Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

Shortcuts: [[:]] • [[:]] • [[:]]

Coats of arms by Tomas.urban

• File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), kept by P199 (talk · contribs), renominated by Macucal, deleted by Yann (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 1.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 2.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 3.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Arcibiskup Duka Dominik.jpg nominated by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs) in 2014, deleted by Steinsplitter (talk · contribs)

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [1]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Jim that the small size creates a suspicion. @Tomas.urban: If these are your works, could you import the original files? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I  Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Even those were clearly not drawn at the size uploaded here -- they have antialiasing artifacts from being scanned or considerably down-sized. I think this is just further evidence that these were taken from someplace else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't see that -- I see the artifacts due to converting to .jpg, but not much else. The ones that are in .png (a better format for this type of thing), like File:Biskup Vokál Jan rev C.png, don't show any of that. I will say there is a signature of sorts on the three I linked, at the bottom right of the shield, and many of his uploads have a similar mark tucked in in different places. Not all of them have it though. If we can find a site which uses that mark, that may be better evidence -- but if there is a trove of these images out there, we really should be able to find them. They feel like legitimate uploads, to me, in general. He has done plenty of direct SVG uploads as well, like File:Pardubice Region CoA CZ.svg. I don't see an SVG of that particular tassel graphic -- perhaps he wants to keep the vector source of that to himself. Some very old versions of that graphic, such as File:Biskup Esterka Petr CoA.jpg and File:Biskup Cikrle Vojtech CoA.jpg and several others, have a different signature on it -- can't quite make it out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Older images have a "TU" monogram. Newer images are symbol. I have all the pictures in SVG format, but because of abuse release the pictures in jpg or png. I declare that I created all the images myself. Tomas.Urban 05:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, thought that might be "TU" on the older ones. Support undeletion, more firmly now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Fastcom 12 login.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Fastcom 12 login.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures (The images synthesized by Fastcom 12, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed (whole / fragments) - based on the Creative Commons license.

http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures#FLOGIN TRustRust (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WEB archive from 2014: images are synthesized by Fastcom, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed as a whole, or fragments: http://web.archive.org/web/20140119202743/http://fastcom.fors.ru:80/web_files/Info/Pictures. TRustRust (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support This looks like a PD-author type of licence or at least a custom free licence. Copying, and distributing and the making of derivatives (which is included in distribution "in fragments") are covered by the archived statement. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Permission is on software manufacturer web site. I don't see a problem that it appeared later then files were uploaded. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures. (see the first sentence - an indication of Creative Commons by attribution 4.0). Do you need more? TRustRust (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

File:ATTILA - thumbnail US Half-Sheet 1958.jpg

The US release poster art work for "Attila" was copyrighted in 1958 by Attila Associates for use in the promotion, distribution, and exhibiting of the film through the expiration of all US distribution rights in March, 1968. No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by Attila Associates, Lux Films, or Ponti-Delaurentiis. Attila Associates owned all rights to their poster artwork, outright. US Promotional artwork did not become the property of the European film licensing firms (Lux Films/Canal-Plus) when the US distribution license expired in 1968. When they renewed US copyright for their film in 1986, there was no renewal of the first term copyright for the Attila Associates' artwork. At that time, per poster artwork created before 1977 with no rights reverting to original artist or others, the artwork would have fallen into the Public Domain. As such, the "Attila" US release poster artwork was free to be used for the 2013 DVD released of the film in Italy by Golem Video. Hence, all Attila Associates US poster artwork for "Attila" would appear to be in the Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support This qualifies for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, the file was deleted because you uploaded it with a Creative Commons licence, which may have lead to confusion. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree with:

"No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by ..."

Just as a writer does not have to copyright every page of a book, a movie producer does not have to separately copyright every frame. The whole movie is copyrighted at once, including all of its frames. It's not obvious whether the three scenes on this poster are actual stills from the movie or are paintings from stills, but in the latter case they are derivative works and therefore just as much under copyright as they would be if they were actual stills.

Therefore, since the poster is a DW of a movie that is still under copyright, it is not PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If the poster was published first, then it wouldn't be a DW of the unpublished movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It may well have been created and published before the movie was released, but that does not change the fact that if the scenes are taken from the movie, either as actual frames or as paintings made from actual frames, then it is a DW of the movie. The only way it is not a DW is if the scenes on the poster were made up out of the artist's imagination. That would have to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, if the poster was published first, then the movie would basically be a derivative work of the poster. If the movie was published (or registered) first, then yes that could change things. If the poster is still derivative of copyrighted characters, then it's still a problem. But if the copyright on the characters was created by the movie, then a previously-published poster cannot be derivative of them. Also, the poster would need to have an actual frame from the movie to be derivative. If it was a related drawing, or a photo taken on set but not a movie frame, it would not be derivative of the movie. (Derivative of characters, particularly for animated stuff, is certainly possible.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Carl, I think you are missing an important point. This is an Italian movie, so Italian copyright attached at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication. The poster, however, is US, so copyright did not attach until publication. Furthermore, the movie was released in Italy in 1954 and in the USA in 1958 (see Attila (1954 film)). I doubt very much that the US poster was created four years before the US release.

So, as I said above, unless the scenes on the poster came out of the artists imagination -- if they are actual frames from the movie or paintings made from actual frames -- the poster is DW of the movie. The movie's US copyright was renewed in 1986, so, as a DW of a movie still under copyright in both the USA and Italy, we cannot keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, did not know it was Italian. However... Italian law has an explicit clause that clamps the copyright of film stills at the term of simple photographs (20 years from creation). {{PD-Italy}}. Gray area for the U.S., if they would use Italian law to determine copyright ownership of the poster, or if it would count as a derivative work under U.S. law regardless. But the movie would still be under copyright, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the interesting arguments presented here. I did a title search on this film at the Library of Congress back in 1989 to see if it had fallen into US public domain for home video release in America. The search was done at the point where all 1986 film renewal applications had been processed through to the card catalogue system (then, a 2-year time lag). That's how I come by the information given here. I hope I can answer a few more of your questions regarding what may or may not be derivative. As you have evaluated, it's a complicated situation. The US promotional art (which is unique to the American 1958 release, no foreign release took this visual approach) shows a scene which does not appear in the film. Anthony Quinn never grabs Sophia Loren in any way near this fashion, and they are never costumed the same way in any scene in which they both appear together. So I'd say the primary artistic expression is fanciful and not directly derivative of the film. The background art is a collage sketching with minimal detail. The only thing remotely identifiable as being in the movie is a cheetah approaching a dancing girl on the floor, and another women hanging from a rope in an entranceway, though the building here is totally different and at no point are there hordes galloping down the steps. Again, it's a fanciful rearrangement of details. Does that qualify as being sourced from the artist or derivative of the film? Of course, both Loren and Quinn are depicted as they appear at some points in the movie, just never together in this fashion.

