Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UR)
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)
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

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Poloniawarszawa1.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Both the images are below the threshold originality under Polish law. The testimony of the statement is shown in the two court judgments.

First of all art. 1 law 1 of copyright and related rights act states that:

"The subject matter of copyright is any creative activity of individual nature, made in any form, regardless of its value, intended use, the form of expression"

In case I ACa 809/08 court states about the article above that:

"It defines essential qualities of the work, which are distinguishing it against works of others. In source literature, the prerogatives are defined as originality ('indication of creative activity') and individuality. In the first case it is about making a 'subjectively new intelectual creation' (cf. J. Barta, M. Czajkowska-Dąbrowska, Z. Ćwiąkalski, R. Markiewicz, E. Traple 'Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz', Dom Wydawniczy ABC 2001).

Originality itself isn't a sufficient condition to call the result of an activity a work. It is also mandatory for it to be marked by individuality. 'measures of individuality' proposed in the doctrine underlines analysis of statistical single-usability, meaning finding out whether analogous work existed in the past and if someone specializing in the same field could statistically achieve the concurrent effect. Another possible way is an analysis of the extent of artistic licence. In other words: in other words: is it the result of work determined by the function of the object, practical assumptions to be met by it, technical requirements or other objective factors, or - a process that leaves a choice."

Case I ACa 800/07 states that:

"Statement, that the product is an indication of 'creative activity', means that it shall be a result of the activity of creative nature. That statement, often described as the premise of 'originality' of creation, is true when there's subjectively new intellectual creation; it is therefore only included on a ground of subjective novelty and retrospectively oriented."

In the judgement, there is also another case brought up: FSK 2253/04 where it is stated that:

"Proprietary curriculum can't be considered a work (on basis of art. 1 law 1 of copyright and related rights act of February 4, 1994) if maker's creation doesn't have qualities of originality and individuality, in the sense of law.""

Therefore logos above can't be considered original and individual work as there are modifications of previous club logos variants (with copyrights expired, as they were made before World War II), as seen here including this, which the admin that deleted the other files seem to deem not original. Piotr Bart (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to   Support this request as the club name, its creation year and standard geometric shapes do not seem to express any creativity. But pinging @DMacks: the deleting admin for comments. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If others think these specific ones are free, then I'm fine with their undeletion. Note to Piotr Bart though, I merely was running a list of files tagged by others. You can see from your talkpage the note about how this came to admin attention, and that's why I specified in my deletion "tagged as copyvio (non-free logos)". I was not browsing by uploader or topic, so File:Poloniawarszawa2.svg was not even on my radar. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I thought that all three files were reported, that's why I assumed you allowed that one. Piotr Bart (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries; the fuller admin view of the history makes it much clearer what was going on than the public-facing puzzle-pieces. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Bahnanlagen sind kein Spielplatz (Bundespolizei).JPG

should be restored and equipped with {{PD-GermanGov}} --- Thanks, --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Section_5(2)_works Ankry (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

File:GER — BY — München — Dokumentation Drei Impfungen gegen COVID-19 Anno 2021 Mattes.jpg

In the DR, no stamement which contests any rules of WM Commons is given. Instead, a gossip published by "welt.de" (online only) was the only reason to delete the image (even two versions). Die Welt also states "Durch die Priorisierung beim Impfen ließen sich gerade bei jungen Menschen Rückschlüsse auf ernste Vorerkrankungen schließen."[1] (Due to priorized vaccine applications may others get a hint of serious illnesses of a person). That's total bull, because people who get high prios are not only all ill, they may have a status of systemic importance (MD, nurses, assistive personnel in Elderly homes, policemen, firefighters and whatnot). This shows the big lack of quality of the article, because this is not stated in the article. Their only source is "Bundesfamilienministerium" (name missing). If you are reading their FAQ, nothing is stated regarding a publication of a person's vaccination record. Another person than User:Polarlys should make a final decision here. Thanks, --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose There is no need for the Bundesfamilienministerium to prohibit the publication of a person's vaccination record because that is already ruled out by the General Data Protection Regulation (Datenschutzgrundverordnung). The lot numbers of the vaccines can eventually be linked to specific individuals so we should not publish them here. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  Comment That's your interpretation and it is wrong. I cannot do an offence because I publish my own data. Furthermore, the DSGVO is not applicable for WM Commons. Erratum: the correct expression is Bundesgesundheitsministerium. --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You are of course free to publish your own data. Regarding privacy laws though, we still respect those according to the country of origin of a media file. And I will retain my opinion that we should not publish any of those lot numbers – not only for privacy reasons where applicable, but also because they are prone to be used for forgery. One could argue that this is an issue for any file user and not for Commons, but I think we should also act with a certain level of scrutiny in such cases. De728631 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't understand why anyone thinks this is in scope -- we certainly don't keep other medical records except those of individuals notable for their medical records and only then after their death. Perhaps I should upload my yellow fever card? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, that might be in scope, as an example. I would even say, one for each country would be in scope. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  Comment COM:SCOPE is something you have brought up. Not the admin who deleted all versions of the file. So your comment is kinda out of scope here. Just stick to the topic ... okay? --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps a blank card for each country, or even each system of showing the VAX record, but I think that this one, heavily redacted as it is, is not something anyone is going to use. A blank one would be better.
As for the fact that scope was not an issue in the original DR, there is no point in restoring an image here because the DR was in error only to delete it again for another obvious reason. Images get more attention from highly experienced editors here than they do in most DRs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

