Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests
Current requests
[edit]Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
- I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
- Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
- In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
- Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Undeletion of individual photographs
[edit]- @Yann: Undelete File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg. Published in Izvestiya, 1 September 1937. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Done @Kges1901: Please add relevant information in the file description. Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I put a deletion request for the above file because I wanted to change some things in my schema. I'm going to do 300 uploads using OpenRefine and this one was the test upload. I deleted it in order to start the full upload. But I understand that I can't re-upload files, correct? So I want this to be undeleted because it is part of the full set that I want to upload.
Thanks!
edit: to be precise I get the following error when I upload the same file (with the new metadata schema): MediaWiki error while editing [Warning]: The file upload action returned the 'Warning' error code. Warnings are: {duplicate-archive="BG_27389_MPG_-FHD00Z02VFY.webm"}
And the file doesn't show up afterwards. So my guess it has something to do with the deletion that I requested before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeld en Geluid Collecties (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose The upload says that the author died in 1952, so the movie was under copyright on the URAA date and, unless it was first published before 1929, it will be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after its first publication. This probably will also apply to most of the files you have recently uploaded.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This is in the public domain, and was reuploaded as File:Opening tramlijn naar Wassenaar.webm. --Yann (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Nominating File:Séamus Pattison.jpg for the exact same reason outlined in the just accepted Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg; files from this website have been found to be acceptable under a Template:European Union Government license so long as this is specifically outlined on their individual pages. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per COM:PCP. Unlike Neil Blaney's photo, this one is photo of a photo. If EU Parliament are the copyright holder of the original photo, I do not see any reason why making a photo of a photo instead of using the original one. IMO, this constitutes a reasonable doubt if the photo was indeed made by a parliament employed photographer. IMO, more likely, it is an externally made photo just delivered to the parliament archive. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Park Sung-jae.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Original uploader claimed this work as their own, but this specific file is licensed under KOGL Type 1 (see bottom right, http://www.moj.go.kr/minister/2089/subview.do) so the file can remain on Commons, just under the license Template:KOGL Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There are two logos in the bottom right of the cited page -- one leads to a page which has an explicit copyright notice. The other links to a page whose terms of use say,
The copyright of the post posted by the member within the service screen belongs to the member who posted it. In addition, the public may not commercially exploit the post without the consent of the publisher. However, this does not apply to non-profit purposes, and it also has the right to publish in the service. (Google tanslation)" This is an NC license which we do not permit.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the two logos, the left one refers to WebWatch, which is a web accessibility quality certification agency designated by the Ministry of Science and ICT. From what I can see, this logo is the certification mark verifying this specific webpage is web accessible, so I don't think this would impact the underlying copyright of the webpage. Would like more thoughts on this.
- As for KOGL, I'm aware it's just a link to its site. I do see on the MoJ copyright policy page that pages/files should ostensibly have a KOGL Type I in writing, which my source page doesn't. I've seen on other MoJ pages explicit KOGL Type 1 or Type 2 notices, so I will concede to your reasoning on that. I suppose my remaining question would be on that WebWatch mark, especially if it's seen on other Korean gov websites. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
In the last request said {{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to texts, not images or photos. But I would like to reaffirm that, this is an appendix file of 国家广播电视总局办公厅关于使用国产电视剧片头统一标识的通知, which is not apply to the PRC Copyright Law. Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party (CPC) and Government Organs (党政机关公文处理工作条例) Article 8 states: "The main types of official documents are: (8) Notices. (公文种类主要有：（八）通知。)" But the nominator Wcam and handler Abzeronow didn't take my advice. For the same reason, File:China Healthcare Security (CHS) Logo.svg is also not apply to the PRC Copyright Law, which is an appendix file of a administrative notice too.
_Logo.svg){kind=link}
Therefore, I would like to submit my request to undeletion.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose You are repeating the same argument in the last DR without new info. I DR'd File:China Healthcare Security (CHS) Logo.svg as well. Wcam (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is an appendix file of an official document. As an important main body part of an official document, it is public domain (my personal opinion).Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- Change my view: I saw Commons:Deletion_requests/File:上海市市标沙船白玉兰.png and finally found the answer. This case reflects copyright issues are complex, many people think this is in PD. If i am not sure, I can ask a profeissonal for copyright (IP). I will keep my opinion until someone has new opinion to support it. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Это фотография из личного семейного архива. На ней изображен Калинин Алексей Иванович, заслуженный летчик Российской Федерации, ветеран труда. фото сделано в городе Сыктывкар в 1973 году. Оцифровано 07.12.2024 года. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroInfoRF (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Google translate: "This is a photograph from a personal family archive. It depicts Kalinin Aleksey Ivanovich, Honored Pilot of the Russian Federation, veteran of labor. The photo was taken in the city of Syktyvkar in 1973. Digitized on 07.12.2024."
- Oppose OP also wrote "Автор фото не известен(скорее всего коллега по работе", eg. photographer unknown. Not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Unknown photographer and far too recent to be PD. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:K.Ebnöther-029.jpg NO VIOLATION!
[edit]
THE PICTURE HAS BEEN MADE IN ORDER OF ME PERSONALLY AND ALSO PAID. PLEASE PUBLISH IT. THANKS. KURT JUERG EBNOETHER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtjuergebnoether (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose First, in the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim that someone else was. Which should we believe? Second, while paying for a portrait may give you the right to use the image yourself, it very rarely gives you the right to freely license it as required here. That right is almost always held by the actual photographer. Third, the image appears elsewhere on the Web, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: as per Jim. Please do not shout. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ticket:2024100810002008 is received and everything is allright with it. Анастасия Львоваru/en 15:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Done: @Lvova: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
<gallery> Заборчик на станции Приморская в сторону Василеостровской.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Илья Ковалёв (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need a reason to undelete, and this is a copyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
I misunderstood why it was deleted the second time, after the ticket was received; please, restore again... Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Done: @Lvova: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)