This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive.

Above file is deleted which is utter ignorance of facts, please see image deleted:

• hr:File:Rijeka_Korzo_Dani_Sv_Vida_090610_2_roberta_f.jpg
  • Is this image made from this as user who asked for deletion stated here - commons edit from 26 June 2013.
  • Or from this old flag (on commons).

Admins should be more careful and answer to all complaints regarding keeping an image, not act rashly. More than one reason was stated to keep the image, and all need be deemed not true to delete photo. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the flag is not a modern still copyrighted work. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you maybe intentionally blind? Please check all three pictures again, thank you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at this flag and don't see by what evidence do you claim that it is not a modern (or relatively modern) still copyrighted work. You may call this 'intentionally blind' if you wish. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the picture taken in Croatia? They have FOP... "permanent" might be a bit argumentative here but it would appear those copies were pretty much just made to show above the streets like that, and it's not like it's a singular work of art just on temporary display. I'd be inclined to restore it. No way is it a derivative work of the linked stained glass. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what does "permanent" refer to. It's clear that these flags are not permanently on display in this street in Rijeka. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose  Neutral Carl, I do not understand your comment. It seems to me that the flags must have copyrights of their own, no matter whether they are original art or are copies of art work -- Bridgeman does not apply to works unless they were created entirely mechanically, which seems unlikely here. FOP does not apply because the flags are clearly not permanent. Therefore we cannot restore this unless we have a license from the creator of the flags. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should have explained a bit more.  :-) Really, I think this is a case where the letter of copyright law gives a different result than common sense. From what I can tell, the base image itself is of St. Vitus, in a depiction carrying a palm in one hand, and the city of Rijeka in the other. It is apparently derived from a carving on a stone pillar in Rijeka (see here, fourth picture down, which gives a date of 1509 for the carving). The banners appear to be decorations put out for an annual parade around St. Vitus' day... mid June or so (this picture is from 2010; here is one from 2013). The other Commons photo linked above shows a similar depiction at the main door of the Rijeka (St. Vitus) Cathedral in June 2012. I have not been able to find any history of that depiction itself to know how old it is, but at the very least it seems a fairly traditional depiction used in many places during those celebrations. It is likely copyrightable in and of itself, though a lot of the expression is from that 1509 carving. The banners themselves though appear to be made specifically to be put up in public every year -- from a certain point of view, their entire existence is meant for public display at that time of year, which might be considered "permanent" of a sort. The "permanent" provisions of the law are typically meant to protect sculptures, paintings, etc. from losing some of their normal economic rights just for being on temporary display. On the other hand, the "permanent" FoP provisions are there for works which are part of everyday public life to limit those economic rights; those are a different situation where the usual economic rights intrude too much on others. To me, these banners are much closer to the latter case -- they are sort of permanent fixture every June, from the looks of it, even if not the rest of the year (though it would not surprise me if some copies of that image are on more traditional permanent display somewhere). Courts have shown some flexibility in the definition of "permanent" such as in the case of ice sculptures; this could very well be another case like that, especially as it would seem these banners are put out by the city government. I just think it strains the letter of the law too much to delete on "derivative work" grounds in this particular case, rather than looking more at the law's intent. If I'm completely missing something (e.g. it turns out to be a private modern painting licensed by the city) it might be different, but given what I can find I think I lean towards  Support undeletion here. More information on the base image is always appreciated of course -- I don't speak the local language at all so my English-based searches may be missing something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full explanation. As I said above, I don't think it matters how old the depiction of St. Vitus is -- Bridgeman covers only mechanical reproduction and only in the USA, so even if the banners are good copies of an old work, I think that they have a copyright that will be in force for the next few decades in any case.

