commons.wikimedia.org

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests - Wikimedia Commons

  • ️Thu Oct 07 2004

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[2]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now that one image has been deleted too (despite having survived a deletion request). What the hell is going on here? Are erections of old men in scope on Commons or not? Brianjd (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was caught up in a bulk deletion. Brianjd (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico so this must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Foxy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico had a term of 30 years since publication until 1948 for artistic or literary works so the only question is they would be public domain if these are artistic works published before 1918  {\displaystyle 999}REAL 💬 ⬆   22:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photography is art The New Foxy (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this would be an artistic work rather than a scientific work but you're also making an assumption that this photograph was published in 1914. If it were published in 1919, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this probably was published before 1918. Abzeronow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry, according to the website cited as the source (archived version), the file seems to have been taken from the book Anales Gráficos de la Historia Militar de México, 1810-1970 published in Mexico in 1973. It doesn't mention whether it is the initial publication of the photo or not though it states that the photo was taken in June 1914. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was first pulished in 1973, it is still copyrighted in Mexico and you need a free license from the photographer's heirs in order to host the photo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.
Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was deleted because of the griffin in the flag. The griffin is copied from the coat of arms of the city of Rostock which is public domain by German law. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleph Kaph: The griffins are dissimilar, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exact copy of the outline of the city's griffin but it's very similar. Laying the two shapes over each other shows that there is some distortion but the shape of the tail, the head, the wing and each leg is copied, even the individual pointy ends of the tail, the fur at the lower front leg, or the placement of the pointy ends of the feathers in the wing. The biggest difference is that RFC's griffin is missing the three pointy protrusions to the front.
I don't know if that qualifies the RFC logo as public domain or eligible for Commons, I just wanted to provide a source for the griffin shape as that was named as the reason to delete the file. Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted primarily because of a claim that it was COM:OOS, however there are literally a page on Wikipedia that has been translated to multiple languages regarding Apple Intelligence.
While yes, there has been dispute over the copyright status of the file in question, I stand by the rationale that I laid out in the original deletion request that this is, in fact, a free file. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does the existence of articles on Apple Intelligence make a person's profile image in scope? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We currently do not have any file generated from the Image Playground in particular, it was highlighted by Apple as one of the big features. The main demonstration Apple used was, in fact, to generate images of people from an album. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 148, VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». See COM:CRT/Mexico#Freedom of panorama for more information.

What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law?

- schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama

Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day.

That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrilo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums.

Wikimedia Commons has several images by Orozco (not uploaded by me) that are portable prints on paper in such techniques as lithography, etching, aquatint, and drypoint. I reckon there must be good reasons for those works to remain in Wikimedia, since those images have not been deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to copy and paste the same argument for a group of images, you should just consolidate the request into one request so it wastes less of our time and yours. COM:Mexico says 1928 had a copyright term of 30 years from publication of artistic works. 1948 specifically says "All terms became life plus 20 years.[1948 Art.8] Registration no longer required for works first published Jan 14, 1948 or later; six-month grace period to register old works to regain copyright" Now your argument hinges on these being published before Jan. 14, 1948 which we cannot assume AND that Orozco failed to register his old works in time to regain copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abzeronow, I've consolidated the requests below:

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m learning to reply on Wikimedia Commons because of my recent signing up as user. I’m sorry to have wasted people’s time, as I’m thankful somebody has consolidated the request.
Actually, I was told about the deletion requests not in bulk or in a consolidated way, but as separate requests (notified in multiple emails) claiming exactly the same thing in each case, so I assumed I should reply the same way: case by case, claiming exactly the same thing in each instance.
Anyway, the point is – I interpret that all Mexican works made before 14 Jan 1948 are in the public domain if not registered explicitly.
The 2009 interpretation of Instituto Cultural Cabañas (a cultural authority in the Mexican state of Jalisco) and Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (a national, i.e. federal authority) for the 2010 national Orozco exhibition is that Orozco’s works before 28 Jan 1945 are public domain.
If I were cautious, I would stick to the 28 Jan 1945 threshold, because Mexican authorities of national culture & arts have stuck to it.
That’s the argument.
Thank you, and sorry again for my ignorance of Wikimedia procedures. Inti Rosso (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, 29 January 1945. Inti Rosso (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I've found an Orozco image that Wikimedia Commons accepts as public domain both in Mexico and in the USA.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orozco_wheel.JPG
Please I beg you use these same criteria to undelete the deleted images. Inti Rosso (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of Orozco being justly considered of public domain:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:José_Clemente_Orozco_-_The_Dismembered_Man,_from_the_Los_teules_series_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg Inti Rosso (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikimedia Commons user called Infrogmation claims that Orozco's work is covered by the Mexican copyright law as it is written now, last amended by the Mexican Congress in July 2020.
Nevertheless, this is subject to interpretation, because Infrogmation is applying a 21st-century law to Orozco, a man that died before the middle of the 20th century.
Applying Mexican copyright law to Orozco, an artist born in the 19th century, amounts to LAW RETROACTIVITY. There isn't anything clear in Mexican law about it. People should interpret law.
Here is an article about written by Arturo Reyes Lomelín, of a law firm called Reyes Fenig Asociados, in Mexico City. He says that there is no immediate retroactivity in Mexican copyright law:
“Unlike the ordinances of 1947 and 1956, the transitional provisions of the Federal Copyright Law of 1963, and the 1982 reform failed to provide for the retroactive application of the new terms of validity of copyright established in said ordinance and reform.
”Interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution, a rule can validly be applied retroactively as long as it is not done to the detriment of any person. However […] retroactive application of the law is not automatic, even if a benefit is intended; it is necessary that the law itself explicitly provides for [it] […] [11].
”Without transitional or substantive provisions authorizing the retroactive application of the terms of validity of copyright indicated in the Federal Copyright Law of 1963 and the 1982 reform, I find it very difficult to maintain that the rights of exclusive exploitation of the work of a deceased author under the rule of the Federal Copyright Law of 1956 extended their term of validity to that contemplated in the 1963 legislation or in the reform of 1982.”
https://reyesfenigesp.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/vigencia-da/#_ftn11
Infrogmation has asked me to show a document or an evidence proving that Orozco's work is of public domain. It will be very difficult to find such legal proof in a univocal, universal and crystal-clear sense, because such decision is subject to a particular interpretation of the law. You know, laws don’t cover special cases unless an authority applies said laws to such cases at a particular time.
What I can provide is journalistic evidence that the Instituto Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes decided in 2009 that Orozco's work is of public domain.
https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html
I'm currently looking for the document by the Larrea law firm that made such decision in 2009, but it has not been made openly public, so I have to research more.
I’m asking Infrogmation now: how is it to be established that the Mexican copyright law could be retroactive? Must the Mexican copyright law always be retroactive? According to whom? If there is no clear and definitive answer to that, it is my opinion that Wikimedia should undelete the Orozco files. Thx. Inti Rosso. Inti Rosso (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the final paragraphs of this article:
"A. Para obras de autores fallecidos el 11 de enero de 1982, o antes, la vigencia de los derechos de explotación exclusiva de la obra caducaron el 11 de enero de 2012."
("A. For works by authors who died on January 11, 1982, or before, the validity of the exclusive exploitation rights of the work expired on January 11, 2012.")
https://reyesfenigesp.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/vigencia-da/ Inti Rosso (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral You need to read the whole article, not a single statement. As I can see, the problem is if the 1982 law was retroactive or not. The article author states that he does not see any reason for the 1982 law to be retroactive. But the form of his statement suggests that this is only his opinion, not an established legal interpretation. We do not know if courts will follow his opinion, or not. Other lawyers may have a different opinion. I think, that before we accept the opinion in this article we need either (1) discuss this issue in COM:VPC in order to decide if the doubts about retroactivity are reasonable enough to apply COM:PCP, or (2) wait for a published court decision in this matter. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. I am currently writing to the legal team of SOMAAP (Sociedad Mexicana de Autores de las Arges Plásticas) to see whether they know particular rulings by a Mexican judge/court about the Orozco matter. I hope they reply to me this week. Thank you very much. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Artes Plásticas*, not "Arges" Inti Rosso (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, good day. Just to keep you posted.
    I've had a brief reply from SOMAAP (Sociedad Mexicana de Autores de las Artes Plásticas). It was by telephone, and it was the secretary who answered.
    SOMAAP can answer phone calls in these Mexico City numbers:
    (55) 5531-2082
    (55) 5531-4067
    It's from Monday through Thursday between 10:00am & 3:00pm, México City time.
    More SOMAAP info:
    Website: https://www.somaap.mx/
    Email: contacto@somaap.mx
    Orozco's work IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN in Mexico. His copyright is handled by SOMAAP.
    Nevertheless, SOMAAP can permit his work to be reproduced as long as we give due credit. Reproduction of Orozco's works is free, open & universal as long as there is no monetary gain or interest, as I understand it is done by Wikimedia Commons.
    I'm now waiting for a reply from SOMAAP's lawyers so they can assert all of the above in a written document that is legally binding.
    I wrote an email to them on Monday, but they haven't replied to it. It was just today that the secretary explained to me all that I'm saying here. (They have been too busy so they are not replying to emails immediately.)
    So, please hold on — I beg you don't delete or undelete anything until I get hold of that legal document & share it with you.
    Thank you very much. Inti Rosso (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Note that "as long as there is no monetary gain or interest" is an NC license which is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. The person who explained that to me was the secretary. When the lawyers themselves reply, I'll ask them if a CC BY/BY-SA license can be obtained for those Orozco images. Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Die beiden Fotos zeigen meinen Vater auf seiner letzten Fahrt mit einer Dampflokomotive.--Langoktavian (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We cannot host copyrighted photos without a free license from the copyright holder whe is presubanly the photographer. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I hardly ever login to wikipedia. I think it's against the original intent of the place to lean on authority and reputation, though maybe I haven't been keeping up. I get that people worry a lot about IP ownership and real level of expertise and for good reason. But this was a photo of a window display I purchased for (IIRC) $10 per panel (so $20 total) when the store closed in the 1980s. I have no doubt spent more moving these panels around the world with me; they are pictured in their present location in Berlin. I had thought that the photo contained enough indirection to justify inclusion of what was obviously (to me) a significant addition to the article. I was careful to take a picture that while not disclosing too much information about my living situation, also was clearly not intended as a perfect replication of the original photograph (e.g. it was slightly distorted by my photographing it from below, the photo includes framing, there are pencil lines drawn across the panels by the people composing the original window display, the cardboard it's printed on is tatty.)--Joanna Bryson (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joanna Bryson: Who is the original photographer and where was this originally published? We would need this information to correctly determine the actual copyright status of this image. Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted due to the Nvidia logo being established as above the ToO. However, the logo is actually available under the Apache License. See File:NVIDIA logo.svg for licensing information. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]