Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Current requests

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

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)[reply]

 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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we verify its official status? Where and when the decission that established this reward was published? Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Could we have it undeleted temporarily for the discussion since the Internet Archive is down? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix screenshots

I think image 1 complies with {{PD-text}}. It is pretty much the same text (with a total of three sentences), but slightly modified for each of the four text boxes. All the text does is describe what each plan contains, with no literary language. More complicated files have been kept for {{PD-text}}. See:

Image 2 should also comply with {{PD-text}}. The email is very short, with only a total of six sentences, and two headers, that describes the discontinuation of a subscription plan. If it's too complicated, I would like to ask whether I could upload a new version with the body blurred out, only keeping the title.

Country of origin is the US. Note the "canceled" spelling in image 2. The threshold of originality seems to be high for short phrases in the US. See [8], which says "Copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Such claims are viewed with suspicion by the Copyright Office...", and that originality is not a matter of the number of words used, but rather "the uniqueness and value of the phrases as well as the way in which you (and the borrower) use them." (See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hillary_Clinton_2016_DNC_Speech.webm for an example of a PD short phrase) FunnyMath (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These both have multiple complete sentences and certainly have US copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, for image 1, it is pretty much the same text (with three sentences), but slightly changed for each of the four text boxes.
You can think of the text boxes as like "recipes" for making food. And recipes are not eligible for copyright according to the Copyright Office: "A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable"
It's like if someone wrote a cookbook containing a page with the ingredient lists for four different types of pizzas, with only slight changes in the ingredient list for each of the four pizzas.
And it doesn't matter how many ingredients are listed for each pizza, whether it's three, 30, or even 3,000. There is simply no copyright for listing items with no creative authorship.
Also, in the case that the body of the email in image 2 is judged to be copyrightable, I would like to ask whether I can upload a new version of image 2, but only with the title legible, and the body blurred. The Copyright Office also said that "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable..."
The Copyright Office also said that copyright is ineligible for "format" or "layout", so even the format of the email in image 2 is uncopyrightable.
All references to the Copyright Office's judgments mentioned above come from Circular 33: [9]
Complete sentences are not automatically copyrighted in the US, so we have to actually look at the sentences and ask ourselves if they are eligible for copyright.
I'm not sure if you have seen the Hillary Clinton example I posted earlier (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hillary_Clinton_2016_DNC_Speech.webm), but the following sentence was judged to be uncopyrightable:
"So it is with humility, determination and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president of the United States.”
And the sentence above has way more literary language than either image 1 or image 2. FunnyMath (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: FunnyMath (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's worth taking a look at Circular 33 for an example of a recipe that is uncopyrightable:

Paulina Neumann submits an application to register a recipe for caesar salad dressing. In the “Author Created” field, Neumann asserts a claim in “text.” The work consists of a list of eleven ingredients with the following instructions: “(1) puree anchovies, garlic, Dijon, egg yolks; (2) drizzle oil in gradually to emulsify; (3) add lemon, parmesan cheese, salt, pepper, Worcestershire and tabasco sauce.” The Office will refuse registration for this work, because the list of ingredients is uncopyrightable, and the instructional text contains an insufficient amount of creative authorship.

FunnyMath (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I showed an example of a set of 11 ingredients and 3 complete sentences that is explicitly denied copyright by the US Copyright Office. Thus, having multiple complete sentences is not enough to guarantee US copyright. If you think those three sentences in those textboxes are copyrightable, then I don't know what to say, especially considering that the 3-sentence-instruction is much longer and complicated. FunnyMath (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by my previous account

I would like to kindly request the restoration of some images that I uploaded to Commons from my main account, Macrobreed. I am no longer active on that account and now use this alternative account. The images are as follows:

These images were deleted for being out of scope. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Macrobreed for more details. I understand that some of the other images I uploaded may not meet Commons' scope. However, I added all images in good faith, either sourced from Flickr or created by myself, such as the image taken on World Stroke Day.

Thank you for your consideration. Macrobreed2 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the educational use of these? Nobody doubts your good faith, merely the usefulness of these images. (EDIT:A cropped and blurred Roy Royalty Hamilton file could be useful, as is too much focus on DWs).Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Roy Hamilton one needs VRT since it's from Facebook per Flickr metadata and that Flickr account looks like a license laundering account. https://www.flickr.com/photos/196198494@N02/52261708207 Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow, Thank you for clarifying the potential issue with the Roy Hamilton image.
Regarding the two volunteer images, I believe they could contribute to sections related to Indian non-profits, volunteerism and children's education along with related categories.
As for the image clicked by me on World Stroke Day of Dr. Ritwiz Bihari, I noticed that there are relatively few images in the Commons category for World Stroke Day. I thought this image could help add to that, especially as it highlights an important aspect of stroke awareness in India. I hope it can serve as a useful contribution to the category.
However, if you still feel they may not meet the criteria for inclusion, I completely understand. Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and for considering and responding to my request. Macrobreed2 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sd15 headshot.jpg

File:Sd15 headshot.jpg was deleted 17 July 2024 for lacking permission. It is a work of the California State Senate and can be found on the official page of Dave Cortese here, therefore falling under PD-CaGov license. I request that the file be undeleted and potentially renamed to 'Sen. Dave Cortese 2020' as this is more descriptive and reflects the year it was made (exif data says Nov 20, 2020). Thanks and sorry if I did this wrong, never made an undelete request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanloona2020 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per argument given by Jim in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2024-11#File:Assemblymember_Evan_Low.jpg. Günther Frager (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=957206511"