The US press-books, posters, and lobby cards were all copyrighted in the name of Attila Associates in 1958 through National Screen Services (long defunct). Nothing was renewed due to the US distribution terms being limited to 10 years. So all of this would be PD in the US. The artwork would have been derived from the photo set of 100 B&W images (8x10s) used for the press release folders. Not all of these images were duplicated in the US. Those that were, carried the Attila Associates copyright imprint. But none of these photos appear to have been covered by individual copyright application, except the 12 which were used on the lobby card set. While the photos show scenes from the film, they were all shot in B&W utilizing a production still-camera. In some cases the still-camera was close to the photographic axis of the movie camera, and in many cases it was widely divergent from it. Unlike the US created artwork, these photo images were supplied by Lux Films/Ponti-DeLaurentiis and were created in Italy in 1953-54. So they are not actually printed still-frames from the film negative.

I can't say how these extra details might influence your decision, but I wanted to further address your valid concerns. While it was originally released in Italy, it was a Italio-Franco co-production of multi-national, Lux Films. The primary copyright holder since the early 1960s appears to be the French film library, Canal. They may currently be distributing the film for the estate of Carlo Ponti, which could still hold a full or partial interest in the renewed US copyright. I was unable to confirm this latter detail back in 1989.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

One further note. All the production stills would have been "created" in Italy before the finished film was copyrighted there in 1954. If they are the basis for the fanciful US poster art (not the film itself) would that change the situation in any way?Bbaldwin7 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the image under discussion, so it's hard for me to say. However, some further details.

The film was registered in the U.S., registration LP0000014653 on April 23, 1958. It was renewed on January 6, 1986, renewal number RE0000278785. So the U.S. version of the film will be under U.S. copyright until 2054. (This is now easily searchable on www.copyright.gov ). It will likely be under Italian (and EU) copyright for even longer, as one of the writers died in 2008, and another in 2013, so it may be under copyright in Italy until 2084. However, it's possible that the U.S. renewal was too late for the initially published 1954 movie, since that would have needed to be done by the end of 1982, so it's possible that only new expression in the 1958 version is still protected. (It may be additionally complicated by the Disney v Twin Books ruling, which Commons does not follow to date, so the film may be completely copyrighted in the 9th Circuit if not elsewhere.)

Later note -- the URAA would have restored the 1954 Italian film, so it is still completely copyrighted in the U.S. until 2050 regardless, 9th Circuit or not.

If the posters were not renewed, they should be public domain themselves. However, even if a work is public domain, if it is derivative of a previous work which is *not* public domain, then distribution is still controlled by the copyright owners of the underlying work. This has happened when a film's copyright expired, but the copyright of the book it was based on was still valid, for example. If the photographs were *not* film stills, then they are not directly derivative of the film. However, it can be more complicated than that -- the film generates a copyright on the characters themselves. If there are distinctive hairstyles, costuming, mannerisms, etc. of a character, then material can still be derivative of the characters. The case Warner Bros. vs Avela gets into some excruciating detail. They do describe a "spectrum" of the copyrightablility of characters, from cartoons (basically anything would be derivative of those), to costumed characters, with regular humans on the other end. A photo would need to depict something which is part of the character copyright. From that case, on publicity material from Gone With the Wind: There is nothing consistent and distinctive about the publicity material images of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. They certainly lack any cartoonishly unique physical attributes, and neither one is shown in a consistent, unique outfit and hairstyle. [...] As a result, the district court correctly held that the publicity material images for Gone with the Wind are no more than "pictures of the actors in costume." Now, that ruling does seem to say that a publicity poster would itself still be PD, and reproductions of the poster are allowed, but using parts of the poster in other ways might possibly become derivative of the characters. In that case, Avela combined some PD photos with other elements, and it was ruled to be evocative of the character, and thus derivative works of the character (this was for Wizard of Oz elements, which have cartoonish costumes and therefore have much more expression relating to the character). But Avela's straight poster reproductions were considered OK if the original poster had become PD.

If the poster doesn't have anything directly from the film, and were first published in the U.S., it does sound like they could be PD-US-not_renewed. If there were photos on set which are not directly film stills, I think those have an independent copyright from the film photography, unless they depict something which could be considered part of the character (i.e. showing a distinctive hairstyle or wardrobe which would be considered iconic of that character -- if they were just dressed a particular way for that scene, I don't think that would count). On the other hand, if those photos were first published in Italy, you have the URAA to worry about. Italy has a "simple photos" law with a much shorter term, but not sure those would qualify. If such photos are full-blown works, they would have still been under copyright in Italy in 1996 (and would still be), and the U.S. would have restored the copyright via the URAA to 95 years from publication. It generally matters what the country of publication is, not creation, but if those were first published in Italy it sounds like those would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: As always, thanks for the tremendous amount of copyright scholarship you always bring to the discussion. Per usual, necessary considerations never seem to get simplier. You can presently view the PD US poster artwork in question at -- https://moviesoothsayer.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/foreign-review-attila-1954/ -- There is no iconic element of character or costuming here, and the argument can be made that the depicted action in the image is out of the artist's imagination as much as sourcing from the film itself. When you mentioned the Italian movie-promotional photo term as being only 20 years, I was encouraged that both the US poster art and the necessary material to have effectively created it were both out of copyright. But your new information adds additional complications (though the promo-stills would hardly be considered as individual "full-blown works"). In the last decade of so, this American poster art has been used on packaging for German and Italian home-video releases. The Italian license to the film is most probably still bundled with the French library source, but the German rights were sold back at the time of the initial release in the mid-1950s. This would indicate that the use of the US promotional art by both parties is based on US copyright expired. There appears to be nothing of the US promotional material which came under control of the French-based primary holder of film rights, when the film itself was renewed in the US in 1986. At least, nothing was so indicated in the film renewal application at the Library of Congress. The German territories license would have no possible connect to use of US promotional materials, as the terms of the German license were settled years before the US release. Should this poster be allowed back on Wikipedia, as previously discussed in the initial opening reply of DE728631 above, perhaps the solution rests with uploading it to Commons under US-PD. If there is a safer or more appropriate way to upload the poster for use on Wikipedia, what would be your suggestion? Once again, my thanks. Your efforts here amaze me. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: Two more details -- there is nothing new in the US 1958 release, except that the translated head-and-tail titles were placed over a plain backgound of weaved cloth rather than being supered over film action -- the poster art might also have been created by using the film, stop-frame on a moviola, for the artist's gathering of details in creating the art. So if the case is stronger for sourcing artist details from the movie, rather than the promo-stills, that path (though unlikely) is still arguable. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Somehow forgot about the URAA when describing the film's copyright status -- it would have been restored either way, so it is under copyright in the U.S. until 2050 (and maybe the 9th Circuit until 2054).

