User talk:Rosenzweig

Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache. en-3 This user has advanced knowledge of English. fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français. la-1 Hic usor simplici lingua Latina conferre potest.
Users by language

You can also use my talk page at the German wikipedia (in German, English or French), but since I enabled notification by e-mail, it might be only marginally faster.

• Archiv(e)

 

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Rudolf warnecke self portrait.jpg

Hallo Rosenzweig, es ist mir diese Datei aufgefallen. Sie ist nicht nur falsch beschrieben – eigenes Werk, obwohl es sich um ein Selbstporträt eines Künstlers handelt, sondern auch um Unregelmäßigkeit bei der Lizenz – CC ohne OTRS hochgeladen nach dem Tod des Autors. Es kann sein, dass der Hochlader eine besondere Beziehung zu Rudolf Warnecke hatte. Er hat nur drei Dateien, alle zu Warnecke, hochgeladen und auf Wikipedia gibt es nur 2 Artikel von ihm - einer davon über Warnecke. Doch das entlässt ihn nicht von der Pflicht seine Befugnis zu dokumentieren. Ich informiere dich darüber, weil ich Gegner der Löschungen bin (die eigentlich in diesem Fall erfolgen müsste). Vielleicht weißt du eine bessere Lösung, z.B. den Hochlader zu kontaktieren. Grüße --Mewa767 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Na ja, wenn du mich so direkt darauf hinweist, komme ich nicht drumrum, die Datei als "Genehmigung fehlt" zu markieren. Wenn keine Genehmigung kommt, wird sie nach einer Woche oder so gelöscht (kann aber ggf. wiederhergestellt werden). Ich habe den Benutzer auf seiner Diskussionsseite und per E-Mail auf die Problematik angesprochen. Ob von jemandem, der vor 10 Jahren mal kurz aktiv war, eine Antwort oder sogar eine VTRS-Genehmigung kommt, wird sich zeigen müssen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Löschung meiner Bilder

Hallo, aufgrund der Löschung fehlen jetzt im Artikel meines weltberühmten Vaters Friedrich Hund im Kapitel Weitere Urkunden (Auswahl) etliche Bilder. Was können wir da tun? Diese Urkunden besitze ich, da ich sie von meinem Vater erbte. Gruß --GFHund (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Wiederherstellungen! GFHund (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ja, zwei Dateien konnte ich wiederherstellen, weil die Texte urheberrechtlich keine Schöpfungshöhe hatten (auch der lange lateinische, der letztlich auch nur die Verdienste aufzählt) und die Grafiken nur aus alten Unisiegeln bestanden. Bei den restlichen drei bestehen aber urheberrechtliche Probleme:

• File:Urkunde Otto-Hahn-Preis 1974 Friedrich Hund.jpg – das ist ein Text oberhalb der Schwelle für die Schöpfungshöhe. Als Urheber sind wohl die Unterzeichneten anzusehen, das sind Otto Koch (gestorben 2011) und eine weitere Person vom Deutschen Zentralausschuss für Chemie (ich kann die Unterschrift nicht lesen, irgendwas mit H. ...). Also noch mindestens bis Ende 2081 urheberrechtlich geschützt.

• File:Laudatio Cothenius-Medaille 1971 für Friedrich Hund.pdf – Urheber ist Ernst Schmutzer, gestorben vor wenigen Tagen, also geschützt bis Ende 2092.

• File:Gauß-weber-medaille 1976 friedrich hund.jpg – auf der Vorderseite der Medaille sind Gauß und Weber abgebildet. Das ist ein geschütztes Kunstwerk, geschützt bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des ursprünglichen Medailleurs. Solange ich Namen und Lebensdaten des Medailleurs nicht kenne, weiß ich nicht, ob diese Schutzfrist noch läuft. Diese Medaille scheint es seit mindestens 1933 zu geben, evtl. ist der Medailleur also schon vor über 70 Jahren gestorben. Das müsste man aber ermitteln, und auf die Schnelle habe ich nichts gefunden.

Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Es gibt da eventuell noch eine Möglichkeit: Man könnte die Nachweise ändern, indem man auf meine TeleSchach-Webseite verweist, die im INTERNET ARCHIV gespeichert ist. Siehe: Gruß --GFHund (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kann man machen, ja, aber dazu braucht es keinen Wikimedia-Commons-Admin ;-) Ist der dort genannte de:Hanns Bastanier (1885–1966) der Künstler/Gestalter/Medailleur der Gauß-Weber-Medaille? Wenn ja, dann wäre sie noch bis Ende 2036 urheberrechtlich geschützt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe noch etwas gesucht und [1] gefunden, da sieht man in der Vergrößerung links unten die Signatur Hanns Bastanier. Diese Datei kann also 2037 wiederhergestellt werden, ich trage sie auf der Seite Category:Undelete in 2037 ein. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ich werde versuchen einen Nachweis zu ändern. --GFHund (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Im Wiki-Artikel meines Vater habe ich die alle Rotlinks ersetzt. GFHund (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Mir ist etwas unklar, wie Du bei den Kindern von Carl Friedrich Schneidewind (am 12.05.1802 in Heringen an der Helme geboren, starb am 7.09.1889 in Sangerhausen) rechnest: Zum Beispiel sind die Fotos mehr als 120 Jahre alt. Siehe https://www.teleschach.de/archiv/familie_lbs/pafg03.htm#52