File:1. Київська телевежа.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: According to Ukrainian Copyright Law "creative effort", Kyiv TV Tower have utilitarian design as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant New Safe Confinement or Commons:Deletion requests/File:TV-Tower Vinnytsya.jpg

And othe file in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kyiv TV tower 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 18:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I think this would almost certainly have a copyright even when "creative effort" was required. It is not only a lattice tower, but also two levels of habitable space. I also think that keeping the Nuclear Plant images is wrong -- a building of that size and complexity certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I am not sure about the "utilitarian" argument for this tower, but the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant New Safe Confinement is an industrial building with purely utilitarian function. Size and complexity are not arguments for a copyright, only artistic design is. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
That varies country by country. In the USA, any habitable building, no matter creative or not, has a copyright. Fortunately the USA has FoP for architecture, so the issue does not arise. The Ukraine copyright law does not mention "artistic design" but only that the work must be "creative". Plainly there is creation involved in any structure more complicated than an igloo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This interpretation of "creative" is IMO too restritive. It would mean that we can't keep any of these images: Category:White houses in Ukraine. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The U.S. requires "at least some minimal degree of creativity". They don't make aesthetic judgements, i.e. "artistic" or not, just that a degree of creativity is there. The TV tower would be an interesting test case, as only a small portion is designed for human occupancy, and it's a regular geometric shape. But it's also not a standard element of other buildings. No real idea on Ukraine's TOO though. The "country of origin" is also kind of interesting here -- for architecture, it's generally the country where it's located. But apparently the design was first created for Moscow, probably early 1960s or even late 1950s, though not actually built, then re-used (though shortened) for the Ukraine. If it was published enough earlier in Moscow, unsure what the real country of origin would be -- making a copy in another country should not change that. Also at the time, the country was the USSR -- so it might be considered "simultaneously published" in all the former Soviet republics. Some of those are still 50pma, and 50 years from publication for anonymous works. It's an odd situation, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. These files were deleted without any discussion. Should we reopen the DR? Yann (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd love to ask @Jklamo: about this topic, again how to judge a TV tower as utilitarian or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  Question who was involved in the design or construction? An architect or an engineer? If the former is true, then the file must remain deleted. But if latter, then possibly it can be restored, as in most cases works created by engineers do not exhibit artistry (similar to our antenna masts despite the lack of FOP in our country as of this moment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg

File:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg was deleted 15 years ago due to the design being copyrighted in Australia (it has a very low threshold of originality). The copyright was recently acquired by the Australian federal government and "Now that the commonwealth holds the copyright, it belongs to everyone, and no one can take it away." I'm opening this discussion to clarify what that means, if it is now freely licensed in a way that is consistent with Commons hosting, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Support This copyright was a nonsense (how is it possible that something so much public and simple can have a copyright?). Good to know that it doesn't exist anymore. Yann (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The law hasn’t changed (threshold of originality) and is still strict, it’s just a change of copyright ownership but the Government hasn’t specified if this will be a PD-Gov (AU) or covered by legislation that releases it under a PD like licence. Bidgee (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsure which license this would go under. It only states that they have acquired the copyright (and since the state is public, the work is publicly owned, or some blaha like that), not that they have released it under a license or into the public domain. The only PD-tag for Australia that might come close is {{PD-AustrianGov}} but that only applies for part of a law, ordinance or official decree. The Australian gov. can hold copyright to works, and unless an explicit license or release is made, I'm leaning to say that we need to wait. Unless we wish to start a discussion on TOO, but since the Australian government has already weigh in on that aspect, it seems like a no-go. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    TOO in Australia hasn’t changed. Just the ownership of the flag, so I think TOO needs to change to explain that but it doesn’t mean that TOO in Australia has been relaxed.
    I have noticed File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg has been uploaded, rather than going though the undeletion process. Bidgee (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    This is the best official information we have to go with. Bidgee (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    And found the official press release, I doubt it will be PD since Harold Thomas will still have moral rights to the flag. Bidgee (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
From the press release linked by Bidgee:

"To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting. While this ongoing arrangement covers commercial production, Flagworld is not restricting individuals from making their own flag for personal use."

This sounds like while the copyright to the design of the flag will almost, but not quite, be freely licensed for any use (as the Australian government will apparently continue to exclusively license the design to a single manufacturer of flags with the license royalties they collect from the manufacturer going to NAIDOC). Using the copyright license to prohibit only a single type of commercial use is largely free, but I don't think it meets COM:L's requirement to be free for any use. —RP88 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose according to official press release, commercial use is still restricted. Also, tagged the svg file for speedy delete. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The prime minister said the flag could now be used on sports jerseys, shirts, websites, paintings, reproduced on sporting grounds and used “in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee”. [2] its clear there is now no issues in Commons hosting images under {{PD-AustrianGov}}{{PD-AustralianGov}}, moral rights always exist under Australian copyright laws and cant be extinguished. All CC licenses since CC 3.0 specifically state that the copyright holder agrees to not enforce/exercise moral rights over the image. Gnangarra 05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I guess you meant "the other" Austria as in {{PD-AustralianGov}}.   That, however, is not a free licence because it was granted by the copyright holder, but it refers to Crown Copyright having expired due to old age. That is not the case here. De728631 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Austria is not Australia. {{PD-AustraliaGov}} is a separate tag and requires 50 years from creation, typically. But not sure that would automatically apply for assigned or purchased private copyrights like this -- there is some talk about royalties being given to somewhere else, so some licensing must still exist, and thus copyright. Not sure it's really public domain, but... it has some sort of license now; unsure how "free" exactly. Kind of a gray area. Of course, normally we'd consider it PD-ineligible without much thought, but there is a court case about it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
      • fixed, the talk of "royalities" is part of the compensation agreement to release the flag from any emcumbrances. Gnangarra 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
        • That would be nice, but I see references that there is only one official manufacturer of the flag? How is that enforced... via copyright, or some other right? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly we need further clarification from the Australian Government as to the license the flag will be used under publicly. I was excited to hear about it yesterday but remained reserved until I knew more, I know a little more but still isn’t clear. Bidgee (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note, this has been discussed often, I found a category with DR's, Category:Australian Aboriginal flag related deletion requests. Ellywa (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • For sure, but its copyright was just sold, so the circumstances are changing. The question is how much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Please remember that it is entirely possible for a government to purchase and own a copyright without it being licensed in the same way as most of that government's works. Some US coins are a good example of this.

"To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting." is not consistent with a free license. For the license to be acceptable to Commons, it must allow an Australian (or anyone else) to buy and display a flag made anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose without an official statement granting more than the press release. That one says they'll still be collecting royalties, and allows Australians to freely use the unaltered flag. I thought they could basically do that anyway, only publishing copies was an issue. It allows Australians to make their own flags for personal use. Plenty of countries have restrictions on how their flags can be used, which are treated in Commons as non-copyright restrictions, but in this case, they appear to want to exploit the copyright too. --ghouston (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment It seems like we've never really decided what kind of copyright restrictions on reproduction / derivative works are allowed in a "freely licensed" work. Per precedent, the answer is not "none": we allow images of outdoor sculptures in Germany despite restrictions on reproductions of the 3D object without the sculptor's permission, and images of US skylines containing copyrighted billboards despite restrictions on cropping. We'll have to get more clarity from the Australian government on what exactly is restricted, but if it narrowly targets the making of physical cloth flags, I fail to see the difference from FoP-Germany. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I assume that at least German FoP applies to anybody under German law, not just Germans. According to that press release, I don't get any permissions since I'm not Australian (I've just lived in Australia for nearly 15 years). --ghouston (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Support At this point (less than 2 days since being announced), where there has not yet been a 100% clear, no doubt, undeniable formal announcement for the minutiae legal changes affecting the transfer of the flag's copyright, I believe the flag is suitable for hosting on the Commons on the basis that its license is now effectively free enough to comply with policy, so long as the individual waiver tags (specifically {{Insignia}} with written clarification) are included.