As for that poster though... I don't think it is derivative of the film, from the sounds of it, so I think I would  Support as PD-US-not_renewed. It looks like an artistic drawing inspired by the movie, but not based on any particular expression. If you can find elements of that which were are basically drawings from portions of film frames, even some of the background stuff, there may be an issue -- but even then, the lack of renewal on the poster may have placed that specific expression in the public domain (as much as seen in the poster anyways). It does not look as though there are any character copyright issues with the poster, which is the biggest concern.

As for other countries using it... that is not always evidence of PD status, but more a measure of what they can likely get away with. Germany, for example, has a copyright treaty with the U.S. where they agree to treat U.S. works under the terms for their own citizens (and vice versa), which effectively means they do not use the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works (per a court ruling there). The German/EU term for a poster like this, if anonymous, is 70 years from publication. If the artist is known, it would be their lifetime plus 70 more years. Either way, that term has not yet passed in Germany, so the poster would not be PD there. But if there is no entity likely to sue, or if the cost to sue is more than the likely returns from suing, nothing will probably happen. Commons does not use "likely to get away with it" though, per COM:PRP.

As for the photo stills, I can't see them, but it sounds like it would rest on their being deemed "simple photos" by Italy. If so, they were out of copyright by the URAA date, and were not restored, but if if not simple, they are still under copyright in Italy and also the US via the URAA. I'm not sure a photo of a staged scene like that could be considered "simple". Their law says that simple photos are images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film. Photos on a film set, with a staged scene, don't seem to me as to qualify as events of "natural life". It's possible that a behind-the-scenes type of photo may be simple, just a snapshot of people working on the film. They are murky areas to be treading in though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg

All ESC 2007 pics in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin have been revieved by User:Adrignola in 2011. So it makes no sense to delete this one but keep the rest. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I think it is probably the other way around. This was deleted because it was apparently license laundering. The others should also be reviewed for the same problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If You don't trust reviewer User:Adrignola , you may trust reviewer User:Lymantria in File:ESC 2007 - Sopho Khalvashi - Visionary Dream.jpg or its uploader User:Thuresson Mutter Erde (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support The reasoning used to delete this image has been somewhat peculiar: license of crop differs from license at original, so both must be incorrect and thus license laundering. Only the original has been reviewed as licensed with the license as indicated in the "permission" section of the information-template. The crop indeed links to the same license as permission, but translates it incorrectly as {{PD-author}}. That may be the case, it is not really license laundering, as I have seen no start of evidence that the original website was laundering here. Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support the file have been reviewed by a trusted user, such publication under such license is irrevocable, even if the source is no longer available. I think the source was ok.

Exemple File:Alenka Gotar 2007 Eurovision.jpg was coming from the same web site and was also reviewed by User:Adrignola. The source did not work anymore, however I found this archive, and no prior publications. I think it is the same case for the deleted image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like to cast things in terms of "trust" -- if we can't trust a colleague, then we should block him or her.

In this case, we must chose between Yann, who deleted the image or Adrignola and Lymantria. When Yann and I disagree, he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete, so I am more comfortable following him in this situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete" → yes me too. The image have been published under free license, uploaded here, reviewed and I searched with Google for a publication prior to the date of the archive above with no catches. Is there another reason for Yann, or for you to think there is a copyright issue other than the fact that the source is not available anymore? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I understand that in an initial deletion is judged who is pleading for deletion or not, when something is brought forward to be reconsidered, I prefer that facts are considered. Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. However, in this case the source is no longer available, so those of us who did not see the source must rely on the judgement of others. I pinged Yann above -- I hope he can shed some light on this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Lymantria and (Jameslwoodward), it may be an english language issue from me, as I do not understand "I prefer that facts are considered", is not this archive a fact? it's not me who talked about Yann, it was Jim and I only answered. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support I have a website screenshot from May 13, 2007, of how Indrek Galetin licensensed one of the 2007 ESC photos, one in a series of the Serbian winning entry, File:ESC 2007 Serbia - Marija Serifovic - Molitva.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment It is clear that Yann nominated this file for deletion because the user (who was new at the time) who uploaded a crop File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png put on the crop a "bogus" license. Sorry but if we delete all the images in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin, and if we question the entire system of "License Review" just because a newby made something wrong, I'm not sure I saw something more silly in Wikimedia Commons. Of course undelete it, unless the account on nagi is not trustable, I mean if there is at least a beginning of doubt... at least a single example of copyvio (prior to the publication in nagi), in that case, yes, the account may be not trustable and then, yes, a deletion is justifiable. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't think trust should play any role here. The license review is technically valid, as shown by the WayBack Machine. But I have some doubt about the license of these images: 1. They were deleted from the source, 2. They are all very small and without EXIF data. 3. And 2 copies of the same image (one cropped) were uploaded with different licenses. Ultimately, if there is a question of trust, it is about this website, not the reviewer or me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody needs a nonsense crop with a nonsense licence, uploaded some years after ESC 2007. We are talking here about the original File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg and/or all other images by Indrek Galentin.

@Jim: I have found a third trusted reviewer in File:Belaussia_2007_Eurovision_SC.jpg. It is User:Rubin16. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Spitzschwanzamadine.jpg

Here is a clear statement that user:Cele4 owns the webseite www.tierlexikon.ch , where the photo is hosted too. --Itu (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortumately, statements of this kind made on-wiki are not clear at all. We get loads of imposters and fake accounts each day who claim to be an original author. What we need is either a COM:OTRS email, or Cele4 adding a free licence statement at the Tierlexikon website. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this request is obviously not about the current upload but about a different photograph that was previously hosted under the same name and was deleted back in 2011. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any issue about the identity of the uploader.

