Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 1 reason • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
27 copyvios • 3 duplicates • 2 adverts • 37 selfies • 11 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

  • Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
  • This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.
The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:
1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
(snip)
4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(b) ...
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.
Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.
It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.
When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.
I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by a number of people that festival scarecrows are not sculptures. Storye book (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you make that claim without any evidence. The copyright rules are very broadly interpreted -- a computer program is "literature" and sculptures made of butter, ice, and sand, as well as more traditional media all have copyrights. Why, somehow, does a festival scarecrow not have one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that certain people do interpret copyright rules broadly. But in law, words do have to be defined.
For example: toys. Toys are defined as human-designed objects originally intended as toys. Thus a plastic water pistol in the shape of a gun is a toy gun, but a real gun is not a toy. If a toddler takes his mother's real gun out of her handbag (purse) and has fun playing with it and ends up shooting her with it (as has happened, sadly), the real gun has been misused as a plaything but has never been a toy. From that we can see that an object used as a plaything but originally intended for another purpose is not a toy as defined in law. The manufacturer of the deceased mother's gun will not be prosecuted for creating a lethal toy.
Similarly, if a villager creates a straw-stuffed scarecrow bee for their scarecrow-festival tableau, the bee is an effigy for temporary exhibition purposes. It is not a toy (even if the kid next door grabs it and kicks it around as a football) and it is not a sculpture, because it was not designed as a toy or sculpture.
The law in the UK and the US both take original intention into consideration. Killing is a good example of intention being taken into consideration. The serial killer with his known modus operandi (MO) and his car-full of gaffer tape, poisons, ropes, hunting knives and guns may fairly be accused of intention to kill. But the horrified mother who has accidentally backed her car over her child when witnesses confirm that she believed the child was inside the house, is unlikely to be accused of intention to kill.
Therefore, to answer your question, if a sculptor creates an ice sculpture for the ice festival in Ottawa, then that is his intention, and that is a sculpture. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, before eating it, it is not a sculpture. That is because the sculptor is intending to made a sculpture, but the kid is using his food as a plaything, or as a way of winding up his mother. Regarding the issue here, if a villager makes a scarecrow effigy, that scarecrow by definition is supposed to be a badly-made effigy because that is what a scarecrow is. The whole point of a scarecrow is that it is not intended to be a sculpture or any other kind of art, and it is certainly not intended to be a toy. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you keep making the claim that they are not sculptures, but have not and cannot cite either statute or case law to prove your point. Carl would you comment here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any written law which cites what things are not. There would be an infinite list of nots if they tried. Anyway, aren't you bringing this discussion off the point? The above two files were deleted on the grounds of being toys. Any argument for deletion or undeletion of those files ought to be about that. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in undeleting something to just start a DR on it, so we have to look at the whole picture. In general, toys fall under sculpture in copyright law, because copyright law is pretty general. I don't see any reason why these wouldn't fall under sculpture as well, as three dimensional constructions for artistic purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Your "whole picture" is not the whole picture. I accept that the dalmatian dog picture can be mistaken for toys, although they were not made for that purpose. I accept that that one may remain deleted. I have already said that. But the bees are very large, and if you were there you would have seen that they are scruffy bags of straw and totally unusable as toys. They were never intended as toys, sculptures or any kind of artworks. They were intended as destructible scarecrows. A scarecrow by definition is an object carelessly thrown together as a temporary effigy. The whole point of them is that they are not an artwork, and are intended as a non-artwork. It is the camera work which is artistic. The real problem that we have in this discussion is that only one or two people have been able to see the original pictures. So all those who have not seen the original pictues are talking out of their hats. I repeat, the dogs can possibly be mistaken as toys, fair enough (if that is the picture that I think it is?). But the bees cannot be mistaken as toys. I did not photograph any bees which look like toys, or which could be used as playthings. You couldn't even kick them around the yard, because they would fall apart. Storye book (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about toys. They're sculptures. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, it's sculpture. It might not qualify for copyright under the “perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than a transitory duration” rule, but the US Copyright Office specifically lists "Edible materials, such as a molded chocolate rabbit or a frosting design on a cake" as eligible, right below "“Soft sculptures,” such as stuffed animals and puppets" Compendium of Copyright Practices (section 704). Note there's no section about toys; section 910 is called "Games, Toys, Dolls, Stuffed Animals, and Puppets" and starts "This Section discusses certain issues that commonly arise with toys, dolls, stuffed animals, puppets, and other sculptural works." When you build something and put it on display as an effigy, it likely falls under the category of sculpture, provided there was human input and it's not a useful item.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "likely" is significant, then. It means that the subject is up for doubt and discussion. Also, please explain to me why only my photographs have been targeted for deletion, and why only my photographs have been targeted now. It is illogical to say that only the photographs at issue in this discussion matter, and it is illogical in the context that none of the thousands of other effigy and scarecrow pictures on WP (which to my knowledge have never been disputed since WP started) have been targeted for deletion. Therefore this discussion gives the impression that my work on scarecrows is being targeted for vexatious reasons.