The current most reliable official source explicitly states[1]:

"All Australians can now put the Aboriginal Flag on apparel such as sports jerseys and shirts, it can be painted on sports grounds, included on websites, in paintings and other artworks, used digitally and in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee."

Which, while not quite public domain, is very close to all of the creative commons licenses accepted. Maybe it might be significant enough of a change that it requires its own new license template, as the only explicit restriction is commercial mass manufacturing on bunting and physical flags - not commercial use on clothing, buildings, and probably whatever else you can think of. When it comes to moral rights, I haven't seen anyone say that we should suddenly cut off Harold Thomas from being credited and mentioned, where he consistently has been, as the original designer.

Citing precedent of a notable example is the BBC's logo, which most definitely has not been released in the United Kingdom stating it may be used in the way the flag has, despite it likely being above the threshold of originality for the UK. I am not saying that the flag should be undeleted because it's below Australia's TOO, but the BBC is an example of where the logo's primary application (online/digital form) is more at risk of infringing restrictions by being on the Commons - that specific file being kept is a separate debate.

So, if it's a risk-based assessment, based on a comparison, which is more at risk of infringing local restrictions? The logo of a major news reporting organisation, with a primary international presence online, or a flag with its copyright purchased for $20 million[2], by the Australian Government, specifically intended to remove all limitations, even if they didn't quite get all, except the physical commercial production of bunting, being stored and presented in an online encyclopedic format?

"To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting. While this ongoing arrangement covers commercial production, Flagworld is not restricting individuals from making their own flag for personal use."

As with pretty much every national flag (although the Aboriginal Flag is not quite the same), {{Insignia}} also implies considering additional legalities. Even adding {{Trademarked}} might do it because there are plenty of public domain US logos on here, which have similar limitations. Using another example: Apple is considered public domain, but don't try using it on your own brand of smartphone.

"The Aboriginal Flag will now be managed in a similar manner to the Australian National Flag, where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way."

This is my view because I believe it is the clear intention of the Australian Government to release it as restriction-free as they could and that the use of the flag on the Commons with a reasonable free license, so that it can be used on any of Wikipedia's different languages and sites, is extremely unlikely to go against that spirit. However, if the response from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' office to an email[3] from Bidgee says the opposite, that will obviously be the end of the matter.

TL;DR:

  • The Australian Government clearly intended their purchase of the copyright to remove all restrictions they could, in order to be "free"
  • Commons has a number of precedents, with imperfect licensing, or specific commercial limitations, and files have been kept (e.g. BBC and Apple)
  • To be sure there is no doubt on the file page, readily available and used templates like {{Trademarked}} and {{Insignia}}, or even its own new template, should give enough additional clarification
  • Until there is more official confirmation, the explicit declaration the flag is free to use in any medium, besides commercial flag production in Australia, should be sufficient
  • {{PD-AustralianGov}} isn't perfect, but it's close enough, for now

Bacon Noodles (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"the explicit declaration the flag is free to use in any medium, besides commercial flag production in Australia, should be sufficient" -- this is nonsense. We require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. That means that flag makers anywhere in the world must be free to make and sell copies of the flag -- not just one company in Australia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I was paraphrasing a specific part of the press release, where they mention production in Australia, the specifics of whether their license agreement applies internationally were not mentioned. It's not "nonsense", for example, any agreement may be invalid in the US, given the flag probably already has been in the public domain, there, since it's almost definitely under the threshold of originality.