• [2]
• [3]

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment If the file which was here from 2005 to 2011 is restored, I suggest it be split from the current file.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Sie können ja alle Bilder löschen. Ist mir soweit eigentlich egal. Tierlexikon.ch ist meine Webseite und alle hier in Wikipedia veröffentlichten Fotos habe ich selber gemacht. Wenn ihr sie gebrauchen möchten, ok, sonst könnt ihr sie löschen. Cele4 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Whois might prove, if it were working, who the owner of the web site actually is. That is not the issue. The question here is whether User:Cele4 is actually who he says he is. As De728631 says, we frequently get imposters who attempt to steal an identity in order to have images hosted here. That is why policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license on the Web, the uploader must prove his identity. That can be done by (a) adding a note to www.tierlexikon.ch that user:Cele4 is the owner of the site and has the right to freely license images that appear there, (b) changing the "Tierlexikon.ch © 2017" on the site to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0, or (c) sending a free license from an address at Tierlexikon.ch using OTRS. (a) and (b) can be acted upon immediately. (c) may take several months for the permission to be processed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support The uploader identified himself in 2005 on the linked upload (and on their user page). He appears to be a long (LONG) time contributor on de-wiki. I can't see the file, but it sounds like the quality etc. is in line with the user's other uploads. This does not feel like someone uploading someone else's photographs, to me. Secondly, these files were uploaded before OTRS existed, and as such would also qualify for COM:GOF. I think assuming good faith on these is the most appropriate course of action. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think File:Gelbbrustara.jpg may be in the same boat. Agreed that this file should be renamed if it is restored though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Averof WWII.jpg (present on Wikipedia, since 2007)

RE: 18:00, 9 December 2017 Ellin Beltz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Averof WWII.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ellin Beltz and Associates

I am contacting you regarding your recent decision to side with fellow deletion-administrator, Johan Bos, and remove the above picture from the Wikipedia page, "Greek Cruiser Georgios Averof" and 10 other related sites, including the quasi-official Wikipedia page of the "Hellenic Navy".

You are repeating Johan's position that it can only be assumed that this image is a UK Royal Navy photo (1942) which is then subject to the provisions of expired UK statutory Crown Copyright. At what point does an assumption become reality? Especially as the statutory provisions of Crown Copyright and UK Royal Navy wartime mandates indicate that no one but HM's government might legally make a copyright claim to this image.

In 2013, the Hellenic Navy acknowledged the UK public domain status of this photo and colorized it for the sale of paper prints, at-or-from the Georgios Averof museum gift-and-book shop. As you probably know, the Hellenic Navy proudly preserves the Averof as a commissioned vessel in their fleet and a prized museum ship. Their photos carry the imprint -- "Colorized by the Hellenic Navy". While they reserved the right to the duplication of these colorized prints for sale, the Hellenic Navy allows for their media to be used to promote the history and heritage of the ship. A footnote regarding fair use of all images found on official Hellenic Navy websites is given at the bottom of Wikipedia's "Hellenic Navy" page. In any event, they make no copyright claim to the underlying B&W image, which they acknowledge as UK Public Domain per the UK Royal Navy's rights of origin.

The Averof was serving under the command of the UK Royal Navy and subject to all UK Crown Copyright and wartime photographic provisions at the time the picture was taken. There are four known images of the Averof in dazzle paint, apparently taken at the same location on two dates during WW2. Three of these are acknowledged UK Public Domain images that are available from the Hellenic Navy and the Hellenic Maritime Museum. The fourth is in the collection of the Australian War Memorial. It is catalogued as photo 305863 (look it up on their website) and is listed as Public Domain due to expired UK Crown-Copyright.

The AWM is an official UK Commonwealth agency. If they acknowledge that their dazzle-paint image carries the status of expired Crown Copyright, then I strongly feel that Wikipedia should acknowledge the deleted image of the Averof as holding the same. Such official recognitions of UK Crown Copyright Public Domain status by Greek and Commonwealth agencies, regarding this vessel's known dazzle paint photos, should be the determining factor acknowledged in your decision, not Johan Bos' determination not be overruled.

Thank you. Bbaldwin7 Bbaldwin7 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Bbaldwin7 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Bbaldwin7

@Bbaldwin7: @Fæ: Did the UK wartime statutes address copyright creation on Royal Navy bases in wartime? If so, how?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G. With regard to authorized photography on all British naval stations during WW2, the right to retain (or lift) Crown Copyright was held by HM Government as first claimant. Might I ask that you read the extensive prior discussion which addressed all variations of this point in response to the original deletion request. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg - closure by Ellin Beltz was correct and they left a clear closure statement - Jcb (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb -- Johan Bos, there is additional information on this page which goes beyond your previous specific objections and my detailed rebuttals. I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept". I'd hope that this is a fair evaluation process, as you have exerted considerable pressure in wishing to see this 1942 WW2 image removed after a decade on Wikipedia. What possible owner or claimant are you seeking to protect? Who will yet come forward, 75 years after the picture was photographed, with any claim which is more valid than expired UK Crown Copyright?

Bbaldwin7 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific reason to spell out my real name all the time? Also I have no clue what you are telling to say with e.g. "I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept".", this sentence is as incomprehensible as most of your lengthy comments in the DR. Jcb (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Without seeing the image or the source, I cannot have an opinion. --Fæ (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ -- Here are links to the Hellenic Navy's colorized version of the photo (and) the original B&W photo from an official Greek website http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ -- http://www.imgur.com/1W68QLG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion. Though Bbaldwin7 has written too much in the DR, this was not a reason to dismiss their argument as "phantasy" which seems rude to a newcomer. As a reference, the IWM has scanned and put online a similar shot of the Averof at http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205249261, as part of the MOI collection (expired Crown Copyright), though this photograph can be dated 1919-22. I find it credible both that the photographer was the Royal Navy and that it was taken in 1942 (the later stated at source), made more likely due to the photograph location, Bombay Port, and that it was taken from another ship; certainly the Royal Navy would have been highly interested in tracking the details of the use of dazzle camouflage across allied forces. Bbaldwin7 is correct that photography would have only been taken with official permission, and all photographs taken were under the control of the UK MOI. Bbaldwin7 asserts that the photograph is part of the Admiralty Collection held by the IWM, Commons has many examples hosted already at Category:Admiralty official collection, and I have no particular reason to doubt this is the case. I encourage Bbaldwin7 to track down evidence that this photograph has been catalogued by the IWM as part of the Admiralty Collection, a request to the IWM or archaiologia.gr may provide an email to put on record at OTRS. There is a difference to be drawn between perfectly reasonable pursuit of copyright concerns and turning into deletionists by nitpicking over the quality of evidence available for a WW2 image that is already freely published and could be legitimately argued to meet {{PD-old-70}} even if doubts about {{PD-UKGov}} remain. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative PD image https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305863/ --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The vessel was anchored in Bombay Harbour. There can be no assurance that the photographer was an official RN photographer and not simply an ordinary citizen on the shore or a member of the ship's company whose duties were not photography and, therefore whose image was not a work for hire whose copyright belonged to the Crown.

