Commons:Demandes de restauration - Wikimedia Commons

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

Cette page a pour but de permettre aux utilisateurs de déposer une requête pour qu'une page ou un fichier (ci-après indifféremment désignés par le mot fichier) soit restauré. Les utilisateurs peuvent commenter les requêtes déposées en indiquant leur opinion ne pas restaurer ou restaurer, suivi de leurs arguments.

Cette page ne fait pas partie de Wikipédia. Cette page concerne le contenu de Wikimedia Commons, un recueil de fichiers multimédia librement utilisables par Wikipédia et d'autres projets Wikimédia. Wikimedia Commons ne contient pas d'articles encyclopédiques. Pour solliciter la restauration d'un article ou un autre contenu qui a été effacé de l'édition de Wikipédia en anglais, merci de voir la page deletion review sur ce site.

Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier

Consultez d'abord le journal des effacements et notez le nom de la personne ayant supprimé le fichier. Utilisez également Special:Whatlinkshere (depuis la page de l'image, cela fonctionne même si le fichier a été supprimé) pour voir s'il y a eu débat quelque part avant que la suppression ait eu lieu. Deuxièmement, merci de lire la politique de suppression, les objectifs du projet, et la politique de licences pour découvrir pourquoi le fichier n'est peut-être admissible sur Wikimedia Commons.

Si la raison avancée n'est pas claire ou si vous êtes en désaccord avec elle, vous pouvez contacter l'administrateur ayant effectué la suppression pour lui demander des explications ou lui fournir des preuves allant à l'encontre de la raison de la suppression. Vous pouvez aussi contacter n'importe quel administrateur actif (peut-être une personne parlant votre langue maternelle) — la plupart seront ravis de vous apporter leur aide, et si une erreur a été commise, de rectifier la situation.

Mode d'emploi

Les suppressions qui sont correctement basées sur les politiques en vigueur concernant la suppression, les objectifs du projet ou les licences ne seront pas remises en question. Les propositions de modification des politiques doivent être faites sur les pages de discussion de ces politiques.

Si vous pensez que le fichier en question ne violait pas de droits d'auteur ni ne se trouvait en contradiction avec les objectifs du projet :

• Vous pouvez avoir envie de discuter avec l'administrateur qui a supprimé le fichier. Vous pouvez lui demander une explication détaillée ou lui apporter des preuves pour étayer la restauration du fichier.
• Si vous ne désirez contacter personne directement, ou si un administrateur en particulier a décliné votre demande de restauration, ou si vous voulez donnez l'occasion à plus de personnes de participer à la discussion, vous pouvez demander la restauration du fichier sur cette page.
• Si le fichier a été supprimé par manque de preuves de l’existence d'une permission de placement sous une licence par le détenteur des droits, merci de suivre la procédure pour apporter des preuves de l'existence d'une permission. Si vous avez déjà fait cela, il n'est pas nécessaire de demander une restauration ici. Si la permission indiquée est en ordre, le fichier sera restauré lorsque la permission sera traitée. Veuillez vous montrer patient, car cela peut prendre plusieurs semaines en fonction de la charge de travail du moment et du nombre de bénévoles disponibles.
• Si certaines informations sont manquantes dans la description de l'image supprimée, il se peut qu'on vous pose des questions. Une réponse à ces questions est généralement attendue dans les 24 heures suivantes.

Restauration temporaire

Les fichiers peuvent être restaurés temporairement soit pour faciliter une discussion à propos d'une restauration de ce fichier, soit pour permettre le transfert vers un projet qui autorise l'usage loyal (fair use). Utilisez le modèle {{Request temporary undeletion}} sur le demande de restauration concernée et fournissez une explication.

1. si la restauration temporaire est réalisée dans le but de faciliter un débat, expliquez en quoi elle pourrait être utile pour ce débat, ou
2. si la restauration temporaire est destinée à permettre un transfert vers un projet acceptant l'usage légitime (fair use), précisez vers quel projet vous désirez transférer le fichier et proposez un lien vers la page du projet mentionnant sa politique en matière d'usage légitime.

Pour aider dans une discussion

Des fichiers peuvent être temporairement restaurés afin de donner des éléments lors d'un débat s'il apparaît difficile aux participants de décider si une demande de restauration doit être validée ou non tant qu'ils n'ont pas accès au fichier en question. Si une description ou une citation du fichier est suffisante, un administrateur peut les fournir au lieu d'accéder à la demande de restauration temporaire. Les demandes peuvent être rejetées si l'utilité pour la discussion est réduite par d'autres facteurs (comme la restauration, même temporaire, de fichiers où il existe des enjeux importants en matière de Commons:Photos de personnes identifiables). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour faciliter une discussion seront de nouveau supprimés après 30 jours, ou lorsque la demande est clôturée (en prenant le délai le plus court).