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures.[4]"

This flag is a clear use case for the latter point, with this being a discussion of the file being undeleted, and I'm just using the example of being {{Trademarked}} because it's as good as, when the only stated commercial limitation is with physically manufacturing flags, with the design of a flag. If you think it shouldn't ever be used, I'd suggest taking that up with the 150,000 other files with the same tag.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

It's early days and, frankly, I don't think the government were considering a discussion like this, when they made their brief headline-making announcement, before their day off. So, until there is further official clarification, I still believe the emphasis of the press release on the flag now being "free" on all other grounds qualifies it as "public domain" with an asterisk, even if they haven't used that precise wording.
Bacon Noodles (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  
    Burberry pattern
    I found another precedent, where a textile design was uploaded under a free license (CC 3.0), despite physical manufacturing of any garment/textile, not just flags and bunting, being limited to one company (Burberry), which was tagged as being {{Trademarked}}. It was on the Wikipedia Trademark page and has been there since 2 May 2011. Maybe someone should nominate or edit that, if they think the same principle shouldn't be applied to this flag, at this point. Bacon Noodles (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Nothing to do with Australia or flags of Australia. Let’s not use other countries copyright and/or trademark laws. Bidgee (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    I think you are conflating copyright restrictions with non-copyright restrictions like trademark restrictions, legal restrictions on the use of national symbols, privacy restrictions, etc. Copyright restrictions hold a special place with regards to Commons because, unlike other Wikimedia wikis, Commons is specifically forbidden by the Wikimedia Foundation from having an Exemption Doctrine Policy and thus can only host works with a free copyright license. So, for example, if Australia has established a regulation or law that says only Flagworld is permitted to manufacture Aboriginal Flags then Commons doesn't care — that would be a non-copyright restriction, and doesn't affect whether or not the flag is available under a free copyright license. On the other hand, if until recently Flagworld has been the exclusive manufacturer of Aboriginal Flags because Harold Thomas only granted them a license to the Aboriginal Flag's copyright and now that Australia is the owner of the copyright they plan on continuing to use a copyright license to enforce Flagworld as the exclusive manufacturer of Aboriginal Flags then Commons does care. —RP88 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't believe that any non-copyright restriction legislation is involved. The government has simply purchased the copyright and intends to continue the practice of licensing flag production to a single company. Given that it's a flag design, and the production of flags is restricted, I don't see how it can be considered "public domain" or "freely licensed". Also, there's no guarantee that this is the final word in the flag saga: some Aboriginal commentary has already been negative about the new arrangement. --ghouston (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In my reading of the press release, I cannot see how the Australian Government would put so much effort, let alone the political impact, into such an important long-running matter, with the specific intention of making the flag "free", just so that, in the end, one hold-out flag manufacturer could invalidate everything else, and they would continue to use the copyright in the same way as Harold Thomas (which was the entire issue, to begin with). As per Ghouston, Aboriginal communities will continue to object any restrictions whereby they don't hold the moral rights, and I frankly wouldn't be surprised if, at some point soon, Flagsworld cancels their agreement. But, if the primary objection is whether the press release did or did not announce the flag being freely licensed by the new copyright owner, consider that objection, if Flagsworld was not mentioned, would the announcement practically be saying it's free to use?

"All Australians can now put the Aboriginal Flag on apparel such as sports jerseys and shirts, it can be painted on sports grounds, included on websites, in paintings and other artworks, used digitally and in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee."

It's my view that, by saying this, it effectively did, mirroring near-verbatim the most widely used free licenses, in a simplified form, so it's surely reasonable enough to consider it a release of the copyright, more than an exemption of applying ownership, although the specific license/template to use is still a matter of further discussion/clarification. However, having said that, Flagsworld is still a factor and, by no means am I saying it should be neglected.
If your long-term objection, RP88, is that non-copyright factors should be disregarded for all files, perhaps you should expand that with the discussion on what goes into Commons:Licensing, which I am merely applying to what I see as being fairly direct wording, along with the thousands of comparable precedent files (regarding non-copyright exemption disclaimers), to how I think it may now also apply to this file. I continue to use {{Trademarked}} as an example because when a flag can only be commercially made in the form of a flag, by one flag manufacturer, with the design of what was intended to be a flag, it is undeniably similar. Legally, at this point, {{Insignia}} may be more appropriate, which is why I also mentioned it, which begins to take in the point of whether the flag production is licensing of a free design or application of a copyright by its holder.
To be clear, as is often the case with things like this, I am not saying the press release was an irrevocable disclaimer with every detail ready, but, I do strongly believe, so far, it is sufficient as both being free in terms that comply with Commons:Licensing (with the aforementioned disclaimers), and not a repeat of why the file was originally deleted. It's still ongoing, there will continue to be disputes, press releases, etc. If those invalidate everything I've said, then, that's simply how it is, and maybe speedy deletion would be best (should the file be restored). However, to repeat, I do not think it would be unreasonable for us or anyone else to use the press release as the expressed written consent from an official representative of its new copyright holder that the flag is free, to the best of our considered understanding, in the way it would be used, where we will be clear to anyone who has access to it, there may still be ramifications for inappropriate uses. Bacon Noodles (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that a free license has been granted for non-flag uses, although probably revocable (e.g., if Aboriginal concerns about unrestricted commercial use of the flag are considered in future), but for use on flags, which is a major use for a flag design, the license for the general public is only non-commercial. According to the press release, the licenses are only granted to Australians, so exclude even non-Australians living in Australia, not to mention the rest of the world. --ghouston (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Another DR discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. George Ho (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe that the conditions in the press release are similar enough to Creative Commons to comply with Commons guidelines. The restrictions on who may commercially print the flag are similar to {{Trademark}} restrictions which are allowed on Commons. Commons also allows other insignia such as flags to be used with non-copyright restrictions with the template {{Insignia}}. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Bacon Noodles. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jim. It sounds like this might not meet COM:L bar, although I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Abzeronow (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral as the government hasn't exactly specified which license it's under. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There's an interesting opinion at [5], that if the copyright has been fully transferred to the Australian government, then it would become subject to a 50 year expiry as a government-owned work. Since it was created in 1971, the copyright would be already expired. --ghouston (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Gilyoshir.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gilyoshir.jpg