Sein Sohn Otto Albrecht Schneidewind wurde am 31.05.1845 in Sangerhausen geboren. Er starb am 8.08.1902 in Moskau. Er wurde am 10.08.1902 bestattet. Otto heiratete Alexandra Muromzeff am 29.02.1880 in Moskau. Alexandra wurde am 23.02.1858 in Moskau geboren. Gruß --GFHund (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ich brauche ein konkretes Jahr. Wenn es für ein Foto keines gibt, habe ich als Datum, an dem das Foto spätestens entstanden sein mus, das Todesdatum der abgebildeten Person, bei mehreren Personen das früheste bekannte Todesdatum der Personen. Dass die Bilder de facto sehr wahrscheinlich früher entstanden sind, ist schon klar, aber ich brauche wie gesagt ein konkretes Jahr. Alle Fotos, die Otto Schneidewind zeigen, sind demnach spätestens 1902 entstanden und können 2023 mit der 120-Jahre-Regel wiederhergestellt werden. Früher dann, wenn ich ein konkretes Jahr habe. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Du hast konkrete Jahre, siehe zum Beispiel das Foto von Alexandra mit ihrem kleinen Sohn, aufgenommen 1883 (vor 138 Jahren). Siehe: https://web.archive.org/web/20210628101428/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Otto_Albrecht_Schneidewind GFHund (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Das wurde ja auch nicht gelöscht, wohl eben deswegen :-) : File:Alexandra Schneidewind mit Sohn Boris 1883 Moskau.jpg --Rosenzweig τ 07:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Aber was ist mit den anderen Fotos zu Otto und seine Familie? Zum Beispiel Otto heiratete Alexandra Muromzeff am 29.02.1880 in Moskau. GFHund (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wie hilft das Hochzeitsdatum dabei, Bilder mit einem konkreten Jahr zu versehen? Gibt es ein Bild von der Hochzeit? Das könnte man dann datieren. Aber ein Bild, das einfach nur Alexandra Muromzeff zeigt, ohne weiteren Kontext? --Rosenzweig τ 09:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Zur Zeit habe ich andere Probleme, wie der Krieg mit Russland. Wir müssen unsere Überlegungen etwas verschieben. Auf der Wiki-Seite meines Vaters habe ich einige Rotlinks korrigiert. Auch kämpfe ich mit SPAM, u.a. aus Russland. GFHund (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

License cleared

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cover_of_New_Sea_Land_by_Bill_DIREEN_2005_ISBN_0-9582586-4-3.jpg#File:Cover_of_New_Sea_Land_by_Bill_DIREEN_2005_ISBN_0-9582586-4-3.jpg - I struck my delete, and processed the license. Should be good to go now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in deletion rationale

Hi Rosenzweig. Your deletion rationale at Special:Diff/645269994/645270203 appears to have a typo. You wrote 2019, where I think you meant 2079. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. I fixed it. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter van den Braken.jpg

Hi Rosenzweig, thanks for all you work here. I want to ask you if you could reconsider the your assessment [here]. In the matter of orphan works we have to make a fair assessment of the moment the image was published. In the discussion was established that the picture was most likely taken in 1947/1948. The picture originates from the family archive and again was most likely handed over in those days as well. This counts as a publication, so the publication was over 70 years ago and the picture can released here under a which is an {{Anonymous-EU}} license. -- Mdd (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mdd,

I don't think it was in any way "established that the picture was most likely taken in 1947/1948". This is just a guess, probably because the thesis it was taken from uses it to illustrate the passage about the wedding in 1947. But please note that – while the Lijst van afgebeelde foto’s on page 73 does say "foto: onbekend" – this photo, unlike many others, is not dated in the thesis. It's also not dated in this old 2007 version of the petervandenbrakencentrum.nl website (that was used by the thesis author in 2007 and is the original source for the photo as stated in the thesis).

While the quality of the photo is not great, I think we can agree it does not show a young man. He could be around the same age as in File:Peter van den Braken (?) GN15097 1948.jpg (from 1948), but he also could be 20 years older, which would mean the photo is from 1968. For all I know, it could be from 1979.

So: While we could perhaps say that the photo's author is unknown because the thesis says so, we can't really date it that well, and we can't say it's from before 1952. We can say it's from before 1980 (because he died in 1979), but that is less than 70 years ago. So I'll stick with my assessment that there is not enough information to be able to determine the copyright status of this image, which is why I deleted the file. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are on a different level here. You are quite right, that the two source (website and thesis) don't mention the date the picture was made ; the thumbnail doesn't give us much to work with ; and those two pictures can be compared. We all (the three participant) knew that, and even knew there were three pictures to compare, see here.

In the mean time I have gathered more information, see also here: The thumbnail image in the two images originate from the 1999 book on Van den Braken, where it is printed on the back cover. The book mentioned that that picture and the others originate from family archives, but no dates.

