly discouraged from being speedily deleted if it is possible that it might be public domain or freely licensed.

There should be a central list of all such deprecated templates, and the bot should keep a list of images using each template noting which are category A and which category B (with the latter including the $TIME). Also noted on the page should be any images which are nominated for (speedy) deletion, updated in real time¹ so that users need only watchlist one page rather than thousands. When the page for a template is set up the bot should place a notice on the deprecated template's talk page and possibly the talk page of every contributior to the template and/or its talk. (¹ I'm not a bot programmer, but I'd have thought it possible for a bot to examine every edit to the files using deprecated templates and check for the addition of any deletion templates). Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support undeletion and AFBorchert's suggestion. –SJ+ 08:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

On the deletion request (here) it has been made clear that the file is build from to PD files, and the new dw is PD also because of that, it could be that the file is a trademark but not a copyvio.

Also this isn't the real logo only a look a like, it has some differences with the real logo, So I'm requesting Undeletion.

Best regards, Huib talk 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... On July 8, you requested deletion. Two days later, you gave more reasons for deletion. And now, when Piotr finally is making an effort to clean up those ancient DR's, you are protesting? Also at the user problems board? Difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.20.154 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to log in? Adambro (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record:

Yes I nominated the file for deletion, and after that I even give more arguments for deletion yes, but people told in the DR why the image isn't a copyvio and why it should be kept.

So it doesn't mean that when I nominate a file I should support deletion until the end, when arguments are given for keep and those arguments are valid, its okay for me to change my mind. I am just a human like you, or PJ and nobody is always right, and when somebody thinks he is always right there is something seriously wrong.

I think there are enough valid reasons given for keep that it should be undeleted. Huib talk 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral I had voted to keep this image as I see no real problem with copyright; however, this is just fan art. I made File:Vitesse Arnhem flag.svg, and replaced the deleted files on nlwp. Huib had 5 months to withdraw his nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am writing to request undeletion of the following images. They were deleted for copyright violation. I own all rights to these images, and I have sent my permission and confirmation/proof that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following images uploaded to Wikipedia Commons at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. They are listed under the license Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US based on United States law

• Image:EcoarttechECLIPSE.jpg
• Image:EcoarttechLANDSCAPE5.jpg
• Image:EcoarttechERAR.jpg
• Image:Networkperformance.jpg
• Image:Conductor17.jpg
• Image:Usemeasmedium.gif
• Image:Cn_zero.jpg.
• Image:Restlessculture3.jpg
• Image:Soylove.jpg
• Image:OtherSidesOfHere.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artconstructionset (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the deletion log, those images are provided on the Internet with a non-derivative non-commercial license (CC-by-NC-ND). Are you aware that, by uploading them here under CC-by-SA 3.0 US, they might now be modified, sold, or be part of a commercial product? — Xavier, 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded in 2007 and speedied 14 February 2010 with the reason "Copyright violation: trival reproduction of copyrighted product, no fair use on commons". We have a category with images of same subject here Category:Red Bull cans. We have many other cans in Category:Cans and bottles in Category:Bottles, as beverage containers. If this and other bottles and cans should be deleted I think we should have a DR. Some would probably say meta:Avoid copyright paranoia but I we should delete if it is a copyvio. In this case I'm not sure if a simple picture of a red bull is creative enough to be a copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it seems that someone made a cleanup in bottles and cans (see undeletion requests above). --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file stated in this header has to be restored. In discussion I show the reason why the photo is not copyrighted anymore. The author clearly states that he had no personal copyright, that the photo was done by the request and order of the museum, that the museum organized their voyage. The photos were done under the guidance of the museum's director. The photo itself was published in 1926. [In Russian:] В своих публикациях автор указывает, что 1) отправился в экспедицию музея, 2) действовал по указанию директора музея, 3) фотографировал для музея, 4) передал негативы и отпечатки музею, 5) с гордостью заявляет, что работы для музея выполнены им хорошо. Он пишет: «Поездка была организована дирекцией». Автор «охотно» принял это предложение, то есть загодя знал, что работает на музей. По словам автора, «отпечатки снимков и сами негативы я передал музею» (то есть не в музей на хранение, а музею как владельцу). А вот его слова из радиопередачи: «Негативы и позитивы я передал (имя директора) в музей по его, так сказать, заявке. Выполнил его распоряжение. Копии себе оговорил, что копии отпечатков я оставил себе».--PereslavlFoto (talk)

So we see this is a work for hire. [Russian:] Таким образом, это служебное произведение.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long list in here

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

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

I chose one at random, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png. It looks like a duplicate of File:Osterburg (Altmark) in SDL.png to me. (Slightly different shade of red maybe....) Wknight94 ^talk 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe I chose a bad example. Others don't look so much like duplicates. Wknight94 ^talk 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the history you can see that it is only a duplicate because a new version was uploaded just before file was deleted. So if file is undeleted and lates upload is reverted then it is not a duplicate anymore. Perhaps that is what Carlossuarez46 wants. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that many of this images had been reuploaded by the initial uploader to make them a duplicate and that he wanted to delete them to maintain the set of locator images. He may comment on the process too.

At the moment we have a complete, maintained and similar quality set of most recent locator maps of this Mecklenburg-Vorpommern municipalities. I also disagree with the deletion, Commons would be best with having also sets of the former situations, so the best sollution for updating sets of locator maps is not to overwrite the old ones and delete those whose name is not longer existing but to first move the complete set to an appropriate new name and indicating the time span and then upload the new set of images. For one particular file see File:Landkreise, Kreise und kreisfreie Städte in Deutschland.svg (lead image, older versions with time in filename in the other versions), of course we are talking of some more files here.

Back to the topic: With restoring this locators now you will not do an improvement of Commons. You will mix up the set of locater maps we currently have with outdated locators. As long as you not maintain the full set of outdated locator maps and update their descriptions you will create a terrible mess and mix up of old and new, bad quality and good quality, correct description and outdated description. So we should stay with the current maintained and complete set. Maybe sometime someone will create a new set of locator maps showing the old situation and directly upload it under a correct filename including the time span and with a correct description, that would be much, much easier. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if other duplicates created by Rauenstein and deleted by Leit were indeed duplicates? For example, deleted "duplicate" File:Lengefeld Milestone.jpg was created in 2006, and the "original" File:Lengefeld, Königlich-sächsischer Stationsstein.jpg was created in 2010 -- looks more like superseded photo for me, not duplicate. Trycatch (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after my initial quick look, I took a longer look at a few ---- and got thoroughly confused. Someone will need to simplify this case I think. File A became B, then became C ---- File X became Y, then became C ---- File B became X, then became A, then B. Then all got deleted. Ugh... Wknight94 ^talk 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot see the deleted files, but when they were used on the English Wikipedia before wholesale delinking took place, they were different, if someone updated them to be duplicates so that someone could delete them, that's troubling. In any event, they should be undeleted (and can later be reverted to be useful), and if anyone still thinks that they ought be deleted it can be discussed properly rather than just speedied. Because the English WP (where I am an admin) and probably other Wikis rely on maintenance of files on commons even if nothing is currently linked the histories of articles cannot be fully viewed if the files are deleted because they are delinked (currently). That's a bigger process issue than we need to resolve here, but were these local on the English Wiki, any admin here could see that something has been changed to be duplicative and revert the change and save the file from deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. Just based on the confusion of the case, it should have gone to COM:DR at the very least. Wknight94 ^talk 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Wknight94(1926) There were and there will be several restructurations of municipalities mostly in eastern germany to reduce the number of municipalities, 4th administrative level. The 3rd level (Landkreis/district) is also indicated in the filenames with an abreviation (the vehicle plate code). So far the outdated locators where deleted due to this bad replace and dupe process instead of renaming the whole set and upload a new set.