"Designed by Achille Ouvré (died 1951) and engraved by Gaston Gandon (still active in 1939) " Gandon died in 1941 https://stampengravers.blogspot.com/2018/03/biography-gaston-gandon.html and with Ouvré's death being in 1951, this 1936 stamp is now public domain in France. I don't believe URAA applies here because this is a postal stamp that is pre-1978 (pre-1978 stamps in the US are not copyrighted). Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree with the URAA status. US Stamps were not copyrighted earlier because they were works of the Federal Government. That fact does not apply elsewhere -- if it did then all government works everywhere in the world would be PD in the US, which is not the case. Therefore this will be free on 1/1/2032 -- 95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I looked into some information in order to rebut you, but I found something interesting. A possible error in Commons:Stamps. http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/are-postage-stamps-public-domain.html

According to the Copyright Office, U.S. postage stamps issued before 1971 are definitely in the public domain. In 1971, the U.S. Post Office (a federal agency) became the U.S. Postal Service (an independent agency of the executive branch). The new agency's status permitted it to register copyright in stamp images. Or did it? There is some confusion surrounding the copyright status of postage stamps issued between January 1, 1971(when the USPS was created) and January 1, 1978 (the year the revised copyright law was enacted). Wikipedia, for example, states that U.S. stamps are "public domain if issued before 31 December 1977." Because we are unable to verify the public domain status of stamps issued during this seven-year period (1971-1978), the prudent course would be to assume these stamps are protected by copyright. The USPS has a system established for granting rights and permissions for the reproduction of stamps.

And so that send me down a rabbit hole looking at the Post Office and copyright. https://copyrightalliance.org/stamps-copyright/

Before there was a USPS, there was the United States Post Office Department (USPOD), a cabinet-level department within the executive branch, headed by the Postmaster General. In 1938, Congress passed legislation which stated that “copyright may be secured by the Postmaster General on behalf of the United States in the whole or any part of the publication authorized by this section,” including stamps. This was important because, prior to the passage of that 1938 legislation, the Copyright Act of 1909 held that “no copyright shall subsist…in any publication of the United States Government,” and as a cabinet-level department, stamps published by the USPOD clearly fell within these parameters, and outside of the scope of copyright protection. The 1909 Act was eventually amended to include the language from the 1938 legislation.