Aside from the issue of the copyright in the original B&W image, there is a separate issue for the colorized version. It is well established that colorization creates a second copyright. There is a comment above:

"While they reserved the right to the duplication of these colorized prints for sale, the Hellenic Navy allows for their media to be used to promote the history and heritage of the ship."

which clearly states that the colorized version is not licensed in a form acceptable to Commons. Therefore, even if we decide to keep the B&W version, we cannot keep the colorized version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm sure you are aware that the MOI in 1942 controlled all photography during all UK managed operations and in UK territories. This means there was no such thing as random civilians taking photographs of military assets in military action without permission, and certainly it means that no military staff could take photographs like this by "accident", they were all trained to keep personal photographs literally personal. Reasonableness has to apply, and this is well below the significant doubt of PRP. The colourization issue is separate, and the B&W original is available to replace the colourized one, if that avoids a debate about derived works. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support per Fæ, at least for the B&W version.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Re the colorized version, it doesn't "dazzle" me, I only see that the water was colorized. Do we have a description of how "dazzle" is supposed to look in color, and perhaps an artist's freely licensed colorization?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim and Fæ -- Yes, the colorized version is a problem if Commons Media must be free for all uses, including commercial. But this would only require replacing it with the original B&W version. Jim, I'd refer you to the original DR arguments as rebuttal to you statement -- The vessel was anchored in Bombay Harbour. There can be no assurance that the photographer was an official RN photographer and not simply an ordinary citizen on the shore or a member of the ship's company whose duties were not photography and, therefore whose image was not a work for hire whose copyright belonged to the Crown. This vessel is not at anchor in Bombay Harbor. It is in the British Naval Station at Bombay harbor, a restricted area. As fully explored in the DR, if an ordinary citizen or unauthorized military personnel took a photo such as this and "got away" with the unlawful act, they would have no legal right to copyright the photo. The Crown would retain that right simply by the subject matter and location of the photography. All authorized photography on a RN station in wartime is UK Crown Copyright. My original DR defense explores all possible scenarios for such a situation in some 10 kilobytes of parsed particulars. I needed to write at such length because I was being challenged, layer by layer, as to the possible exceptions or omissions in my argument. I answered all points and showed that there could be no possible legal exceptions that did not end with the Crown as the only possible legitimate claimant. Again, please refer back to the DR's many clarifications. Your points regarding exceptions are fully addressed there. I appreciate your time and interest.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"they would have no legal right to copyright the photo. The Crown would retain that right simply by the subject matter and location of the photography." - you have stated this several times, but you have not provided any evidence (e.g. quotation from the law) to support your unusual claim on how copyright would work according to you. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This good faith contributor has been the target of statements directed at the person rather than the issue, no doubt significantly increasing their stress of interacting here. Poking the bear does not give a right to then complain or deride the bear when they respond. The evidence supplied is the photograph itself and the history of military photography during WW2 under Crown jurisdiction. The entire region where this photograph was taken in 1942 was under the authority of the Crown and the Ministry of Information had full powers to control all photography. Please go wind up someone else rather than Bbaldwin7 or take the positive step of adding some factual research on the photograph. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support OK, I'm convinced. I withdraw my objection to the restoration of the B&W version.

 Oppose I remain unconvinced that the Greeks have licensed the colorized version in a way that is acceptable to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim -- Yes, Jim. I agree with your position regarding the colorized version as being a possible problem for Commons. So I'm only requesting to undelete the prior B&W version. If the link is not restorable, I'll upload the B&W image seen in the provided link, which appears earlier on this page. http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ Bbaldwin7 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support - as discussed above; overwhelming likelihood that it is PD. also the people on this page are FAR too "timid" about reversing deletion closes even WHEN perfectly a perfectly valid undelete case is made, for fear of "offending" whatever admin made the close in the first place, "because they closed it correctly". our JOB here is to undelete files that SHOULD be undeleted; whether or not the closing admin is "offended" is irrelevant, & judgement of the closing admin's abilities & decision-making is outside the purview of this page...

p.s.: i really do not care about the colourised version, assuming it is recent & digitally coloured(?), & not some historic hand-coloured photo? if somebody really cares enough, they can just re-do the colouring; no harm, no foul, nothing copyrightable in re-creating historically accurate colours.

comment - tangentially, what was meant by the comment: "the quasi-official Wikipedia page of the "Hellenic Navy"."? howso "quasi-official"? o__0 - Lx 121 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find an explicit source for this online. It is true that if it was Crown Copyright, it would be PD now. And the "course of their duties" part of Crown Copyright has only been since 1989. Before that, it was any work which was created or published by or on behalf of the Crown -- it was much wider ranging in scope (and the publishing part could "capture" works formerly not Crown Copyright). I would think that anything authorized would likely have been Crown Copyright. I am less sure that an unauthorized personal photograph by a sailor would prevent copyright though -- there would presumably be a statute of limitations on that law, but not on the copyright. There is nothing in copyright law that transfers copyright on the basis of the location of the photographer -- such transfer could only happen by the conditions laid out in the Crown Copyright section of older UK law. It was pretty expansive (much more than current-day Crown Copyright), but not absolute. I seriously doubt that it was unauthorized though; that seems rather unlikely in wartime. The only other possibility I could see would be someone on a ship from another country which was allowed in the harbor. But I would probably lean keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl -- Thanks for your clarification that the "course of their duties" clause only entered with the 1988 UK Copyright Act. That does make "officers and servants" more inclusive as a state of being, rather than a state of activity. Not that I feel this is the key issue here. I believe the core of the argument rests with exclusive right to Crown Copyright for photographs made in UK government-restricted areas. This would translate that an "unauthorized" photograph always remains so. No statute of limitations would apply here.