Roughly simplyfying what this means for the above images: All links above beeing blue are municipalitie locators that exist under the same name before and after the reforms, they ar of course updated because the surrounding municipalities changed. All red links are outdated locator maps of municipalities that no longer exist. Those shouldnt end up in the categories or sets showing the current sittuation, this requires correction of the description, maybe a change of filename to open a new set and it requires to categorize them appropriately. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if category or the filename is wrong the solution is not to delete the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the users perspective maybe it was the sollution. Bad process, and as I suggested: Move the whole outdated set to a filename that indicate that it is outdated (e.g. Foo in XY, yyyy-mm-dd - yyyy-mm-dd.png) and then upload the new set, do not replace files with something different (a changed subdivisioning is something different), do not delete them. That was not done (maybe not known at this time) and i admire that it would be terrible much work. If we now restore the files we obviously must correct this, otherwise we will do more damage to the existing set and then doing any improvement. So the best sollution would be to create a new set of images or extract them from all this version histories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Maybe a bot person should be invited? Wknight94 ^talk 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is possible: Yes. Is it possible? It also requires some human work I think, the reforms not toke place at one date but on various dates, so far the uploader was the only one who spent his time in this low interest and odd work field. So he must be involved, I dont want to have him stoped contributing to Commons and move to de.wp, that wouldnt be an improvement either. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easi to do. A bot can undelete the images. A human must check the images, revert to older version if needed and delete/mark images that are dupes. Once that is done a bot can rename all the images. --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if titles are wrong, there's a Move button now. That would probably be the best approach from a history-saving POV. Wknight94 ^talk 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not revert anything and not delete any duplicates. The files that exist at the moment with the name "foo in xy.png" are the lead images, they are in use all over and they present the current status after the reorganisation/reform. This undeletion request targets the locator maps before the reorganisation. So only extract that old revisions and move them to different filenames indicating that they represent a stuts before the restructuration. --Martin H. (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As these maps are subject to change frequently, it might be worth adding a date (read: year) of reference to the filename. Check, e.g. User:Tschubby's uploads for a way how it can be made to work. -- User:Docu at 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelition. - Stop this nonsense event, please. Rauenstein (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sense? why were things overwritten? Now we have garbage like this File:Lewitzrand in PCH.PNG which shows Stadt Parchim (see File:Parchim in PCH.PNG) not Lewitzrand. If we had the maps of the former gemeinden we could clearly see the problem.... There has been no real reason why these were deleted (or overwritten to be duplicates and then deleted), and now we're left with wrong maps that even the German editors cannot figure out because there is no back up to try to understand them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct such simple mistakes instead of pointing on them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have adobe illustrator, so I point them out and someone who does may fix them. But my point remains, deleting these has obscured the fact that this error sat unreported for quite some time because no one had backup to check. Transparency is the hallmark of the Wikipedias; deletion of back-level versions, whether used or not, removes the transparency and allows errors to creep in and go undetected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support undeletion. The DDR existed, those municipalities existed and articles about former municipalities are very well conceivable (e.g. people were born there, died there &c.). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support undeletion. See above!Nemissimo (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few short seconds of a performer on stage. There is NO IDENTIFIABLE MUSIC in this video, it cannot be considered a derivative work if you can't even tell what work is being performed. The reason given for the deletion is that this is fair use. No. Fair use is the use of someone else's copyrighted work for scholarly or non-commercial use, or in a transformative way. None of those are being claimed here. The work is, on its face, non-infringing. Despite *5* months of trying, nobody has been able to identify the specific work being infringed. And they won't be able to. The video does not infringe on any copyrighted works and therefore must be restored. -Nard the Bard 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing what I stated about this on IRC. The 'work' is the performance of the song, and the song itself. The author/group has copyright on those. This is a fixation of that work (one of the rights preserved to the copyright holder). Wether or not we can discern anything copyrightable in that fixation is not relevant to it's copyright status. Actually, it possibly makes it worse, in that it could be considered to be a misrepresentation of the performance of the group. TheDJ (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:C.G.Jung and Mathias Göring 1934.jpg although the book that this was taken from did not mention a photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Carl_Gustav_Jung_1922.jpg. This is really getting out of hand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You did not track those sources but rely on a book of e.g. 1969, maybe the owner of the original negative knows the author name, then your "Author unknown" is trash. It is not you or our community who decide if someone is unknown, its the sum of all known and not yet known outside references. Ask Corbis and that family. The photo is not anonymous as long as you not provide evidences and do this research, even if the research would be time intensive. Stop playing funny guessing games here, something is anonymous if the sum of all known (and not yet known) sources says that the author is not researchable or that the pseudonyme the author selected is not assignable to a person. --Martin H. (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a range of scholarly books do not give a photographer for the cover photo, the photographer is not known. Corbis does not mention him either. And families? I would not know the names of the photographers of the portraits in my living room here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I extended my comment, some edit conflicts in the meantime. Aha, have you asked? You rely on their online shop, nothing more! Remember that they have boxes in an archive full with original negatives and recordings maybe. --Martin H. (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you, every photo published before 1940 without the photographer’s name written in bold, large letters across the image is an anonymous work. Every single upload discussed by this user noted “author: unknown”. This is no reliable approach. How can we build up a free media repository (and for me, this is more than some colourful thumbnails in Wikipedia articles), when you encourage users to take the line of the least resistance? An overwhelming percentage of photos published during the 1930s is still protected by copyright for simple biological reasons. Someone who uploads files with less information, less context has a higher chance to store images here compared to someone who tries to figure out who created a work actually, if we follow your inflationary use of Template:Anonymous-EU. I am the last one not to agree to a reasonable use of this template (I used it just some hours ago), but please don’t make it yourself that easy. --Polarlys (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support undeletion. As I told in the DR discussion, the uploader told me that he had access to the book and that it did not mention any author. I think it should be enough for us to keep under {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The book author or publisher is not required to attribute an author or even a source, he should from an accuracy viewpoint, but he must not from a copyright viewpoint if he got the image licensed (by the copyright holder, a rights manager or someone who claims copyright) for reuse in a book without attribution requirement. But maybe the book publisher knows an author and obviously he must know a source (the image must come from somewhere), so he must be asked at least for who created the image or where it comes from. The book is from the 1970s or 1980s. Just because this book not credits an author you can absolutely not say, that the photographer decided to stay anonymous. Again, the sum of all sources is important, not the interpretion on how something is (not) attributed in one book. Of course the book author is an expert, best source to ask. --Martin H. (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. is just saying that, "you should ask Gerhard Wehr". But if Wehr answers that he does not know, it will not satisfy him. Martin H. will never be satisfied. Yet the law does not say that anonymous works are copyrighted for 100 years of for 140 years. The law says that anonymous works are protected for 70 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work doesn’t become an anonymous work through a lazy uploader. The status “anonymous” has to be established with some efforts to be made. --Polarlys (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the case