. Very interesting stuff. I still wonder about the practicality of enforcing U.S. copyright on French stamps whose copyright has expired in France. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Support Yes, I too wonder what the point of applying URAA here. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, a 1936 US Stamp is free of copyright only because it was a work of the Federal Government. After the formation of the Postal Service in 1971, that was no longer the case. And yes, there is an ambiguity regarding stamps from the 1971-1978 period, but that is irrelevant here. You can't apply the fact that a 1936 US stamp is free of copyright to works in other countries because in most other countries, including France, works of the government are not automatically PD.
And yes, applying the URAA seems a little silly -- I can't image that the French government would try to enforce its US copyright on this stamp, but the Precautionary Principle explicitly forbids that line of reasoning as a way to keep an image. We cannot restore this unless we choose to ignore the Precautionary Principle -- and that is a slippery slope I don't want to start down. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes, we have to take into account the silliness of (some) copyright laws, and use common sense. This is one of these cases. Yann (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, wasn't aware the postage stamp exemption predated the USPS. I wonder if PD-US-no-notice would still apply though. Obviously though, U.S. stamps were only (potentially) PD because they were works of the U.S. government. That would not help with any foreign works. If there is any area I think we should ignore the URAA, it would be for foreign government works -- not exactly what copyright was there to protect, to me. And you could make an argument that putting an expiration date on their own works (since they write the law) is an odd form of PD-author. But, thus far, I think we've waited for declarative statements from a government that expiration in their country applies worldwide, and we don't have one from France. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a government filing a copyright lawsuit in a foreign country at any point, let alone for when it has expired in their own country, so it is already in pretty highly theoretical ground without getting the URAA into it. With stamps, there might be some other exotic arguments -- if the stamp was used on a letter to the United States within 30 days, or sold on ocean liners that visited the United States, could you argue simultaneous publication? If it was used on a letter to, or seized by, the Alien Property Custodian, would that exception count? By the letter of the law though, the French government may have a copyright claim still in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (12).JPG

And all these: [3]

Because: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ivory Coast#Freedom of panorama "The author can not prohibit ... reproduction by audiovisual means and public communication by cable or by any other means, of works of graphic or plastic art, photographic works, and works of architecture placed permanently in a public place and including the inclusion in the audiovisual work, where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject.[2016-555 Article 27]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haster2 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2022  (UTC+8)

  • Leaning towards   Oppose. @Haster2: , unless the image/s is/are specified, there is no valid reason to restore these as Ivorian FOP is just unacceptable here. Look at the condition "where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject." If the basilica is the only subject of interest in any one of the images, the images cannot be restored unless we got commercial license permission from Pierre Fakhoury. Or, wait until the time of our grandchildren comes, as Côte d'Ivoire's posthumous copyright term is unreasonably long. We are not sure if the country will amend their laws to remove "where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject" condition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: It's a wonderful photo, but it clearly infringes on the architect's copyright and the Ivorian FoP does not allow commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bufotes luristanicus-2019.jpg to undelete

Vor dem upload des o.g. Bildes auf den Commons wurde die Zustimmung des Autors Parham Beyhagi (CENSORED) schriftlich eingeholt. Der Bildautor hat der Veröffentlichung im Rahmen der deutschen Ausgabe der Wikipedia ausdrücklich zugestimmt, s. Auszüge aus dem e-mail Verkehr:

Before uploading the above image to the Commons, written consent was obtained from the author Parham Beyhagi (CENSORED). The author of the picture has expressly agreed' to the publication in the German edition of Wikipedia, see excerpts from the e-mail traffic:


On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 11:46 PM [email protected] <CENSORED> wrote: Hello Parham, I have just insert your pretty picture as header in the german Wikipedia article Bufotes luristanicus : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan-Kr%C3%B6te After onclick of the photo, you´ll find the author and the reference, please click for further details the blue box right side: "Weitere Einzelheiten") than you´ll find three short descriptions with the location in german, english and also in persian. Please have a look if the persian is correct. After downscrolling you`ll get an overview of the license conditions:

CC BY-SA 4.0 Thanks again, have a good time! Best Wishes, Michael 

-----Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: Bufotes luristanicus, Photo

Datum: 2021-12-22T21:25:55+0100

Von: "Parham Beyhaghi" <CENSORED>

An: "[email protected]" <CENSORED>

Please send me a link of my picture, I will glad to see it on your article 🙏🙏🙏

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 11:50 PM [email protected] <CENSORED> wrote: ...thanks for Your quick and positive feedback. I think, the image resolution is sufficient. A higher ist not needed. Tomorow I will insert Your picture into the article.

With kind regards and happy, healthy New Year 2022!

Michael 

-----Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: Bufotes luristanicus, Photo

Datum: 2021-12-22T15:05:02+0100

Von: "Parham Beyhaghi" <CENSORED>

An: "[email protected]" <CENSORED> Sure, here it is.

Hi, yes if you need I can send you the original photo with my logo.

With best regards

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:49 PM [email protected] <CENSOREDe> wrote:

Hello Parham, may I use your extraordinary photo of the rare Bufotes luristanicus https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/22721316 for the followig website of German Wikipedia.de

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan-Kr%C3%B6te

Photo will be published under the terms of the Cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Your name as the author is always mentioned.

Thanks, Best wishes!