Of course, you're not going to find the issue of "location" addressed in copyright law. Such matters are covered by other laws which prohibit what might be authored, legally, with the hope of securing copyright. I believe the first time such restrictions were addressed in the UK in relation to military installations was with the Commonwealth Defense Act of 1903. Everything that has followed since, basically adheres to and expands upon its prohibitions. Article 82 of the Act states -- "Sketching of fortifications are prohibited. If a person makes a sketch, drawing, photographing, picture or painting of any defence installation, or any part of one; and the person has no lawful authority to do so; then: the person is guilt of an offence; and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures and painting found in his or her possession are forfeited (assumed to the Crown) and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs." Under such a provision, attempting to copyright an "unauthorized" image would simply amount to presenting proof of a crime. Obviously, the right to copyright would be denied. If such a photo slips through a private copyright application process, it would then be subject to forfeiture at a later point of discovery, as it never "legally" had the right to copyright protection. I feel that this effectively ends any argument regarding the ability to copyright an "unauthorized" restricted-subject image. In wartime, it is also logical that such authorization is only going to be granted to those "On HM Service". Hence, all photography would have Crown Copyright as first claimant. The provisions of (18 USC 795), which cover authorized and unauthorized photography at present-day US military installations are very similar in intent to the 1903 British act. Basically, they represent a right-to-privacy maintained in the national interest. You wouldn't expect to trespass inside a neighbor's home and take unauthorized and compromising photos of them with the expectation of securing copyright protection. The courts would make you hand over such photos to the damaged party, together with all rights as to their eventual disposition. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have been involved in this process, so please forgive me for not knowing how it is eventually concluded. Based on my reading of the judgements given, it appears that undeleting the B&W version of this photo is currently SUPPORTED 5x -- Fæ, Jeff G., Lx 121, Jim, and Carl -- and OPPOSED 1x -- Jcb. My thanks to all for their involvement. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The 1911 Copyright Act said: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. The 1956 Act was similar, just a bit more detailed -- anything made or published by or under the direction or control of the government. So, if an unauthorized photograph was not made under direction or control of the government, I don't think the copyright would necessarily become property of the Crown. You are correct that it would amount to evidence that a crime was committed, so there is no reasonable way to exercise that copyright. If convicted, it sounds like the Crown takes possession of the actual copies -- while it is possible that the Crown would also take the copyright, ownership of copyright is separate than ownership of physical copies. So I'm not sure that the copyright is forfeited, necessarily. I will assume there is a statute of limitations on the original crime, so once that passes, then there would be no seizure. For example, if an unauthorized photograph was taken, then decades later (when the original need for secrecy of that installation has passed), someone could possibly publish such photographs. If the government was never aware such photos were taken, the there would have been no seizure. Still, I think that is a highly unlikely situation. I think it's either Crown Copyright, or taken from another country's ship. But questions like these are why we really like to have more of a concrete source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: While this an interesting roundabout defense of the rights of an unauthorized photographer, it is still dwarfed by the evidence that this would be a Crown Copyright image, not an unauthorized personal photograph. Where is this unauthorized photographer and his copyright claim, today? The picture has been published on up to ten Wikipedia sites for a decade. The thrust of this discussion has been toward how likely it is that this photo is not Crown Copyright, given the established, time, location, and rules of wartime security. We appear to have concluded that unauthorized and previously published personal ownership is highly unlikely. Consideration for unauthorized phantom claimants needs to be properly weighed. I think the right to publish this photo is subject to a reasonable understanding of the subject matter controlled under Crown Copyright. To address a part of your hypothetical argument here -- if an unauthorized user was caught and convicted of the offense (established by the evidence), you agree that he would forfeit all physical property mentioned in the Defence Act. This would include all physical copies and the negatives. So how is he going to possibly process a personal claim for copyright decades later, after any criminal statues have passed? I feel that continuing to arguing that the original photographer and his claimant heirs are still out there, 75 years later, would be quite an extreme evaluation of possibilities verses the likely assumption of Crown Copyright. Don't you agree? A BIG thanks to you for digging out the details of the 1911 and 1956 UK Copyright Acts. Your efforts have added an extra dimension to the discussion. (Yes, I also wish to focus on undeleting only the B&W image and uploading it the correct area on Wikipedia) Bbaldwin7 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too concerned about the unauthorized aspect. (For your question, the government may have confiscated the material, but without copyright they would not have the right to distribute it either. Each situation could be different.) It could have been from another country's ship though. Granted, the most likely situation there would be the U.S., which would probably make it PD-USGov anyways. As for 75 years, that is actually not extreme at all unfortunately. The Crown Copyright term is relatively short. For most EU photographs, they are under copyright 70 years after the photographer dies -- typically well over 100 years. The U.S. has a term of 95 years from publication. There are many, many WWII photographs which are still absolutely under copyright, and it can be horrifyingly complex to figure some of these out. The COM:PRP policy is not really a "preponderance of the evidence" sort of thing though, it's more like "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we don't know anything about a photo, and it's within range of still being under copyright in its likely country (say less than 120 years old), we will usually delete. We want to be fairly sure something is OK -- there is no defense to copyright infringement that other people have been using the works (copyright owners can selectively sue), and we don't want to put re-users in that situation. Orphan works are particularly frustrating, as there are no legal regimes to protect re-users -- it's still infringement by law. In this case, the circumstantial evidence would weigh pretty highly that it is PD-UKGov, probably enough to push it a bit over that more stringent line. But it's not a slam dunk, as there is no direct evidence. A source on some copy which states it came from a British Government source (or even Indian government entity) would go a long way. I'm sure it was a scan from a book, which if found would likely answer it easily, but lots of people are uneasy about guessing. This one is more of an educated guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: Thanks, Carl. I'm gauging your filtered position to be -- "Yeah, I'm not too concerned about the unauthorized aspect... In this case, the circumstantial evidence would weigh pretty highly that it is PD-UKGov, probably enough to push it a bit over that more stringent line." If this can be uploaded to Wikipedia with a more restrictive status than Commons, I'm also in favor of doing that to cement approval here. I just don't want the photo to disappear, unnecessarily. Keeping it in view may eventually confirm the Crown Copyright claim by an official UK or Commonwealth agency. As your probably know, there are many, many unidentified (and subsequently uncatalogued) photos at the IWMuseum, the AEMemorial, and other PD-UKGov/Commonwealth archives. (I'm currently at work on a summation of where the B&W media-image would source from, and the factors which confirm the WW2 vintage of the ship as depicted here in 1941-42. For this, there is sufficient evidence.) Again, thanks for your help.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Museum which colorized the image, holds the rights to sell the colorized versions. That is a Non-commercial clause to their license, and one which precludes the inclusion of the *colorized* version here. Should an uploader take the old PD black and white version and colorize it themselves (releasing the copyright), there would be no difficulty. But that the Museum has done it and retains the rights to sell the copies, appears that their license does not intend Commercial uses - and thus is incompatible with Commons licenses. And as Jameslwoodward states above, there is additional uncertainty in how the Greek Museum intends the image to be licensed. There is discussion at my talk page too, however I was not notified of this UNDEL request by the requestor on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: You were mentioned in this edit by Jcb, less than three hours into the progress of this UNDEL request by a new requestor. I'm sorry I didn't notify you on your talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. I though you would automatically be notified when a UNDEL appeared for a photo you had deleted. At 23:19 on 11 December, I posted my first entry to start the UNDEL and immediately left the same text on you "talk" page, though I did not note that it had been posted as an UNDEL. While I checked daily, I did not received a response back from you until 17:46 on 15 December, which was four minutes before you replied here. When I heard nothing, I just assumed the original DR administrator was not eligible to participate in the evaluation of a UNDEL request. Now, I see that's not the case.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellin, I think there is pretty good agreement above that we cannot restore the colorized version. How do you feel about restoring the B&W version? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I also wish to now focus on undeleting only the B&W image and uploading it the correct photo area on Wikipedia.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward If we can find a valid source for the image, and nothing in that source contradicts the WWII age and Crown Copyright discussion as above, I would be fine with it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a decent chance there is no additional U.S. copyright -- they have given copyrights to colorized movies, but not sure about individual photos -- in the past they have been reluctant. Still, given everything, I would not restore that version. The real question is the B&W original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: :@Jameslwoodward: :@Carl: :@Lx 121: :@Fæ: :@Jeff G.: : -- Proof of Photo Date: It would appear that there is a majority consensus for accepting the B&W version of this photograph as being covered by expired Crown-Copyright. As discussed, this was necessary because the photo does not currently have a direct provenance traceable to a recognized UK/Commonwealth archive. The claim to expired Crown-Copyright has been debated here in great detail. Now, my expectation would be that the B&W photo can be uploaded to whatever Wikipedia archive is appropriate for its claimed status, or one which is more restrictive toward the photo's further circulation.