File:Logo de la République française.svg The case is the same as for any of the flags in Category:International flags or Category:Flags of organisations : Reproduction of flags (as such) is not governed by the legislation on artistic rights, but specifically by that of official seals and enseigns (Paris convention, article 6ter : "State Emblems, Official Hallmarks, and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations" have their own legislation). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is for registration of logos and names that incorporate any national flags, coat of arms, etc. The rules state that members of this Union treaty must either cancel or refuse to accept any new trademark that includes "armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view." This does not make flags or emblems into the public domain at all. Each country still has their own regulations over the use and copyright of their symbols. In the case of the Commonwealth, it is an International Organization. The design of the logo (which is used on the flag) came from three people and under most copyright laws, the PMA rule takes effect after the last author dies. We have no assertion this logo is in the public domain or under a free license, so we have no right to use the flag on here under a free license. Plus, many of the flags in the categories you mentioned, they probably need to go through DR because of their age or lack of permission (the UN and Red Cross flags are public domain due to age). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nobody says flags are in the public domain - take the german flag, for instance, it may be reproduced, but is not in the public domain, and cannot be licensed - but we nevertheless have the right to reproduce it on commons without anybody's authorisation and without anything to pay, which is "as free as can be". The point is simply that flags (including those of international organisation) have their own special rules, and hence, the general rule (about author's right) is superceded that is the lex specialis generalibus derogant principle). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The German flag came in existance in 1919, so it will be public domain due to age. However, we focus on copyright here and the Commonwealth flag is not free (in the sense of copyright) unless we wait a very long time or they release the logo to us under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] To me it seems that Micheletb has a point: a government cannot collect royalties for the use of its flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do see his point, but everything he cites is that established flags and emblems cannot be used for any new trademarks (like I cannot use the Royal Arms for a business logo). That is all that whole treaty clause states. It does not even discuss copyright about the affected symbols and it is left up to the individual party members. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The point is not that such emblems cannot be used as trade marks (which is true), but that they follow their own regulation, which allows reproduction for representation use. There is no copyright involved for instance when a commonwealth meeting needs a flag to be displayed - flags are not concerned by author's rights. See a real lawyer (not an arm-chair lawyer...) if you need more precision on the lex specialis generalibus derogant principle. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would they allow for commercial reproduction? That's sort of the issue here. Commons' content has to be free for all to use. The most limiting of licenses requires attribution and "sharealike" (where you have to release future uses under the initial license). We assume things are copyrighted unless they specifically state otherwise. See also the precautionary principle. Killiondude (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Commercial reproduction are "yes within limits". You can't do just anything with official emblems, although you can use them, including for commercial purposes, as long as it can't be confused with an official publication (given its special nature). How free is the File:Great Seal of the US.png, for instance? - can you reproduce it freely, including for commercial purposes - yes, within limits. Or how free is the coat of arms of a queen, for instance File:Queen of Spain Coat of arms.png? If you want to reproduce it with the mention "by appointment to her majesty the queen", then of course you need to fulfill the legal requirements, and/or obtain permission. You can use it as background for a paperback cover, you need neither to pay nor to ask any permission, but you couldn't reproduce it on the back of a kellogs's pack (because it would be misleading to an official approbation). That kind of picture simply can't be "free for all uses", the touchstone for acceptance on commons is in that case "as free as can possibly be, given its nature" = you can reproduce it without having to ask for a permission and without having to pay anything (it would be refused on commons otherwise). But the very nature of the thing may imply its own restrictions. Any official emblem/flag/mark/whatever can be reproduced freely (no permission, no payment), as long as no confusion is possible with an official status of the thing thus marked (or, if the marked thing is intended to be official, the corresponding conditions are fulfilled). There is no "license" (=latin licet, permission) involved in the reproduction of the model, precisely because the thing is official. On Commons: Such emblems should be marked with a warning (to clearly state their official nature), and the license allows for the reproduction of the specific file, as created/photographed/... (not the initial model, since the thing itself is outside license considerations). Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] US Seal is public domain for being a US Government work, I am not certain about the Spanish coat of arms and the EU flag was sent to Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_Europe.svg before and kept. However, we also have the derivative works rule, which is the main reason why the Commonwealth flag was nuked. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] EU flag and US seals may have been kept for other reasons, my point is that as official emblems, they do not follow the general legislation on author's rights in the first place. The point is that all official emblems (as long as they are official) may be uploaded on commons, whatever their creation date, and whatever their complexity, because their reproduction follows specific rules (see above). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] <-- Comment to whomever added the picture with the caption "copyright status" relevant ?, copyright status is always relevant on Commons. That's sort of one of the biggest discussion points on this project. Killiondude (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (I meant "author's right", sorry ... Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply] OK, Zscout370, what is the problem you see with the derivative rule (if this was the reason why the file was nuked)? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Derivative of a copyrighted work or of a work which we do not know the status of. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the Iranian flag posted here, Commons:Licensing#Iran has 30 years for copyright term and is public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Take any recent flag for the same discussion. Official flags and ensigns do not convey author's rights, whatever the delay. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Come on, The proposed flag was erroneous (rectangular rays instead of spikes) and has been corrected between the first and the second suppression, this can't seriously be taken as a reason for suppression. And the status of official emblems and flags is detailed above : just read it. You may not know these special statuses with respect to copy rights and author's rights, but do try to understand them when needed, at least try to make yourself an educated opinion. If you feel my presentation is faulty, do explain where and why. You may not want to take my word for it, in that case ask a lawyer (recognized as such). But in any case, - you can't delete a file just because you don't want to know their special status, arguing that other files may be kept for other reasons - this is not the point. Take care in your discussion that there is no "copyright" law any more, all nations member of the WTO have switched to "author's right", which is somewhat different... Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] (takes a deep breath) PNG - [http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=EN&id=3427 Article 5 says legal texts are not copyrighted and flag design was created by the law at http://www.paclii.org/pg/legis/consol_act/nia1971197/, no info on designer; Swaziland - No information on designer, laws not mentioned as protected works at http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=EN&id=3792, Turkmenistan - State symbols are not protected by copyright http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/books/book46/11.html, no information about author. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's just a case of "when it goes without saying, it goes even better to say it explicitly". Actually, you raise a perfect analogy, thanks : legal texts (and treaties, and any official texts of the same) cannot be subject to author's right (beware of the misleading "copyright" term). This is apparently explicit in Swaziland law (well done!) but, for instance, ... totally implicit in French law (!). In France, the reproduction of legal texts is not explicitly permitted by law (check into the French code de la propriété intellectuelle), whereas the protection of author's right is automatic, explicit and general, theoretically meaning that (since exceptions to a law must theoretically be interpreted restrictively) it is theoretically illegal (at least if one applies the Commons doctrine on copyright) to reproduce any fragment of any recent French law. I guess the same (theoretical) analysis would hold in most countries. But is it truly the case ? Actually, no : anybody can reproduce freely any official law (or treaty or ... whatever) in France. It goes without saying, although there is no legal text that says it explicitly. There will be no doubt for any French lawyer : because Nemo legem ignorare censetur (Ignorance of the law excuses nobody), a legal text is meant to be known and reproduced as is. Therefore, it is outside the scope of any law or treaty on author's right, because the contrary (allowing an author to decide whether or not a law can be reproduced) would lead to absurd situations. But ... how would you prove it? No explicit text of law, and since legally discussing such case would be lubricious, there is no legal precedent as well. So what? Would you argue that "therefore it is illegal in France to reproduce French law, according to Commons rules" ??? How do you make the difference between legal and illegal in that case, with no explicit law, and no explicit precedent? The situation is the same for official emblems : Their very status of official emblems and flags places them outside the realm of author's law, because they are meant to be reproduced as-is for public knowledge, and this is why lex specialis generalibus derogant applies : this being a special case governed by special rules, the general rule of author's rights cannot be applied. ...and that's what any lawyer would tell you - just ask them if you doubt. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] You have a detailed explanation here. If you want to discuss these arguments, please point to what you see as a problem. Once again, arguing that other files may be kept for other reasons is not the point. Sincerely, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is a problem with this. Compare with the situation of money. There are special laws against counterfeiting. And "everybody knows" that there is no problem with photos of money. Until the Bank of Canada sues a city for infringement of Crown copyright because they displayed a Canadian coin on a billboard. Yes, it is absurd. But author's right is automatic, and can be enforced when there is no exemption in law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is no problem with money, because as you pointed out, there are special and explicit laws. In such a case, whatever commonsense may say, explicit laws dealing with that specific case will apply = the coin is protected, its reproduction is forbidden without explicit authorization of the mint, and that's that. (BTW, I'd be pleased if you could provide a link on that story ;-). The protection of author's right is indeed automatic, but only in the field where a "work" is to be protected as a work of art, basically because it is its nature. In other fields, the nature of the object may be different, and other kind of protections shall apply, which may allow for reproductions - whatever the laws on author's right say. For instance, the industrial design of any object can be seen as a work of the mind reflecting its author's personality, which is the touchstone for author's right. According to your line of reasoning, that would theoretically prevent Commons to reproduce most of the objects in Category:Forks or in Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles - because author's rights of the designer are not respected. But actually, industrial design is not in the field of author's right (Berne convention) but that of trade marks and industrial design (Paris convention), which forbids duplications and imitations but allows for photographic reproductions. If any trial was made on this question, the judge would first have to determine the relevant law (in that case, trade marks and models) and then determine whether within that field picture reproductions are allowed (they are). The situation is very much the same with official flags and emblems : A judge would first point that given their nature, the relevant law can't be that of author's rights (which would lead to absurd complications), may look for specific laws governing the subject (and probably won't find any), and end up by judging the case "in equity" = picture reproductions are not forbidden per se, but given the nature of official flags and emblems, the use of such pictures may be faulty. Now, of course, you never can be sure of what a judge will say before the judgment has been given (he may be drunk or bribed), and you will probably never find any clear legislation and/or precedent on such a theme (because law is a human thing, devoid of mathematical perfection, and the question has not been considered). But do ask a real lawyer -one that understands the problematic of choosing the relevant legal context- for his opinion, it will most probably be very similar to mine. Law business is not to be confused with mathematical proof, it's human science. Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah well, the Canadian mint did not sue Toronto, they sent an invoice: source. That was not about counterfeiting. It would be interesting to see the legal correspondence. But it seems that the city had a kind of fair-use defense. The image is at http://www.onecentnow.ca/ - I wonder if the city ended up paying. Mike Godwin wrote yesterday that Commons ought to relax its stringent rules, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf. And I agree. The problem is that the rules on commons do not really match with good service to the wikipedias. Lots of these copyright discussions are purely teoretical, because any permitted use is fair use; copyright is never an issue in incidents like burning flags, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]  Question I'm afraid I'm being dumb here. Michelet-密是力 starts off with a citation which does not, for me, address the subject. It covers the issue of prevention of the use of national flags in trademarks and other commercial uses. Pieter Kuiper says, a little later, "To me it seems that Micheletb has a point: a government cannot collect royalties for the use of its flag." Why not? Why is it impossible for a government to keep its flag under copyright and authorize only a limited number of fee-paying companies to produce flags? It seems to me this is the crux of the matter -- if we can show that a government cannot do this, then flags are PD, subject to their not being used in trade. Or are they? The question of defacing the flag comes up -- not in the technical sense that there are a wide variety of defaced Red Ensigns -- but in the sense of putting something on the flag that the government doesn't like -- a swastika, for example. Since such things are illegal in the USA (maybe, subject to 1st amendment) and elsewhere, can we ever be happy with the Commons license of a national flag since we require the license to allow all changes? Or should we just forget the issues -- as far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for copying a national flag? No government (again, AFAIK) charges license fees for its flag. I note that Flags of the World makes no mention of any government copyright in its discussion of the subject. Even if we adopt that position, we still must be concerned that in the case of complex flags, there will be a copyright in each implementation -- we can not simply copy a flag from Flags of the World. But -- big but, this discussion is not about a national flag, it is about the flag of an organization -- an organization of nations, to be sure, but still an organization. None of the arguments above apply. It has the same status as the flag of a corporation. The copyright would probably belong to the corporation -- it certainly would if I ran the corporation. No one above asked whether the design is subject to copyright. At Copyright on emblems, it is clearly stated that an assemblage of geometric elements into a flag cannot be copyrighted. While that essay has limited status on wp:en and no formal status here, it is a thoughtful summary of the subject. It seems to me that the argument for keeping the Commonwealth Flag off of Wikipedia fails on that point -- it is entirely simple geometric shapes. What am I missing? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. Copyright issues still not resolved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion; neither a release of copyright nor relicensure to meet all Commons requirements (reuse, commercial usage) has been proven. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 green rectangles[3] and completely ineligible for copyright per Template_talk:PD-textlogo. It doesn't matter that someone magically thinks it's "art" if the copyright law does not lend this protection. No one except the nominator argued for deletion at the deletion request. -Nard the Bard 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This was deleted before, and undeleted, and now deleted again. Of course a work by a well-known artist, acquired by a famous museum, is not {{PD-ineligible}} for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were the only one ever to argue this. It doesn't matter who the artist is or where it's displayed. The copyright law does not give this work protection. -Nard the Bard 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rama had deleted this before as a copyvio. Your link clealy says: "© 2010 Daniel Buren / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris". This was made when one could still register works for copyright in the US, and Buren probably has done that, as a part of the concept of this work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't care what they claim. The law does not support it and even if it did matter, the work does not bear a copyright notice. -Nard the Bard 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can still register copyright in the U.S. -- in fact you don't get nearly as much protection without it. Every registration since 1978 is online and searchable. This sounds like it predates that cutoff though, so it is hard to find out for sure. (The one visible registration for a Daniel Buren is a literary work from 1986, and a work for hire of Hunter College... may not be the same person.) But... I would agree with Nard the Bard; I seriously doubt the copyright office would allow registration on it, in a museum or not. Registration is based on creativity, either the shapes or the arrangement of them, and I don't see that here. I guess it's folded; not sure if that is part of the "art" or not, and I would not take the linked photo directly (that *might* be copyrightable), but someone's own photo... likely seems OK. (the copyright notice on the linked page would seem to be for the photo; the underlying work is apparently from 1969-1974 and I don't think that can support a 2010 copyright.) For that one anyways; not the other two photos visible in the linked slideshow -- I think those would qualify. Famous artists can make non-copyrightable works too. Now, other countries may draw the differently, and this is a French artist... where was the work first published? But as for copyright on the photo, taken/published in the U.S.... would likely be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose A major piece of art is likely to found copyrightable in a court of law no matter what legal-weaseling we do. You want to make your own picture with four green rectangles, that's one thing, but nothing in reality is simply geometric shapes, and this surely isn't. I think a judge is going to find in the texture of the paper, in the folds, in whatever thing they need to, enough copyrightability to protect an exact photographic copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Define "major". I've never heard of Daniel Buren except through copyright work on Commons. -Nard the Bard 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well your own "ignorance" isn't a valid argument ! He IS a famous/major artist (no matter what one personnally thinks about him or his work). You can start with the English Wikipedia article on him (although the French one is far better and more complete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I see nothing that is copyrightable there. If the artist has copyrights of "four green rectangles" then making your own picture with four green rectangles would also be a copyvio.