I find your "permanent" argument interesting. I think you are correct that the spirit of the law would support you, but the letter probably not. We had a similar case of some Japanese festival works that ultimately were deleted because the community felt that one month (or whatever it was) per year was not permanent. So, while I'm not convinced, I'll change my vote to neutral and see if anyone else can add to our thinking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical reproduction should not be copyrightable anywhere; those are copies and do not give a new copyright. If it turns out that the 2D image is say from the 1850s, then I don't think the banners are copyrighted at all and there would be no issue. If there was a minor additional copyright based on how the copy was made (maybe it required an additional engraving or something), it would likely be so small as to not be reproduced in this photograph. Bridgman was more about whether a photograph of a painting amounts to a mechanical copy; in the U.S. it does but it may not elsewhere. Something like a scan would be different -- those are always mechanical copies. That would be the difference between Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. I'm not going to make that assumption though -- it could easily be a modern painting in a old "style". And while a lot of the expression is clearly in the 1500s sculpture (such that the basic design, and even the form of some of the elements, are no longer copyrightable) it certainly adds enough of its own to carry an additional copyright. Without knowing the age of the 2D depiction then, you're correct the main reason to vote keep here would be the interpretation of "permanent" in the FoP provision of the law in this context. In many other photos the banners would be de minimis or at least incidental to the main focus of the photo, but this one does focus in on them so those arguments can't hold (though it at least does show them in their public context, so the FoP provision would hold if they are subject to that, which is based on that "permanent" interpretation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Category:Wikilove was a funny page/redirect, seemed ok to me, did it have a discussion before it was deleted ? I noticed it has been deleted, I'd like to know what other people think about it. This award linked to it, seems to suck a bit more with a link to a plain category, so like, if everyone doesn't like the redirect, I'll have to change the award page, which is cool, but you know, sucks a bit for the recipient I guess. Penyulap ☏ 08:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Category:WikiLove but not explicitly redirected, apparently. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:06, 29 July 2013 (GMT)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't after the redirect actually, my query was basically what was wrong with it that it needed deletion without discussion, it was a nice little stop on the journey to the wikiLove category. I figure, well sure, some people hate humor and it usually makes their nose bleed when they see it and can't compute it. They're just like <Penyulap makes a blank open mouth staring face>. But as it is on the journey to the wikilove cat, well, they are probably the kind of people who are OK with that sort of thing so I figured it was ok. It's not really possible to discuss with anyone the merits of keeping it or deleting it on the category talk page if they can't see the little picture and caption and so on, so I figured to ask for it to be restored so that it can be discussed. I wouldn't call it a speedy or that sort of thing, sure, the humor is bad, but I don't think it's that deadly. Re-creating deleted content somewhere else always seems inappropriate to me, as well as difficult as I can't recall the text or filename. Penyulap ☏ 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. I think Lol, for some peeps its true, nose bleed and such. Don't think anyone could get through with a DR on Wikilove or WikiLove or whatever. Probably ends in a block party. :) So, how may I serve you in this matter? Would you like the redirect back? I personally HATE it, when I have to write capital letters in the middle of a word. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you can rephrase so that whatever you are trying to say is easier to understand Hedwig. Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need more coffee. Would you like to have the redirect back? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I would do that ? Penyulap ☏ 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By saying: Yes, I think the redirect is useful, it should be restored. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very confusing, but I think your saying I should ask about it, but you're not saying where I should do that. Doesn't it need to be done in the right place ? Penyulap ☏ 05:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't play games with me. This is the place and especially you know it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well then don't start games that you don't want to play. You started playing "ask questions that are as polite as they are stupid" by asking me " So, how may I serve you in this matter? " that is where YOU started it. So what game is it that you DO want to play ? How about "Ignore the implicit request by asking for an explicit request" do you want to play that one ? what's your favorite game to play ? Hmm ? Penyulap ☏ 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you don't like polite people. And don't call me stupid, I deserve better. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what do your comments and games have to do with the request ? If you'd like to talk about your feelings that's all right, if you want to tell people what you deserve that's fine too, but I must warn you. I'm not a trained therapist and my comments are for information purposes only. So, what do you feel you deserve ? Penyulap ☏ 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place for this, as you know. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place for what, or who ? I made an undeletion request. I think it's in the right place. You seem to want to play games and talk about your feelings. Where does that go ? plus, why do you bring this stuff to me ? What have you ever done for me that I should let you feed me lines as if you feel I am special and not like everyone else on this page, feeding me lines to say, like I was some telephone sex operator for $4.95 a minute. I don't see you instructing anyone else oh say this to me, say that to me oOoOohhhHh. On English wikipedia the admins block people for kicks and demand textual hand jobs as a condition of unblocking. I don't see anyone else in this venue being told Ohhhh say this to me, Say that to me. People stick a request here, about any page or file and it gets answered without demands to play games. If you need your ego stroked then you should try someone who is into that sort of thing, or do something useful for a change. I give out awards, actually, according to most, I give out the BEST awards. If you can't click a button without getting a handjob first I'm thinking you've come to the wrong place, or asked the wrong person, or wait, both.