That leads me to wonder why you are discussing this without showing us what you are discussing. If you were to reveal the bees picture, your statements about toys and sculpture would be less convincing.
It is not the case that WP respects only US law when judging copyright violation on Commons. If you believed that US law overrides UK law in all cases, then you would not have allowed UK panoramafreiheit, and you would not have allowed the UK's 70-year death rule. UK courts do not inflict punitive damages. Judgements on copyright cases in the UK consider only specific financial losses, which are quantitative. That is to say, if an advertiser were to use my photographs of a scarecrow to make money, then the judgement would be about any moneys that the scarecrow-creator could have made with the scarecrow, but cannot make due to advertiser-behaviour. Because these scarecrows are in themselves non-commercial, then it is doubtvul whether any scarecrow-creator could ever have made money which amounts to more than court costs. Also, UK courts do not define art, artists or sculpture because art is a moot point, which can never be resolved and is not quantifiable like money. That is why I am disputing your arguments. Storye book (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:L says works must be PD in the US and their country of origin. You're arguing instead of listening, and arguing with the world experts on Commons license policy on that subject is silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whom one disputes with is not a premise on which to judge an argument. What we have here is a number of attempts to delete my photographs on new grounds, which have never (to my knowledge) been used on the many thousands of similar photographs which have been uploaded to Commons since Commons began. I asked above what is the difference between much older, still-existing, photographs of effigies, scarecrows, etc., and my photographs of scarecrows. And I received no answer. It is not enough in this circumstance to say that we only consider the photographs at issue here. A parallel in civic life might be that up to now no man has been indicted in any court anywhere for simply looking at another man's wife, then suddenly, without any change in the law, non-lawyers are able to indict or imprison one particular man for looking at another man's wife. To put it another way, there is no precedence for what you are doing here. So please explain what is the difference between my photographs and all the other photographs of scarecrows, and why only my photographs, after all these years, have been singled out for deletion on grounds which (in your terms) would fit thousands, if not millions of pre-existing photos on Commons? Storye book (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have always thought that considering these very simple objects as sculptures with a copyright is farfetched. Now I don't know how this translates to legal arguments, but Storye book made one above. If these objects are not considered copyrighted by UK law, why should we do so? Yann (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always had a problem when certain people are considered artists and get copyright respected for every little thing, but the average person is just making "very simple objects". I question whether Storye book's interpretation of the UK law is correct. Certainly in the US these would have copyright, and that is the law that the WMF would be sued under. Also, we have several people well versed in US law; it doesn't seem we have anyone nearly as well versed in UK law, so trying to use the UK law solely makes it harder here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what is worth, we sometimes deny copyright to claimed "artistic" works. A recent case from memory: Category:On Kawara. I agree that there is no reason to use a different standard for famous artists and other people. Yann (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Hehe, yes, that example is something a lot of us would like to judge as non-art. I think that comes from the old definition of art as specific skill(s), rather than the more recent infinity of interpretations. That is why British courts decline to define art - because there could be no conclusion to it all - today it is all about opinion. But, back to the subject at hand, here. A British court would weigh up the question of who would lose what, and who would win what, if the court dismissed the case, or if it awarded something to plaintiff or defendant. In this case, if British village scarecrow-festival images were deleted, the creators of the scarecrows would lose out, because (1) they would no longer have good-quality available and shareable pictures of their creations for free, and (2) they would no longer have ditto photographs to use in promotion of the next scarecrow festival. It would be a long stretch to imagine that advertisers and other moneymakers would bother to use the images for money, or that they could make more money doing that than the cost of a court case, but if they did, they would be doing no harm to the creators, so who cares? Because British courts (unlike US courts) do not inflict punitive damages, there would be no case to answer, so a British court and/or lawyers would not pursue such a case. People are wasting their time here, on this subject of British scarecrow festivals. Storye book (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ed Force One TF-AAK.jpg