I agree that "Famous artists can make non-copyrightable works too.". We also say that signatures is not copyrightable but still people are willing to pay for signatures. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a copyright on "four green rectangles", any more than I have a copyright on Tilly the Eastern Box Turtle. You could go get a virtually identical picture of Tilly, and I would have no leg to stand on. But you copy my picture of Tilly, or Buren's picture of four green rectangles, then there's a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support undeletion, per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon^☂ 10:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose the painting is copyrighted, but not patented. We may paint green rectangles ourselves and upload pictures of those. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support simple enough. If we can do something like this isn't original enough. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support: Extremely simple. If a user would have called this "own work" and uploaded it with {{PD-ineligible}}, we wouldn't have deleted it. Just because there's someone out there who believes that's art doesn't mean we need to delete it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, no matter what the museum website says, you cannot copyright a green rectangle. — Tetromino (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Buren is a famous artist and his works are copyrighted. He has already won trials. And I had a mail exchange once with him asking the authorization of using a personal picture of his work, which he refused. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "He has already won trials" — citation needed. I have searched in Google News archive search, and as far as I can tell, there are no articles mentioning Buren winning (or even being involved in) any copyright-related trials or lawsuits. — Tetromino (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well you're right for one thing : the only trial I can find on the Internet has been lost by Buren, but the decision of the court didn't say that he wasn't the author of his works. It was aiming a particular case : Buren was suing about postcards that were sold showing a public place where he made his stripes (place des Terreaux, in Lyon) and the court said that the main subject was the location and that we couldn't make a picture of it without showing his stripes.

  Anyway there's some kind of hypocrisy in that undeletion request : we deny the fact that there could be a copyright problem but we want to keep such a file in order to illustrate articles about the artist !!!

  For your information, in my mail exchange with Buren, he told me that his rights were managed by a society called ADAGP. So contact them if you want and you'll have more legal informations ! But if you do want to have a trial against Commons, then undelete this file, but it's ridiculous to take such a risk ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel a church (and any other religious place) is a public place. According to the Law, Section 23 allowes photography and any derivative work of "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of useful art". Murals on walls of churches are both part of the architecture and useful art. Therefore FOP in Israel, just as the Chagall windows are FOP in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG; this is not a mural, but a framed painting. Same painting as in File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg, which should also be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a. A mural may be place in a frame (most of them are, drawn on canvas and then placed on location - its not like the days of Michalangelo).