You started trolling by asking, at the undeletion request board, "how may I serve you in this matter?" being as polite as it is stupid. Go winge to someone else 'oh Peny was so cruel to me because I wanted to ask stupid questions, I was so polite and they were so not interested in giving me a ****job, this is so not fair, I'm an admin I deserve a ***job, I really do, look, I have buttons! I deserve a ****job'. Well, what have you done here except waste time and demand to talk about your feelings and demand to play games. huh ? what have you done. Nothing. Penyulap ☏ 05:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Benjamin Britten-Karsh.jpg
• File:Ernest Hemingway-Karsh.jpg
• File:Anna Magnani-Karsh.jpg
• File:Marcel-Marceau-karsh.jpg
• File:Jascha Heifetz-Karsh.jpg
• File:Cecil B. DeMille-Karsh.jpg
• File:David Sarnoff-Karsh.jpg

Seven photos by Karsh were deleted with a somewhat light rationale that does not fit with any typical guidelines. I'm requesting some other reviewers examine the copyright status of the deleted photos. The rationales given for deletion seem to rest on personal opinion and speculation:

• The editor simply gave an opinion that he doesn't think the copyright information is correct, but without saying why. However, there were numerous links to prove the source of the photos and their copyright status in the U.S.
• They noted a different shape of the photo as a rationale, yet that reasoning implies that the photos were the same except for cropping. I generally crop photos to fit the page or infobox. The editor made no inquiry into why an identical photo, with one apparently cropped a bit, should make any difference.
• They noted that the Hemingway photo was not exactly the same as one linked, which was only for background about the photographer. Yet the purpose of the link was to show other similar photos by Karsh, not to provide the source of the photo deleted. Also, the magazine published many photos of Hemingway, on the inside and reverse. In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored.
• For a photo taken as a staff photographer for a U.S. magazine, which is now in the public domain, it would go against the Commons precautionary principle to simply delete a photo based on the unsupported comment that it was not necessary to register a copyright in Canada in the 1950s.

Karsh's apparent PD photos would be of great benefit to WP, so I'm hoping some other editors will review these and possibly undelete them. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, WP could benefit from many pictures. The problem on Commons is, we have to be reasonable certain about the (c) status. You'll need to come up with more / better evidence, rather than repeating your reasoning from the DR. Under this circumstances I'd not be able to restore any of the images. No, I am not asking any questions, you need to provide the answers without being asked. I'll leave this request open, maybe someone has a good idea that will enable us to keep the images. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I am the deleting Admin. I made my decision on several factors, but principally on the simple reason that the Hemingway photo I deleted was not the same image that appears on the cover of Wisdom -- see http://collectingoldmagazines.com/2967/wisdom-the-magazine-of-knowledge-and-education/ for the actual photo. Since the rationale for PD was based largely on the fact that the seven images first appeared on the cover of the magazine, the fact that at least one of them did not fit that rationale seems persuasive.

As for the shape, the images I deleted are larger, vertically, than the cover images, so they are not crops from the cover, but are either different (as in the case of the Hemingway), or at least contain additional material. Copyright is fairly literal -- the cover images are probably PD, but similar photographs or even the same images before they were cropped for the cover are not covered by the PD status of the covers.

"In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored" is simply wrong. "Essentially identical" doesn't cut it in copyright law. However many images Karsh took of these seven people, only the actual image or images that appeared in the magazine, in the same crop as they appeared in the magazine, are probably PD. Other, essentially identical images, are still copyrighted.