There seems to a misunderstanding as to who is the copyright holder of the image in questions, as can be deduced from the communications regarding the deletion request of this file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ed_Force_One_TF-AAK.jpg). It took the supposed copyright holder 6 years (!!) to file a complaint regarding this file, in which time it was used all over Wikipedia as well as outside of the Commons platform by news websites such as ours. Now, more than two years after the file has been deleted off of Wikimedia Commons (so 8 years after it was uploaded to Commons), another individual is hiring law firms to charge (news) websites that used the image in good faith, based on the reasonable understanding that they were able to use the file due to its Commons license, ridiculous amounts of money for using the image. Reading the transcript, it seems that an employee of the company claiming ownership of the picture uploaded it to Commons at the time (2016). That means that the image was provided to Commons under a Creative Commons license, which means that other websites/individuals that use the file have acted completely in good faith. The fact that due to (it seems) an internal misunderstanding within the company, the file has now been deleted off Commons, causes a situation where other users (like news outlets) that have used the image get targeted by law firms with abusive claims despite having acted in complete good faith. The file should therefore be undeleted, thereby also eliminating the risk of Wikimedia being held liable for the claims as referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.239.132 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 July 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

COM:CARES and we don't always detect these issues in a timely manner. I agree with Ellywa's close here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Trains de banlieue de l'AMT (logo).svg

File was attempted to be transferred from French Wikipedia.

File was deleted because it was tagged as ((Marque déposée)) in French Wikipedia.

A comparison of similar files on Wikicommons (related logo File:Montreal Metro Logo (with text).svg and unrelated logo File:Renault 2021.svg) are tagged as both ((Trademarked)) and ((PD-textlogo)).

I asked on the French Wikipedia forum for guidance and they suggested uploading the file independently to Wikimedia Commons, taggin correctly and then requesting deletion from Wikipedia. Doing that led me to a warning that the file has previously been updated.

So here I am. If this is the wrong way about this, please let me know. One of Many Tims (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted for not having a proper license. And this file is more complex that the Montreal Metro Logo. I'm not an expert in the Threshold of Originality in Canada and it looks borderline to me. Abzeronow (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either, but I think we can find similarly complex logos of trains in public transport on wikimedia. Examples:
All of these were tagged with ((Trademark)) and either ((PD-textlogo)) or ((PD-simple)). One of Many Tims (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold of originality can differ (quite a bit) by country. Canada used to have an extremely low one inherited from UK law; more recent rulings (en:CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada) said that the NAFTA treaty had necessarily moved their threshold to somewhere in between the UK and the US. I'd guess it's below the US threshold, but less sure on Canada. For US logos, the threshold is higher, and they also have the chance of being published without a copyright notice before 1989. Unless it's from before that date, File:El Paso Streetcar Logo.png is clearly copyrightable and should be deleted. The German threshold for logos used to be very high (they did not like overlap between copyright and trademark, unlike the US and many other countries), but that has changed more recently I think. en:WP:OTHERFILESEXIST is usually not a good argument, as other files may simply not have been noticed yet. The Canadian ruling rejected sweat of the brow, but did not require the modicum of creativity the US does. I'm really not sure here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Close call on this one -- probably above the Canadian ToO. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Paso Streetcar Logo.png per Carl's comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note that this logo (or derivatives of it or very similar logos) is also used in many files on Commons, perhaps 40, many of which seem for some reason claimed as free licensed by the users who uploaded them. For example in this category. Also sometimes in previous versions of different logos. If this logo is not ok for Commons, a look at the other files may be necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Fontana luminosa (L'Aquila)

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to request the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted last year after this DR and they all depict a fountain, the it:Fontana luminosa, in the city of L'Aquila. The monument was commissioned by the local mayor (during fascism called "podestà") to the sculptor it:Nicola D'Antino, who finished it in 1933 (see here and here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1954, way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"