b. Any permenant church decoration falls under Section 23 of the Law. Deror avi (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1000th time - the Israeli law doesn't say anything explicit against it. It is a common habit to treat such images as part of the FOP principle (and I sent proofs to admins in the past. Considering this situation, an explicit change in the law, or an explicit court ruling is needed to establish a new norm. This has not happened, nor is it expected to happen anytime soon. It is improper that people unacquainted with the Israeli laws and norms pretend to know them better than Israeli users, some of them even have legal education. Furthermore, Pieter Kuiper proved lack of good will in the past, and while I'm not suggesting to ban him, his advices should be taken very cautiously. Drork (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as Pieter has said, File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg shows the same work. It is not a mural, nor is it on a wall of a church as Deror avi has suggested. It is a painting in a frame lent against a wall. Section 23 doesn't apply to paintings, it is not "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of useful art" and comments from Presenti seem to support that; "an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)". My other comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg are probably relevant here. I don't understand Drork comments at 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC). Section 23 provides an exemption for certain situations where copying is allowed. If an exemption doesn't exist then we have to assume copying is not allowed. Adambro (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boediono 2009.png is deleted because of copyright violation.(the discussion) Another file, File:Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono 2009.png, also comes from the same source but why his vice president photo is deleted ? These two files are the official portrait of the president dan vice president (2009-2014). They were copyrighted by the Presidential press bureau and household media state secretariat of Indonesia (Biro Pers dan Media Rumah Tangga Kepresidenan Sekretariat Negara RI). Since it was goverment (presidential press bureau) who copyrighted them, I think there is no copyright violation and the "PD-Indonesian Gov" still apply. Thx. ...Kenrick95 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono 2009.png should be deleted too, copyright is clearly declared with the first publication, so {{PD-IDGov}} is failed. --Martin H. (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to delete the president's file, please undelete the vice president first for a temporary time because I want to save that file (to use it at Indonesian Wikipedia using "fair use" tag). Thx. ...Kenrick95 13:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all see ? "(Copyright 2009 : Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI)" it's mean Copyright from "Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI" (Presidential press bureau and household media President of Indonesia). It's clearly from Indonesian Government, so using {{PD-IDGov}} I think is suitable. Ę-oиė   >>>  ™ 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PD-IDGov tag indicates that if there is an explicit copyright statement for the work itself on a government work, then it is still copyright protected. As you note, there appears to be such a statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what other suggestion for this problem ? Isn't it problem ? Big problem I think.. LoL. My Vice President picture has been deleted from commons. Please give some advice or a magic word. :)  Ę-oиė   >>>  ™ 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this (Boediono's) file first, I want to make the picture using fair-use license first (@ id.wikipedia.org). ...Kenrick95 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Discuss the copyright violence later... (please undelete Boediono's picture for a while) ...Kenrick95 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image is not free as explained, uploading it under fair use on any project would violate the Wikimedia Foundation foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

id.wiki still accept non-free image... (now the discussion is ongoing). ...Kenrick95 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the proposal. If that proposal is accepted, then please undelete this file then move it to id.wiki. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 12:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that proposal is a policy. ...Kenrick95 04:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the file File:Dutch 1 gulden front.JPG has been deleted on the basis of this request: Commons:Deletion requests/Banknotes of The Netherlands by Mvllez. However, that discussion only mentions banknotes issued by De Nederlandsche Bank (legally a private entity and not the state) which are indeed copyrighted. The 1 guilder note that was deleted, was a "muntbiljet", nl:Muntbiljet, issued by the Dutch State directly as a replacement for coins. As such, it might be subject to article 15b of the Auteurswet, which states that literary, scholarly or artistic works, published by or on behalf of the government may be reproduced (but I'm not sure about derivative works ans reusing/mixing). In any case, the arguments with respect to copyright by De Nederlandsche Bank are, IMO, invalid for these muntbiljetten (which were not even included in the deletion request), and I would like to request a re-evaluation for this specific file. Pbech (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support undeletion. I looked into this a bit, and it is a rather problematic case. But they indeed seem to be published in name of the state (unlike new bills in name of De Nederlandsche Bank, or like post-stamps that were published in name of PTT (government owned)). At the very least that makes the deletion reasoning for this particular image irrelevant. TheDJ (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - I'm neutral to this undeletion request, I handled it according to the information I had. If that information was incorrect or changed please undelete asap otherwhise keep deleted. Huib talk 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of the above mentioned file. The file is a photograph taken from the KGB document stating the release of Anna Timiriova from detention. As a rule such documents contained photographs (frontal and lateral) of the detainee (usually glued to the upper part of the form in a place reserved for the picture), information about the release (usually on some kind of form) and fingerprints of the detainee. The image uploaded is part of such a release document for detainee Anna Timiriova.

According to paragraph 1259 article 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ("ГРАЖДАНСКИЙ КОДЕКС РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" (ГК РФ) Часть 4 от 18.12.2006 N 230-ФЗ) [4] official documents and other materials of administrative and judicial character are not subject to copyright laws. The files of detainees and the release orders of detainees are documents of administrative and judicial character and therefore are not subject to copyright in the Russian Federation.

Also in the list of documents covered by the copyright provisions there is nowhere any paragraph indicating that these provisions are applicable to official documents. The Civil Code also does not exclude any type of official documents from the list of documents which are not subject to copyright. The code also does not include any provisions showing who would be the owner of such a copyright.

I therefore consider that the uploaded file meets all the conditions included in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the exemption of the file from Russian copyright provisions. Afil (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Russia have "neighboring rights"? In many countries non-creative works such as mugshots are only eligible for neighboring rights, if that. I'd support undeletion in that case. -Nard the Bard 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Wikipedia article on Russian Copyright [5] indicates that there are neighboring rights in Russia and that these are consistent with the the WIPO Copyright Treaty. The same article states that in 2003, Russia also joined the Rome Convention, the analogue of the Berne Convention for neighbouring rights. Afil (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the below information (from "Túrelio" and "Zirland") that he has deleted 4 four of my graphic images from the Wikipedia page on Rotary International. He also mentions that the publication of these images is a violation of Copyright. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! This is incorrect. All of these images are ART produced by me, and I therefore own the copyright. NOT ROTARY INTERATIONAL. Insteade, my art has been a fantastic support to the efforts of ROTARY INTERNTIOANL for more than twelve years. "Túrelio" and "Zirland" are obviously confusing my graphics with the Trade Mark Rights owned by Rotary International but this is ART! BUT MY ART is recognised as art EVEN BY ROTARY INTERNATIONAL. You must realize there is a great difference between art and a Trade Mark? The images shown are all from my Library of Graphics for Rotarians which contains authorised Rotary graphics art. My art is mine and nobody elses and protected under Swedish and EU laws. Please see for yourself (and read the copyright waiver) http://www.graphics-for-rotarians.org I therefore request he IMMEDIATE correction of this censorship of my art by you.

28 April 2010

  * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rye200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rotact2.gif" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rf200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Newyellow200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)

Tordelf (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website you pointed to indicates the images are free for non-commercial use only; we only accept media which is free for any purpose. The permission also seems to be limited to Rotary clubs. –Tryphon^☂ 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from site: (*** Please remember that this a NON-PROFIT service. If you want to use my graphics to earn money, ASK! ***). And please calm down. We're not censoring, just avoiding to be sued --DieBuche (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like what we need is OTRS from the Rotary clarifying that the artwork is by Tordelf. Or am I misunderstanding? - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as long as he's fine with releasing it into CC--DieBuche (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But not relinked. 3 previous usages restored by me ... --Saibo (Δ) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete these files which have been abusively deleted under the pretext of "Possibly being a copyright violation". These maps were drawn by me - it takes quite a long time to draw such maps - and are not copied, which was stated in the presentation. Just because somebody assumes that that they are a copyright violation is not a justification for deleting them. I challenge anybody to prove that that the maps are a copy of any existing map. Such a deletion is simply a vandalism, especially as it is not based on any type of discussion. I have several maps I am working on at present, and am doing this for about 9 months. I am appalled that after putting in all this effort, the maps can be simply deleted by somebody who has no proof at all but just wants to be smart.Afil (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Afil (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitorcu River Basin.jpg - Afil never responded at his own DR! I cannot see the maps anymore, but contributions like File:Timoc.jpg are in all probability derivative works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find the image in question. Afil, please link the correct name. We should not hold it against Afil that he didn't notice Commons had nominated his image for deletion (many users log onto Commons only on occasion). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'd find it quite unlikely that he draws maps like Timoc.jpg himself. But then, if he does he should be able to prove it. @Afil Do u draw them manually? --DieBuche (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by manually. I use my computer and draw the lines by using my mouse. I then correct the various pixels. I use software for the texts of the maps. As I intend to create maps showing the hydrologic network, which do not exist as such, I have to draw the rivers and their various tributaries. Of course, the maps do not show other geographic information such as railways and secondary roads. They are therefore not derivative works. I resent Pieter Kuiper's accusations as, without any proof he just assumes that they are derivative works. Afil (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the information from to draw the rivers? Have you been canoeing with a GPS receiver on all of them? Also, you have all those detailed height contours that you do not give a source for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: File:Timoc.jpg looks like a scanned map with a bad retouch applied. --Saibo (Δ) 09:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not invent motives. The Wikicommons rules specifically indicate: "The information itself is not protected and as a representation of reality most of an area will look similar on most maps (same street pattern, etc.). The protected part is in the styling, symbols and text used (example: the London underground map). Copyrighted maps can be used as a starting point, but must then be totally redrawn and be unrecognisable." The maps you are discussing have been redrawn, information from several sources has been included, some information such as the limits of the river basins which are not on the available maps have been added, the styling, symbols ans text have been changed, as requested by the Wikioommons rules. If Saibo does not like the quality of the drawing, that is a completely different issue, but it simply indicates that what is presented is not the original styling of any map. What has to be argued is to where the maps presented do not comply with the Wikicommons policy clearly writen and quoted above. Some of the comments are not intelligible. What do you mean by canceing - I can't find it in the Websters. What has Geographic Positioning to do with the maps which have been presented. Afil (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Canoeing" is to navigate a river in a canoe. If you do that with a GPS on board, you can produce your own map of the river. But tracing a map is just a derivative work, how painstaking you make your work does not matter. It infringes on the copyright of the original, unless it would be public domain for some reason like age. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it seems clear from the argument presented that this is not a copyright violation. DGG (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you draw the wrong conclusions: As per COM:CB "You may not upload copies of copyright maps to Commons, nor may you trace or even re-draw such a map yourself. Any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license." The part quoted from Afil is in contrary to most rulings & was added by a single user about three months ago to COM:DW. I'm removing that section now. --DieBuche (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole page needs to be looked over by an expert. Claims like "Information itself, however, is not copyrightable" are just not correct, eg. a database can be copyrightable etc.--DieBuche (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose This looks like a re-traced map, or a map copied from another map. I'm looking at File:Timoc.jpg. From where did you get the info for all those height lines? Did you copy a height map and then copied a river map and a road map on top of it? And how did you decide which zones should be coloured green, unless you had copied those zones from an already coloured map? And why does it have vertical fold lines like those commercial maps that are sold folded? And why, in the bottom left corner, the mount name has a white background when it goes out of the map, but the mount height has a green background? Sorry, it is not at all believable that you did all this work yourself, this map in particular is a scan of a commercial map. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions in passing.