Pour permettre le transfert de contenu en fair use vers un autre projet

À l'inverse de Wikipédia en anglais et de quelques autres projets Wikimedia, Commons n'accepte pas d'héberger du contenu non libre dans le cadre de l'usage loyal (fair use). Si un fichier supprimé correspond aux critères pour un usage loyal (fait use) sur un autre projet Wikimedia, les utilisateurs peuvent demander sa restauration temporaire afin de le transférer vers cet autre projet. De telles requêtes peuvent en général être traitées rapidement (sans débat). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour être transférés seront supprimés après deux jours. Lors de la demande de restauration temporaire, veuillez préciser sur quel projet vous comptez transférer le fichier et fournir un lien vers la page du projet définissant les modalités de l'usage loyal (fair use) sur ce projet.

Ajouter une demande

Assurez-vous en premier que vous avez essayé de trouver la raison pour laquelle le fichier a été supprimé. Ensuite, veuillez lire ces instructions sur la manière de rédiger la demande avant de l'ajouter :

• Ne demandez pas la restauration d'un fichier qui n'a pas été supprimé.
• Ne publiez pas votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone, ni ceux d'autres personnes.
• dans le champ Subject:, saisissez un sujet approprié. Si vous demander la restauration d'un seul fichier, un titre comme [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] est conseillé (souvenez-vous du caractère deux-points initial dans le lien).
• identifiez le ou les fichiers dont vous demandez la restauration et fournissez des liens vers les images (voir plus haut). Si vous ne connaissez pas le nom exact, fournissez autant d'informations que possible. Les demandes sans informations suffisantes sur ce qui doit être restauré peuvent être archivées sans préavis.
• donnez le ou les motifs de la demande de restauration.
• signez votre demande avec les quatre caractères tilde (~~~~). Si vous avez un compte sur Commons, connectez-vous d'abord. Si vous êtes la personne ayant téléversé le fichier en question, cela peut aider les administrateurs à l'identifier.

Ajoutez la demande à la fin de la page. Cliquez ici pour ouvrir la page à l'endroit où vous devriez ajouter votre demande. Sinon, vous pouvez cliquer sur le lien "modifier" situé à côté de la date, ci-dessous. Surveillez les mises à jour apportées à la section correspondant à votre demande.

Archives

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.

Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.

In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
• Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

• @Yann : Undelete File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg. Published in Izvestiya, 1 September 1937. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Done @Kges1901 : Please add relevant information in the file description. Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed DR discussions

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Rostekhnadzor
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Rostekhnadzor
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Sport (Russia)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

Current DR discussions

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Russian Federation Investigative Committee medals
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Transport (Russia)

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

  Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Conference Setup - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--Rocky187 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg
• Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-09#File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

Arguments against deletion were again not taken into account.

The photo depicts a portable metal board of a travel office, with many similar leaflets containing large color titles in Russian (suppossed to be simple non-literary texts, without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface) and illustrative photos of the destinations offered (indistinct due to the proportions in the whole composition and resolution of the photo, apparently De minimis par excellence). The subject of the photograph is the fact that the Bohemian city of Karlovy Vary is partially Russian-language. This is an encyclopedically significant fact and the photos documenting this fact are in scope of Commons.

• Yann argued "These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text." He ignored the arguments, that the texts (titles of the leaflets) have not sufficiently creative authorship and that the included photos are small, indistinct, de minimis. He did not specify which elements or aspects of the leaflets he considered copyrightable and why he disagree with the contention that the included photographs, given the size, composition, resolution and subject matter of the overall photograph, are "De minimis".

• Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope." This reasoning does not respond to my arguments. My argument was that the headlines of the leaflets are non-creative PD-Texts, and the photographs contained in the leaflets are "de minimis" in relation to the whole composition and subject of the photography. The composition of individual leaflets also cannot be considered an original creative work either.

• Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights." Again, an argument based on a false premise. The subject of the photo is the distinct headings of the leaflets, especially the language used, which is in scope as the subject of the photo. The headings are claimed to be not copyrightable, as simple texts without sufficiently creative authorship, in a general typeface. The only thing that could be copyrightable on those leaflets are the illustrative photos of the destinations, which are so small and indistinct in the overall composition that exactly correspond to the principle "de minimis", par excellence. (Btw., the rack itself could be also in scope.) --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I don't read the language, but there appear to be enough legible words there to have a copyright in the USA -- which only takes a single sentence or two. Also, many of the photographs are large enough so that they cannot be called de minimis. As I said, there is nothing in this image that is interesting that does not have a copyright as text or photos or both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Дмитров1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: this may be a test UNDEL case. Deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дмитров1.jpg, on the grounds that it contained one component image that was a violation of NoFoP-Russia for copyrighted public monuments.

RG72 gave an interesting case though, in 2019–20 concerning a postcard set, one of the constituent postcards contained an image of a monument in Yekaterinburg whose sculptor filed a copyright complaint (see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#NoFoP should be amended). The case reached the Russian Supreme Court, which denied the sculptor's complaint (essentially dismissed), because the involved monument was only depicted in one of the postcards of the set (the set is considered the entire reproduction, and the monument is not the main object of the whole reproduction because it was only depicted in one of the postcards). Perhaps while the original images should stay deleted, the montages or collages where those deleted images were being used should be restored, in light with this slightly-lenient ruling by the Russian court narrowing sculptors' economic rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping other participants of that CRT/Russia talkpage thread @Alexander Davronov@Alex Spade. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (on June 25, 2024) the Yekaterinburg case and some similar cases were subject of trial in the Russian Constitutional Court (the highest court of the RF, higher than the Russian Supreme Court). See discussions in ru-community: 1st+2nd ones on Commons and 1st+2nd ones in Ru-wiki.
In short: the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade how about the possibility of the montages/collages being lawful based on the court ruling, since the monuments themselves are not the main objects of the collages/montages. Similar analogy to the court ruling itself that concerns a set of postcards, even if one of the postcards unambiguously shows the monument itself as its sole depiction, the entire postcard set is lawful (the monument is not the main object of the entire postcard set) and the sculptor's claims dismissed, if I can understand RG72's comment in the CRT talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This is interesting PoV (suggestion), but Jim's point below (We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons) is too strong. Alex Spade (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose There is a simple answer to this. We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons, freely licensed. We do this in order that we can check the copyright status of each image. Obviously, the offending image in a situation like this cannot be present separately on Commons, so we can't keep a montage containing it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Firstly the author of the image expressly freely licensed his image to the Commons. Secondly, according to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [8] and [9]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's simple fair use, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Since the photo were taken in 1962, which are now in public domain per Myanmar's 2019 copyright law. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 06:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose They were not public domain in 1996 as photographs would have been creation plus 50 years under the old British law which means pre-1946 photos. These would have entered the public domain only in 2013. So URAA applies. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: No reason given. As noted, has at least a URAA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use this picture to illustrate the advocacy activities of the fossil fuel industry in the article Carbon capture and storage. I agree it is promotional in intent. That is the reason I want to use it - promotion happens in the real world and we should cover that phenomenon encyclopedically. Clayoquot (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support Even if put on Flickr with promotional intent, seems reasonably in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to America and also it is history that cannot be deleted.Also, i would like to investigate it but I can’t. Please get it ASAP.Thank you. 42.98.226.90 06:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zapruder Film (Original Version).webm. Yann (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an important historic American film, but as en:Zapruder film says it is copyrighted and thus cannot be hosted on Commons yet. I am not opposed to fair use of the film, which would have to be locally hosted on English Wikipedia. There is no fair use on Commons (I was the closing administrator on that DR). Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg was closed rather quickly today, and I was halfway through typing out a keep for it at the time: I think it's a good illustration of a person genuinely engaged in editing a video on a home computer, to the point where I would have used it at en:Video editing#Home video editing, or even in the lead there. The concern that the photo is a social-media style "selfie" seems misplaced, as the subject is facing away from the camera.

As someone who's had to fake a screen onto a similar stock photo before, decent photos of people doing something specific on a computer, where the photo emphasises the act of work more than the person as an individual, can be quite rare. --Belbury (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I agree with Belbury. Definitely not "rubbish" as the speedy deletion nominator had said, and a good illustration of someone using editing software. This is not some social media selfie. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak   Oppose: "Someone using iMovie" is different than a picture that could illustrate that use. The screen is blurry, and since it is a free software, anyone can create a useful picture or video. This is not one of them. If anything, this could illustrate a teenager's desktop, but nothing else. Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Very busy, low quality image. The screen is out of focus. The half cup on the right should be cropped, also some of the left..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]