As requested, I'll now establish the date of the photo as being of WW2 vintage. There are several related sources. Published works appear limited to two books available in English. The most detailed of these is John C. Carr's, "RHNS Averof" published in Greek and English in 2014. Carr is a recognized and published WW2 military historian who lives in Athens. There are two photos (opposite Page 77) in his book, which show the cruiser in its dazzle-paint scheme. These images appear to source from the collection of the Hellenic Maritime Museum, but they make no claim to copyright. The caption of one photo indicates that the ship is seen sailing on convoy in the Indian Ocean, 1941-42. The other picture depicts the vessel at anchor in Bombay, in 1942. Carr writes that the vessel arrived at the RN Station, Alexandria, Egypt, on 23 April, 1941, and left there for convoy escort service in the Indian Ocean (Aden to Bombay) on 29th June, 1941. The ship received its dazzle-paint scheme at Alexandria before departing. After its convoy duties were completed, the vessel returned to Port Said, Egypt, in mid-November 1942, and acted as a guard ship. As such, it was painted back into its original gray colors. There are several dozen photos of the vessel at Port Said in the PD collection of the IWMuseum. They are dated 23rd February, 1943. Two of these are present on the Wikipedia page: "Greek Cruiser Georgios Averof". Many more have been uploaded to Commons. The vessel is seen as painted in gray by this date. So we can fix the ship's dazzle-paint scheme dates to sometime after 29th June, 1941, and sometime before 23rd February, 1943. That settles the claim of WW2 vintage for the photograph.

As previously noted, there is also a full starboard-side view of the "Averof" in dazzle-paint "probably 1941" in the Australian War Memorial Photo archive. A thumbnail of this can be viewed online: http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305863/ The photo is catalogued as "expired Crown Copyright". Unfortunately, the best view of the "Averof" is the orphan photo under consideration in the discussion here: The source of image-media for the photo is an official Greek website: http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ Given acceptance of Crown Copyright status for this photo, its use on the Greek site would be permitted under PD/Crown-Copyright. The Royal Hellenic warship was under the command of the UK Royal Navy and subject to the Crown Copyright provision of first claimant, at the time the picture was taken on a UK Navy station. This completes my argument for restoring the B&W photo to an appropriate Wikipedia archive.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbaldwin7: Thanks for the extra information. When the image is undeleted, have a think about how to summarize the facts on the image page. As a friendly recommendation, in future deletion requests try to boil down replies so they are easy to read, it's worth keeping in mind that Commons is international and multilingual, so many participants do not have English as a first language and may unintentionally seem argumentative or fail to absorb a complex rationale first time. Please also consider whether long debate is worth the investment of volunteer time, it's better to invest time in cases that are likely to improve Commons' policies, apply to a large valued collection of images, or extend guidelines with facts about copyright law and how to interpret it for many future uploads, than to spend the same time on one photograph. For example, despite this being a long discussion on UNDEL, it's unlikely to be used as a reference discussion or consensus on other cases, simply because UNDEL is not laid out to be easy to find once archived. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Neutral it's probably ok to keep it but the lack of precise information about the photo leads to uncertainty (and meanwhile, there is maybe too much information about copyright without references). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:IPhone 9

• Delete reasons: "Copyright violation", see Commons:Licensing.
• File:Android Easter egg.jpg
  • File:Android 3.0 Honeycomb.JPG
  • File:Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.JPG
  • File:Android 6.0 Marshmallow.JPG

• Restore: Android default Easter eggs and stock wallpapers of the smartphones, which are released under Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution License. Portions of these pages are reproduced from works created and shared by the Android Open Source Project and used according to terms described in the CC 2.5 Attribution. See also:
  • File:Android Lollipop Easter Egg.png, File:Android M Easter egg.jpg, File:Samsung Galaxy J5 easter egg.jpg
  • File:Android 7.0 Emulator (Nexus 6P).png, File:Nexus 5X.png, File:Nexus 9.png, File:Nexus 6.png
  • File:Nexus 5 Front View.png, File:Nexus 4 con Android 5.0.png ,File:Nexus 4.png, File:Nexus 10.png
  • File:Android 7.1.2 Nougat, Google Pixel Screenshot.png, File:Nexus_7_(2013).png, File:Samsung_Galaxy_Nexus_Render.png