• Would anyone regard a map traced from a copyrighted satellite photo to be a derivative work? (compare Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag)
• Is a faithful representation of the river outlines from the satellite photo copyrightable?
• Suppose the map does not precisely follow the satellite map. But the uploader's tracing of the map does not carefully follow the original, and you could not tell the difference between his tracing of a satellite photo and his tracing of the map. What then?

This is not a vote on the current dispute, sorry. Wnt (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the satellite photo is an interesting take on the case, i don't think it applies here, since the map has topography information as well, which you can't source from normal sat. images--DieBuche (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the action taken by Die Buche. There was a statement on how to understand the meaning of derivative works in Wiki Commons, which I complied with. It is incorrect to simply delete this statement because it does not support his oppinion. This would have to be done on the basis on a discussion. The action is very strange: there is a rule, which nobody has contested. When somebody applies the rule, and another person does not like it then he deletes the paragraph concerned and claimes that the work in uncompliant.

The question is what information is copyrighted and what not. Assuming you take a number of several maps, which have various information and take part of the information on each map to create a different map. and confront it with satelite or air photographs, each piece of information is from somewhere, but the entire map is not a derivative of any of the components. Afil (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After these preliminary exchanges of ideas, I think we have reached the moment when we should finish with immature schoolboy statements about canoeing, and focus on the real issue. This is not a matter of personal oppinions, but a legal matter and the views of legal experts should be taken into account.

I would first like to quote the conclusion of an analysis of the issue about public domain maps, from which I quote:

Public domain maps

Did you know that parts of a map can be in the public domain?

Not every part of a map can be protected by copyright. If some parts of a map are in the public domain, you may use them freely.

What parts can you use without permission? These:

• Place names. Those aren't copyrightable.
• Colors. For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors aren't copyrightable, either.
• Symbols and map keys. Can't be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones.
• Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable.
• Stuff copied from other maps (say, from a public domain USGS map). Whatever new information the mapmaker added will be protected by copyright (the selection, arrangement of the info), but the stuff that was copied (the elements of a USGS map used as a starting point, for example) will stay in the public domain.

Maybe even more relevant is the decision of courts in which the problem of map copyrights have been litigated. This issue is discussed in an article of "Jurimetrics" of 1995 (pp.395-415) which presents the verdict of a court in the case Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. I hereby present some quotations from this article:

The problems arise from the tension between the principle that maps are protected and two other basic principles: namely, that copyright does not protect facts and that copyright does not protect systems. Traditional maps are pictorial representations of geographic and demographic facts organized to allow the user to readily understand and easily extract the factual information portrayed. The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. The organizing principle for presenting the information will often, if not always, be deemed an unprotected system or idea. Thus, many maps will apparently contain only unprotected elements.

The tension among traditional copyright principles as they apply to maps has been heightened by Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc The Feist decision relentlessly follows standard copyright dogma to a superficially unremarkable conclusion: copyright protects only expression, not facts; the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity and not merely labor, time, or money invested; the protected elements of the resulting work are precisely those that reflect this intellectual creativity, and no more.

This is the conclusion of a court of law. This constitutes at present jurisprudence and this oppinion should be acceoted by the Wikicommons community, as only another court of law has the competence to reverse it.

I hope that the above will help focus the discussion on the legal aspects of the issue.Afil (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While in the US there is indeed no Database right, such a thing exists in the EU. And for files to be allowed on commons their copyright situation has to comply to US-laws as well as the country of origin laws. --DieBuche (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we debate into eternity: Afil, I can provide you with high-res, PD topographical data created by NASA of the region about tomorrow. If u used that to recreate the map, there would be no controversy at all. --DieBuche (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If u want them, please specify the exact coordinates, and whether you'd prefer an svg or a png --DieBuche (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liebe Buche,

Karten und Pläne werden nach dem deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetz laut § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 7 ("Darstellungen wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art, wie Zeichnungen, Pläne, Karten, Skizzen, Tabellen und plastische Darstellungen") und Abs. 2 geschützt, sofern sie "persönliche geistige Schöpfungen" darstellen. (V. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechte_an_Geoinformationen)

Glauben Sie es sei ein grosser Unterschied zwischen dieser Bestätingung und der Amerikanischen "the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity"? Afil (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaub du verstehst den Abschnitt aus dem Artikel nicht ganz: Drei Sätze später: "Nach einem Urteil des Landgerichts München I (Urteil vom 9. November 2005, Az. 21 O 7402/02, Datenbankschutz für topografische Landkarten – Topografische Kartenblätter, GRUR 2006, S. 225 ) stellt die topografische Karte 1:25 000 (TK25) eine analoge Datenbank nach § 87a UrhG dar und genießt damit rechtlichen Schutz aufgrund der vorgenommenen Investition bei ihrer Herstellung." oder "Auch das Übernehmen von Informationen wie Straßennamen aus urheberrechtlich geschützten Karten, ist gesetzlich verboten: Gemäß § 2 Abs. 1 Punkt 7 des deutschen Urheberrechts unterliegen Karten den Bestimmungen der geschützten Werke. Nach § 87 a des deutschen Urheberrechts unterliegt eine Karte den Datenbankrechten wenn "die Beschaffung, Überprüfung oder Darstellung eine nach Art oder Umfang wesentliche Investition erfordert". "

Oder sprichts du der Originalkarte jegliche "intellectual creativity" ab? --DieBuche (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by a guy who has left commons. Not one single word why he has deleted the whole gallery. Incredible. Currently he tries to get his tools back. 92.227.9.26 11:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooops, sorry, found a phrase: Deleted, permission not sufficient. Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC). 92.227.9.26 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, PETA did not give permission for people to upload these photos under a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some PETA person did, but it was thought questionable whether that person had the authority to do that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabercil has emailed with a PETA-employee, who has not understand his question or was afraid to make a mistake. But in the first DR, Mutter Erde has given this wise advice to Kanonkas: ...Instead of your versions - these pics are all properly attributed to their photographers. You have reuploaded bigger versions of some of them from somewhere else, copied&pasted my descriptions (by the way: with my source! (peta.de)), but without mentioning the photographers. That`s the difference. For the rest: Ask Shankbone, Newkirk, or one the photographers. They are all living. PS: Might be interesting for all to know, what an OTRS ticket really means. Mutter Erde (Diskussion) 11:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC). One these photographers could give the right answer 92.227.9.26 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Apologies, I did not submit permission to use the logo before, as I'm new to Wikipedia's regulations. Please can you undelete the image. You will find a permission form below:

To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator of the exclusive copyright of WORK Image: Gbanga-logo.png

I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL, CC-BY 3.0 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses.