These images are not scans of halftones, so wherever they came from, they did not come directly from the magazine. I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom. The link I gave shows Hemingway -- research can probably show others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The famous photographer is w:Yousuf Karsh -- let's link his whole name. I thought I remembered there was some tricky wrinkle to the copyright status of all his images, but, from Talk:Yousuf_Karsh, it looks like my memory played tricks on me. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info. to that talk page about one of his most famous portraits, of Einstein. As for Hemingway, I just checked the actual Wisdom magazine and the deleted photo is the lead photo of the article, page 4. As for the obvious cropping of his original photos, on the magazine cover they had to be cropped squarish to fit the formatted space. I don't remember the actual source of the photos since they were deleted. But for this one issue, there were a total of 17 different photos of Hemingway, posed and candid, in the article. That same number of photos is typical in the other issues focused on notables, such as Jonas Salk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deleting admin states above, "I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom," which has now been done, along with the fact that number of major bio articles are lacking a lead image, wouldn't it be best to restore these? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "which has now been done" above. Wikiwatcher has given us no links, not even the Hemingway, and I don't get the impression that he or she has actually compared the deleted images with images in Wisdom. I'd be happy to restore these -- they are great pictures -- but until we can see that the deleted images actually appeared in Wisdom cropped as they were in the magazine, I don't think we can do it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Just tell me how to provide a direct scan or photo of the page or pages that a photo in question is on. Wisdom is not available online, but I have direct access to all issues. Another way is for you to restore a photo, like Hemingway, and I'll upload the magazine page over it, and then undo the upload so both copies are viewable. I think that will work. Then you can do the others one at a time if you want. Also, I wasn't aware that AGF was not a policy on the Commons.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Not done We're done here. Verifiable source links/references have been requested from the uploader, who appears to have ignored that query. Since files whose copyright status cannot be determined in certainty are deleted, these files shall stay deleted. -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened -- we're not done, as Wikiwatcher's last offer solves the problem. Scans of the actual Wisdom pages would be great -- I think we are all satisfied that the magazine did not renew its copyrights, so that the images from it are PD. They can certainly be uploaded using the same file names as above. The deleted images will, however, remain deleted. As I said above, copyright is very specific. The images as printed in Wisdom are PD -- other versions, even prints from the same negative, are not, unless they are identical in size, resolution, and crop.

As for AGF, I always assume good faith, but only to a point. Since Wikiwatcher used "essentially identical" above as an acceptable reason to justify keeping these, it seems reasonable to assume that he or she does not completely understand the applicable law. I think it was appropriate to ask that the community be able to see for themselves if the images were actually identical and not merely very similar. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and upload the images above directly from the magazine. Since the magazine is a large format, 10 1/2" x 13", I won't be able to do a direct flatbed scan (max 8 1/2" width) and will have to revert to taking a photograph of the page. I've done that before with some stills, such as File:Betty Hutton.jpg, although the quality will be affected, since trying to get even lighting without glare and keeping the image in focus at all 4 corners with a close-up lens and a hand-held camera is harder than scanning. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded four so far. Since Wisdom is not indexed, I don't know if the other three came from inside some issues and don't know what the original image sources were. I also renamed them since I kept getting a warning message when I tried to use the old file name. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Rodrigo Gracie's photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Gracie (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you're referring to File:Rodrigo-Gracie.jpg. You need to provide a reason why you think the deletion was wrong. In this case, since the file was deleted as a copyright violation grabbed from http://www.onzuka.com/news_2005sept2.html, that means you need to explain why you think the file was not a copyright violation. Describing what the file depicts (which was already pretty clear from the file name) does not accomplish that. Please read the instructions before attempting to make an undeletion request again. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura y Paolo en el chime for change.jpg

No creo que debería ser eliminada la imagen, y se me informo que no se sabe si el creador dejo que la imagen se publique libremente, si se puede publicar libremente ya que como pueden observar, Laura publico la foto desde su sitio oficial de Facebook, para que la pueden publicar. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamiloSanchezz (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The photo was deleted despite my discussion of the reasons not to delete it. The deletion is a bias.--Ashashyou (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral input is requested as to why the image was deleted. First, I don't think that an editor whose only edits for the last two weeks have focused on deleting my images can be considered neutral. In any case, the image which is supported with verifiable evidence as to its apparent PD status, is tagged as having "No evidence" and "guesswork," and deleted without comment. Whether the deletion is arbitrary, without basis, or non-neutral, can someone offer any meaningful feedback. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]