--IPhone 9 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The files you've listed are not screenshots, but are photographs of objects with captions and visual art (wallpapers) overlaid. We don't know who created this art or where it came from. Without a source, we can't verify any license. The examples you listed may also be candidates for deletion, because we don't know where the wallpapers came from. It's possible they're included in the Android Open Source Project, but I doubt it. Google and Samsung bundle other works on their phones, which generally aren't freely licensed. Guanaco (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note in the licensing template you included above: "If the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately." Guanaco (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Disagree: It is true that they are Android default Easter eggs and stock wallpapers per "Android Open Source Project": File:Android M Easter egg.jpg, File:Android Marshmallow.png, File:Android 6.0-en.png, File:Android_4.0.png, File:Android3.0.png
  • Wiki sources: Android version history, Android Marshmallow, Android Ice Cream Sandwich
  • Google source: Android Developers --IPhone 9 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• The four images in question were deleted on COM:SCOPE grounds. I hereby notify @ViperSnake151 who originally started the DRs. --Wcam (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: File:Android Easter egg.jpg in question was deleted on "Copyright violation", not Project scope. --IPhone 9 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The images are not useful for an educational purpose because of their anachronistic tendencies (supposedly depicting older versions of Android running on current devices). ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC
•  Comment: original proposes: The photos showed the visual effects of different specific Android Easter eggs displayed on new style full-screen smartphones (18.5:9 ratio, not 16:9). These elements are partly per "Android Open Source Project". --IPhone 9 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Guanaco and ViperSnake151. Green Giant (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Miyonse Amosu.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: I published the original image (File:Miyonse Amosu.jpg) on Wikimedia. The other copy of this image that is online was crawled by google bots from a youtube video. Adetokunbohs (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploaded to WikiCommons on December 10, 2017. Uploaded to Twitter August 26, 2017. Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Thuresson. Green Giant (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Иван_Рудской_как_всегда_(cropped).jpg

Есть связи с Иваном и он не против, чтобы в Википедии были бы использованы какие-либо его фото. Как я могу это доказать? Aristocrat2008 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:OTRS or ru:Википедия:OTRS Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Yaalon_Award_-_front.jpg

the picture is original! they appear elsewhere in the web because it was sent to other places as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam0707 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose In that case policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose. The default assumption that we make on Commons is that every image found on other websites is copyright-protected unless there is evidence to the contrary. The photo is on the Internet because it is on the website of the organisation that makes the Award (iuss.org/index.php?article id=631), which would naturally be the original source of the photo. That doesn’t mean anyone can upload it here as their own work with a license of their own choice. That right belongs, by default, to:

• the person(s)/organization who designed/made/commissioned the award; and
• the person who took the photo of the award, and
• the person who took the original photo that forms the core of the award.

We will need at least one and quite possibly three separate licenses in order to host this photo and it’s counterpart (the reverse side which you also uploaded). The onus to prove that the photo should be kept on Commons is on the uploader and/or users supporting retention of the photo. Green Giant (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Photo-timeline-1953.jpg

Hi,

Would it be possible to restore this image - Photo-timeline-1953.jpg? It is owned by us (La Cordée) so this is why we used it on our La Cordée wikipedia page.

Thanks

--David Royy (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You say "it is owned by us". Are you the actual photographer? Do you have a formal written transfer of the copyright or license from the photographer or his heirs? Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a book gives you the right to make and sell copies of it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Jim. Green Giant (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Головной офис Башкомснаббанка в Уфе.jpg

Добрый день! Данный файл не нарушает авторских прав, т.к. я сама сделала фото на фотоаппарат. как можно решить данную проблему? (

Good afternoon! This file does not infringe copyrights. I myself took a photo on the camera. How can this problem be solved? ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timelrika (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 December 2017‎ (UTC)

@Timelrika: This file was allegedly grabbed from https://i3.photo.2gis.com/images/branch/17/2392537324628043_dbe9.jpg - can you explain?   — Jeff G. ツ 09:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I took this photo, as well as other photo offices as a private (free) photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timelrika (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 December 2017‎ (UTC)
• Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 09:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ok. I will sign my comments. Do not block and my photos, please, I'm just learning =)Timelrika (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• How do I send a free license directly using OTRS. What must I wil do?Timelrika (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Timelrika: Please click on the link OTRS and read there.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Jim. Please ask the copyright holder to contact Wikimedia with a license after reading COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Enchiridion.jpg

This was deleted for lacking a license. However, it may be a slavish copy that falls under {{PD-Art}}, per Jim at the deletion discussion. Pinging also User:Ellin Beltz who suggested deletion prior to Jim's {{Vk}}. Storkk (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support Trinity College, Dublin, claims copyright. This is a photo of an old manuscript book, taken straight on, using a copy stand with clamps for the book. Although the book is, of course, 3D, the photo is clearly intended to be a "slavish copy" of the 2D manuscript and therefore qualifies for Bridgeman. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment To remove any doubt, we could crop this image to only show the content of the page itself. In any case we would want to crop out the copyright notice at the bottom. Guanaco (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Jim & Guanaco... image should be able to be kept due to being a slavish copy, and cropping it wouldn't be a bad idea either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Done: 1524 manuscript. PD-old-100-1923 . CropTool seems to be unresponsive at the moment so I will try cropping later today, unless someone beats me to it. Green Giant (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Roberto Maidana periodista Telenoche Canal 13.jpg

Please restore the following page:

Reason: The picture that I included in the biography page, is MY OWN JOB because I have enhanced and cropped and retouched for over the original picture, and since it is not the same as the original picture in more than 60% I consider it as MY OWN JOB and it should be just the picture should be restored to the biography page. 186.136.35.100 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose It still appears to be a COM:DW. We would need permission from the original photographer or rights holder via COM:OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose The work which you have done may or may not be enough to give you a copyright for your version. Nonetheless, the resulting image is still covered by the copyright for the original image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Files of User:Laramie1960 for fair use in Wikipedias

• File:Gerard-chambre-france.jpg
• File:Juliette Benzoni in 1963.jpg
• File:Juliette Benzoni in her garden.jpg
• File:Juliette Benzoni receives Knight of National Order of Merit.jpg
• File:A last Farewell of friends.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017081710018172 alleges permission for these files sufficient for fair use on Wikipedias with UDRs. Request temporary undeletion for transfer to such Wikipedias, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Jeff G.: . Please let me know when the files are no longer needed. Green Giant (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Geneviève Guilbault.jpg

It seems the photos I uploaded for Quebec MNA Genevieve Guilbault (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevi%C3%A8ve_Guilbault) has been removed for copyright issues. The photo is owned by the political party that I work for and we want our photos to be used by Wikipedia on our MNAs pages. This photo was uploaded without any copyright violation (The author Émilie Foster specified on the file description gave her agreement). Actually, when you Google "Geneviève Guilbault" in french there seems to be a picture of someone else with the same name attached to her Wikipedia page. That's why it is important for us to have this photo published here. Thank you. - shadowloud

Since user accounts are anonymous, and people constantly upload material from the Internet, we typically require that works which are already available on the Internet go through the COM:OTRS process, where the author confirms the license in a private email. Images get undeleted at the end of that process. The email makes sure there are no misunderstandings as to the rights which need to be licensed, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)