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

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

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

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

10/05/2010, Chris Solarski, Art Director at Gbanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristopherAndrew (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This permission would need submitting via COM:OTRS in practice. Equally i question whether the logo is actually within scope. The pages it would be used on look promotional to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please undelete file Salim_ali_lake.jpg. It was being used by at least two artiles on wikipedia. Thankyou. Fuwad ca (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was deleted for being a copyright violation, not for being out of scope. It cannot be restored just because it would be useful. --Eusebius (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is in use by several images and was deleted by User:Rocket000 seemingly without discussion. Is relevant for COM:AN/U#User: Max Rebo Band and further discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was one image on it (added in 2006) and that was on the only edit ever made to the list. So yes, it was quite pointless. You can use the English wikipedia version as an actual working example. TheDJ (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits since 2006. I don't see how this is relevant at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if Commons users are want to use the same feature. How does deleting the page serve WMF's goals? - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source code that is intended for that file is here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is used by Template:Restricted use which is currently being used by five images. Removal of this file creates a redlink and hampers the usability of the template. I'm requesting immediate restoration of page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That part is already solved. The template is now removed from these images. It was only added to these 5 images 12 hours ago. Garion96 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole extension is nonsense and redundant to the abuse filter. Rocket did a good job in deleting it, and the template should be deleted, too. Keep deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad Image Filter (#29) is hidden from public view. What good it that? That list is of historical importance and in use by Template:Restricted use and at least 5 active files. Please undelete posthaste. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That filter is completely different from this list. And the templates can easily be removed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pointless and was unused. Keep deleted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Commons doesn't seem to have much image vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose undeletion; it was pointless and irrelevant. If you have a case to make, you can make it without this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it deleted, also see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Restricted use. Multichill (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's kind of silly to debate this page at undeletion requests, since it's a technical page and blanking would have had the same effect. However I agree that Commons (being not nearly as visible as Wikipedia) doesn't have much of an image vandalism problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Request please userfy page (with talk and history) for informational purposes. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The page only ever had one non-blank revision, created by User:Fred J on 30 April 2006, 12:17 (UTC). This revision contained one line, which read: "* [[:Image:Masturbation.jpg]]". There was also an earlier blank revision by User:MediaWiki default on 25 June 2005, 10:58 (UTC). I hope this information is sufficient for your purposes. (Ps. The talk page used to contain a misplaced vandalism report by an IP in German from May 2006, the beginning of which you can see in the deletion log. Apparently, the misplaced report sat there for almost two years before anyone noticed it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of:

• File:Self-licking.jpg

Consensus to keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:Self-licking.jpg. --Ankara (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am concerned regarding the age of the model. The image itself is of poor quality (overexposed, lossy compression). Given all this I recommend to keep this deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus has nothing to do with many DRs on Commons, legality does. I agree with AFBorchert. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the legal problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No clarity on age - could easily be underage. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has lots of images of children. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not licking their breasts tho... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is licking one's breasts a problem? (A legal problem, I mean.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - not in use beyond a userpage, no obvious way it could be useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete. Out of COM:SCOPE and very low-quality. Model age issue is icing on the cake. Previous DR was flawed in that it was framed as a COM:PORN issue. Wrong rationales give wrong results. Wknight94 ^talk 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It's a britt suza image btw, so the status it is equal to all the other images that we have of her. Not that I see a use for this image and neither is it a quality image. TheDJ (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. seems like britt removed all her pictures and her account from flickr. Or someone mailed flickr with "childporn" concerns, and flickr took it offline precautionary. TheDJ (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That probably makes all of them open to question at best - thanks for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so this is the image that Tiptoety oversighted as "Child porn" - not a child, not porn,  Support undeletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope. Not being used for education. Jehochman (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. I don't think it's a child but just to be sure deletion can't hurt in this case. I would have prefered a normal deletion request though for this image. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Undeleted speedy deleting something after it has been kept is very, very bad. Multichill (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopened Ignoring the wider consensus expressed here to play 'get back at Jimbo' games (pretending like this) represents is any kind of consensuss very, very bad. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo's admin bit is gone, but then of course he has the office employee. Or why cannot you open a DR? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like this will not stand. I was fielding consensus. Multichil abused his admin bit. You attacked me pure and simple. Of course, all you ever do here is attack people, Pieter. You have no constructive purpose here. My deletion has nothing to do with any of Jimbo. Multichil was abusive in undeleting it. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, nice wheelwarring there. Jimbo deleted, Multichill undeleted and now Bastique deleted again. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multichil twisted policy around to acted against consensus. The project was in agreement to deal with each of these images that Jimbo delete individually. Multichil is abusing his admin rights. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So was Jimbo. :) Sorry, I think it was not the best behavior of all three (un)deleting admins. You also could have started a deletion discussion which happened to many other images Jimbo deleted (and were undeleted). Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

OK, time out here. I expect better from ALL of you - Multichil, don't undelete when consensus has yet to be established, Kuiper don't attack Bastique, Bastique don't retaliate. Now, the three of you should either apologise and get on with things, or just not post on this UDEL again. Let's have a consensus-building debate based on the merits of the image, not on personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the above concerns are valid, then these images bear review as well. –SJ+ 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I expressed a similar view above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is no externally validated rationale for inclusion of these controversial images. They are not notable in the own right, and attempting to shoehorn these images into commons on the grounds that they are in some way "educational" is a half-baked argument that provides no meaningful context, since an image on its own cannot be used as an educational tool. The inclusion of controversial imagery is a redflag issue, and require a strong source of external validation to provide a rationale for inclusion. It occurs to me that unless some form of external validation is found, then the differences of editorial opinion will never be resolved, nor will the wheelwarring cease. --Gavin Collins (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment per Mattbuck definitely. My views on this have nothing to do with censorship. The reason for the original deletion may or may not be questionable. However we now have the opportunity to apply some sensible Commons consensus on this. My views are as above - this file is legally questionable and should remain deleted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete! Clear and descriptive Picture. Widescreen ^® 13:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In the scope since it illustrate a erotic act for which we have no (or not many) illsutrations. And forget the age argument, she is 21 (20 when she opened her flickr account) if we trust her, and there's no reason not to trust her (assume good faith). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Admins don't need to act by consensus, they're also able to apply copyright laws and/or Commons policy within the reasoning of a closure in (un)deletion debates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep As TwoWings said, we have few photos (no other photos?) demonstrating a woman licking her own nipple. There is no credible age question, and we've already agreed Commons does not have to satisfy 2257 requirements. Should have gone through deletion requests. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy restore Deleted against consensus, redeleted by a meat puppet. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable comment. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• All files that have this person as subject need review, not just this one. In cases like this we need to err on the side of safety. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "review" ? And how are we supposed to do that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  keep deleted. Two keep votes on original DR shows apathy, not consensus. Delete per nom. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Undelete per TwoWings, woman has confirmed her age to be 21. We lack any similar illustration. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cd cover from Dire Straits. Judging by the cover it's simple enough and thus inelegible for copyright. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Have to agree. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Minimal art is still art. Thus it's a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Whether it's art or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's a work of art. This is clearly within {{PD-ineligible}} territory. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  KeepClearly PD-ineligible --DieBuche (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support This is too simple to be eligible for copyright. It's like File:Untitled_by_Daniel_Buren.png above, without the brush strokes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well read my comment about Buren. It may be silly for you but he won trials ! So yes that kind of artwork is eligible for copyright ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "he won trials" — citation needed. — Tetromino (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support PD-ineligible by U.S. rules with virtual certainty. Only hesitation is that it was a UK band, and the rules there may differ a bit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, per others above. –Tryphon^☂ 15:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per LX and others. Trivial geometric shapes are not copyrightable. — Tetromino (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as "Game logo. Not text only". As we know either a logo may be compounded of a shape or text it may not meet the Threshold of originality. That clearly says Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; ...typeface as typeface; are not subject to copyright. The logo is a simple text and few strokes resembling to a khamsa. Here's the logo Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, but a cropped version would be okay. The textual part is definitely PD-ineligible; the logo part is definitely not. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitely not"? See Threshold of originality#United States. Borderline case. Was there an application for copyright? Was it granted or was it refused? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete. Looks like a nice series from a professional photographer according to File:Ashley Taking a Shower 15.jpg. That request includes at least Files:Ashley Taking a Shower No. 01 to No.20.jpg (probably more?). File:A woman taking a shower.jpg depicts also Ashley, or? 78.55.66.249 23:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not a good idea without OTRS approval. Too many privacy concerns as shown by this posting on foundation-l by User:DGG. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This was already discussed at COM:UDEL: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Ashley Taking a Shower 16.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think this time Stillwaterising is right. Flickr user photostream contains only these Ashley shower photos, and there are no sign of this "Tina Timpton" in the Web: [6]. This is somewhat suspicious and privacy concerns are legitimate. Trycatch (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion per Trycatch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I deleted most of these. I see insufficient proof of permission, copyright, and age, and scope concerns in that we don't need all 20. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consent argument might be pertinent, but the "we don't need all 20" argument is not ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I assume you'll agree to delete the remaining File:Ashley Taking a Shower 15.jpg then? Wknight94 ^talk 11:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per above legal reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Foroa had proposed on 07:07, 15 May 2010 all 14 subcategories of Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region to rename and between 7:11 and 7:30 (UTC) he moved their content and deleted them. However,