Michael Linnenbach

--Michael Linnenbach (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,
this needs to be send to [email protected] (VRTS). And please don't publish other people's email addresses. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose Also note that permission to use it on the German WP is insufficient. Images here (and at WP:DE) must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Need a free license from the photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Borderline By Shabri Prasad Singh.png

This is an authorised book by Shabri Prasad Singh, Shabri's Wikipage is already published but we are unable to add the book cover as it is marked for deletion. Kindly review it again. Below are the book references:

The cover, which had been deleted in 2021, is clearly above COM:TOO and thereby considered to be copyrighted. So, what is needed is a permission by the creator(s) of the cover-artwork and its elements, which has to be send to [email protected] (VRTS). --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Needs a free license from the cover designer and photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:HeatonCastle Cornhill-on-Tweed Northumberland.png

File deleted by User:Missvain - the user does not appear to have engaged with any of the arguments proposed on the talk page - both of which recommended "retain".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeatonCastle Cornhill-on-Tweed Northumberland.png, it would seem that the drawing is in some form a DW of the photograph even if loosely. Since the castle (copyright on the building has long since expired) is a 3D object, the photograph carries its own copyright (also the TOO is very low in the UK). But I'll leave to others to determine whether the drawing actually is a DW or not. Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Missvain that the drawing is a clear derivative work and infringes on the copyright for the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I do not think the drawing is a DW of the photo as all attributes making the photo copyrightable seem to be removed. I do not think that making a view of a 3D geometric shape from a specific angle can be considered copyrightable. The photo can be rather considered a source of information about the architectural work in this case. Ankry (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Ion Mateescu - Tusnad.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "ro:Ion_Mateescu, artist died in 1951. Copyright has expired in Romania. I cannot find a date for this painting. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done I like this painting. Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Unclosed. Ellywa, those of us who spend time here have an informal rule that we wait 24 hours before closing discussions unless they are completely obvious, which this one is not.

  Oppose While the work is PD in Romania, it was not on the URAA date. In order for it to be free in the USA, it must have been first published before 1927. Since the artist was born in 1876, that is perfectly possible. However, he could have painted it after 1926 or, since creation is not publication, even if it were painted earlier, it could have been published much later. Without a date for the painting's first publication, we cannot keep it on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a possibility that this wasn't published until the painting was uploaded on Commons and would thereby be free in the USA. Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. If the painting were first published after 1/1/1978, its US copyright would be pma 70. However, that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:NRB blue-768x530-1.png

Consists only of simple geometric shapes or text; does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Info The user who uploaded is this has been blocked for sockpuppeting. Thuresson (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I would support if it is intended to be used in the Wikipedia article. But is it? Ankry (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I intend to use it in the NRB TV article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:لبه‌انباشته.jpg

با سلام توضیحاتی که در تصویر اورده شده که در تصویر نبوده، حال این تصویر را لطفا پاک نکنید چون خودم آنرا ایجاد کردم. با تشکر Arshi alz (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose per © 1999 - 2021 TUNGALOY CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED at [4]. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:In times of Peril cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author, Linda Kearns MacWhinney, died in 1951 so this is now public domain in Ireland. Book was published in 1922 and is public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The text of the book is now PD, but we know nothing about the cover design or cover photograph. The copyright for the cover is independent of the copyright for the book's contents. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:LegazpiPhotowalk 13.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if any (or one) of these images show the Rizal Monument (see this Facebook post), then this must be OK as per {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}} (as a statue erected during the regime of Act No. 3134 which only protected artworks for 30 years upon registration). See also the conclusion of the 2nd DR thread at COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City). If possible, I am OK for temporary undeletion for verification of the statues. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Manito BB in the streets of Colombia.jpg

The reason for the request for undeletion is that the file/picture is my own work. --212.211.220.152 12:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  •   Question Are you sure that you've uploaded the image? It appears that this was deleted due to the file page being created without any media file being uploaded there. I see that you've posted this without having logged in, keep in mind that unfortunately it is not possible to contribute media without having logged in. If you wanted to upload the file via chunked upload it is in fact sometimes beneficial to created a file page, and then upload, but you can also just enter the information about the file in the description field and it will be applied to the page, when the page does not yet exist. I am also unsure what is the policy of recreating a file page which has been deleted for a reason such as this. But if you intend to upload the file, I would   Support undeletion of the information about it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose This is a copyvio -- it appears at the subject's gallery page without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=619923936"