• he didn't keep those categories as category redirects, although they are linked from Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia categorie and Commons rules recommend generally to keep moved categories as category redirects
• he didn't notice links to the new (replacing) category into the edit summary
• he didn't link a Commons rule or discussion which warrants such moving ("Incorrectly named" isn't a sufficient reason for this case)
• he didn't categorize the new categories, so that they are orphan categories and the Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region is empty
• he didn't move interwikis, descriptions and categories from the deleted categories to the new categories
• he didn't take out "seecat" templates from the kept (new) categories

What effect can have such negligent effort, without any discussion, without any consensus, in despite of all rules about deleting or moving of categories? I request to restore the deleted 14 categories at least as category redirects and either to finish the moving properly or to restore the status quo ante. And Foroa should be strongly admonished that without discussion can be made only unquestionable movings and that old categories mustn't be deleted, especially if the moving isn't properly finished and all links from outside aren't corrected. --ŠJů (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just executed the move as requested by Mircea; [7]. Those wrongly named categories have been named by people from the Czech Republic (bot renamings instructed by Mircea too) with naming that are against the Commons naming rules. I avoided wasting my time in adding redirects in yet another rename of those categories. As I told Sju already, we are responsible for the move, that's all.

I did a mistake in that I did not remove the old redirects from one of the previous renaming rounds and I apologize for that. It was probably caused by the major backlog we had on the delinker. This should be arranged by now. --Foroa (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we requested already several times to have the delinker bot insert automatically redirects, with no answer till now. --Foroa (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly mentioned some "Commons naming rules" but you have never linked them when you are asked. Do you mean Commons:Naming categories? Do you mean the text Commons:By location category scheme which is labelled "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."? Discussion wasn't closed with clear consensus, that's why massed changes are counterproductive now. Btw. even this proposal says that location should be expressed by the patern [object] in [location name] You did a negation.

You ignore the recommendation Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted? in the long term. You ignore that Commons have relations to many other projects and that every moving without retained redirect breaks links from sister-projects and from outside. Please stop all changes which evoke more damages than benefits. We should correct clear naming errors, not force some unconsensual personal preference. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the categories so that you can see for your self that they all haved moved against the naming conventions. --Foroa (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't waste my time for making redirects that cover for names that blatantly violate commons naming rules and that only confuse HotCat users. (Commons:Category redirects suck) --Foroa (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you are who violates commons naming rules and other Commons rules. The proposed rule is location should be expressed by the patern [object] in [location name]. The current rule is: moved categories shouldn't be deleted if they aren't mistaken. --ŠJů (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what nonsense you made now? It's necessary either to finish the moving properly or to restore the status quo ante. What halfway treatment you created now? I see 28 categories instead of 14 categories and 14 category redirects. --ŠJů (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ŠJů, the rule states "When [object] "of" [place name] means location in which the object may currently be found, then "in" shall be used." A river is not currently found in a region. It is in that region permanently; you cannot pick up a river and move it somewhere else. So "of" is the appropriate preposition to use for categories of geographical objects. The correct resolution to this conflict would be to use a bot to categorize the "of" categories and change interwikis from "in" to "of", and then delete the "in" categories. All river categories here use "of"; there is no reason for the Czech Republic to get a special exception. — Tetromino (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploaded by myself, the copyright holder. It was suggested that the file was in fact taken from a promotional leaflet, and later accepted that this was not the case. I offered to submit statements, further details and evidence to OTRS but this was not deemed necessary, a majority of respondents supported "keep" and I thought the case was closed. However the case remained undeleted until the file itself was summarily deleted three months later. I have only just realised this and so hereby submit a request that the decision be reversed. Redheylin (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment DR is here--DieBuche (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this and File:Doggirl now and forever.jpg. Both have been deleted by User:Fran Rogers (Out of project scope). After her deletions, her self created Jimbo fancruft has been also deleted. Probably I will find some more out of scope-deletions by Fran Rogers. You may help. 78.55.118.41 11:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose undeletion per COM:SCOPE. Agree it's not porn, but what in the name of hell is it supposed to be?! Is it an educational view of a lunatic? Wknight94 ^talk 11:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose There needs to be a good reason for undeletion, none provided. Also no reason to keep either. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I would suggest to restore all deleted pics of Fran Rogers.

This is an interesting example (used in 3 articles!): File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg, deleted 06:53, 6. Mai 2010. After she has noticed, that Jimbo gets more and more troubles, she has restored this Out of project scope-file 09:52, 6. Mai 2010, together with some others, but not all. Single DRs will give clearness about these files! 78.55.118.41 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Undelete, assuming these are images of domestic w:Petplay, as we lack a fair variety of such images. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Undelete no serious deletereasones named, seem to be a religious march, against nudity and free sexuality, ordered by the great founder Bunnyfrosch (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Rebo Band and Bunnyfrosch: No, this picture had nothing to do with religion or sexuality - or even nudity. This one was just plain stupid. If I thought it might fit into w:Petplay, I would have kept my mouth shut above - but it doesn't. This link is showing it at the moment. Wknight94 ^talk 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose This image is low quality (subject too close to flash), and it has not educational value. "Here's a random person wearing a dog mask." Whoop dee doo. The image isn't being used, except perhaps in a user's image gallery. Commons is not a personal hosting service. Jehochman (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored File:Doggirl in her routine shower.jpg and File:Doggirl now and forever.jpg. The suggestions that these images could have an educational value do seem to have at least some merit. Therefore it is better to restore them, since there aren't any other concerns that have been raised such as copyright, so that the wider community can see them and discuss them at a deletion request if anyone still thinks they should be deleted. It doesn't help that they were deleted with no explanation as to why they were considered beyond scope. Admins should refrain from speedily deleting files as beyond scope except where completely obvious and where they do, an explanation of why the file is beyond scope would be most helpful. Adambro (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this porn wars episode is getting dumber and dumber. Both of these have to be the stupidest pictures I've ever seen. It's a woman (apparently) wearing a halloween costume - one in the shower and one not. Again I have no clue what sort of educational value these could possibly have! Petplay is supposed to be sex-related but these pictures are as un-sexual as you can get. I can understand the two images currently on w:Petplay - both clearly related to sex. But these other two here are just absurd. Wknight94 ^talk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:Animal roleplay says it can "be either a non-sexual or an erotic sexual role-play". Anyway, I can't claim to be an expert on this or many other subjects so it is much better for the images to be restored so that if anyone does suggest they are deleted, others in the community who may be more familiar with these subjects can offer their views. The various WMF projects cover a massive range of subjects. Admins have got to be careful not to try to judge the value of an image based upon their own knowledge. Unless it is obvious, and the discussion above suggests this isn't such a case, admins shouldn't speedily delete and instead nominate for deletion. Adambro (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement with Adambro's remarks above. In my humble opinion the behaviour documented by the file is just absurd, but then it's equally absurd to be trying to evaluate a file without being able to actually see it. Also, my opinion that the behaviour is absurd and even perhaps hilarious - "Bondage dog mask from Ukrainian Artisan "Bob Basset". This mask locks on from the back with a heavy brass padlock. The flap, locked and bolted over a hidden zipper beneath can only be unzipped with pliers. The zipper is tucked inside the mask from behind where the person inside can not get to it without help. Once this mask is on, the wearer is helpless to remove it."[!] - does not mean that the image itself has no value as a record of human behaviour. Should never have been Speedied. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this file, and also this File:Man in Toecuffs.png and this: File:Jana and Nella in an Intimate Moment.jpg. They are all from the Fran Rogers deletionpool, speeded as (Out of project scope). Probably I will find some more of these. You may help 78.55.62.206 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]