With this new situation there is still no date known, and in this matter I would say the date (the picture was taken) cannot be determined from the sources. What can be done is, what I call, that the date can be established. What I mean is, that from all the data available you make a best assumption, discuss the presumptions used, ask other parties to respond, and create a common best assessment.

Now in my first question here, I used the word "established" meaning such an activity. In my perception such a sort of activity inded took place in the deletion debate, where Gouwenaar did all the talking and I held back.

Now in a way my initial question here to you was an opening, because I had all the additional data available. There is also a higher version of the image available, so there is no actual need to restore that image.

There is however a real dilemma here, which I couldn't comprehend yet: In the deletion discussion and in your assessment there is a lot of second guessing... and we can go on second guessing for ever and nothing will be established. In order to get something done some kind of establishing activity can be done to establish the date (the picture was) taken withing reasonable doubt. For now, I therefor thank you for your feedback here, which helped me clear my head about this matter (and many others). -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rosenzweig, you must have seen I pinged you in an other discussion, where I have mentioned the outcome of the deletion request. Now it is not my intention to drag you into that discussion, but I do am interested in what you think of that case? Again there is established a publication date based on the visual material at hand, because exact date from other sources are not available. -- Mdd (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

See my decision there. --Rosenzweig τ 13:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Request

@Rosenzweig: Sir are you "global" pending changes reviewer. If yes, then kindly review the last change on hi:अलका नूपुर. I am asking to you because none of local reviewers is active on Hindi Wikipedia. मनुष्यता (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I'm not comfortable reviewing something I can't read and understand, and I don't know Hindi. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	🙂 Sahaib (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Johanneskirche Weinsberg

Hallo Rosenzweig, kannst Du in der Johanneskirche Weinsberg Fotos der Grabsteine von Ulrich Renz und seiner Frau Anna Euphrosina Megenhart aufnehmen? Gruß --Id3839315 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Das ist momentan etwas schwierig für mich, aber ich hatte da noch etwas auf der Festplatte: File:Weinsberg Johanneskirche Epitaph Ulrich Renz Euphrosine Renz 2006-09-09.jpg. Ich nehme an, das ist das fragliche Epitaph, zumindest stimmt der Textbeginn mit dem überein, was man bei Google Books dazu finden kann ("Ahnengeschichte Hölderlins", 1989). Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ja, vielen Dank! Gruß --Id3839315 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Your comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows 95 Version 4.00.1111 command.com MS-DOS Prompt 492x259.png

You said, "I could be wrong in that assessment, basically you'd need a court decision, something from the Copyright Office or similar to determine that. As long as we don't have any of that, I'll go with my assessment." That is an incorrect statement of policy. Commons:Project scope/Evidence states that it is incumbent on the uploader or person arguing for the image to be retained to prove their case - not the other way around. Of course there is no court case proving that text like this is copyrightable - because nobody would be ridiculous enough to challenge it in court. You're not going to find court cases for the obvious examples because they're so obvious and nobody is going to waste time/money challenging them. And outside of Wikimedia, any conceivable use of things like this would count as "fair use". So it just isn't something that is going to be litigated - for such a narrow example of printing the documentation of a command.

There is a relatively recent case that may be of interest here - en:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.. Google was consuming Sun's Java API. They claimed that the API itself (not the documentation of the API, as is the case in this DR, but, rather, the API itself) was not copyrightable and that even if it was, their use was "fair use". So the "apples to apples" comparison would be that Google was consuming "COMMAND [drive:path] [device] [/E:nnnn] ...". The case was NOT about the documentation of the API (which is obviously more likely to be copyrightable than the API itself) - only about the actual technical commands themselves. The trial court ruled the API was NOT copyrightable. The appeals court ruled that the APIs ARE copyrightable and ordered a new trial solely on the issue of fair use. Eventually everything was appealed to the Supreme Court, who ruled 6-2 that Google's use was "fair use". In that ruling, the Supreme Court accepted (and did not challenge) the appeals court ruling that the APIs were copyrighted - they simply held that using them counted as "fair use". Well, we don't do "fair use" here. --B (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That case was about a complete API, not just the help text of a single command. Also, let me quote from that Wikipedia article: “In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further review.” So the appeals court decision was reversed, and the Supreme Court did not rule on the copyrightability. The question is apparently not as clear as you present it here, and I'll stick with my assessment. I'm neither the uploader nor the one arguing that the file be retained btw, I'm the admin who decided the deletion request, providing a rationale why I decided it the way I did. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your ruling was based on the fact that you are not aware of a court case proving that the text is copyrighted. My point is that this was the incorrect basis for a ruling. Rather, the ruling should be the other way around - unless it is proved to your satisfaction that it is NOT copyrighted, it should be presumed to be copyrighted. As for the Google case, the passage you quoted from our Wikipedia article is at least somewhat misleading. The appeals court ruled that the APIs were copyrightable. The Supreme Court did not overturn that portion of the ruling - and so that portion of the ruling still has the force of law (at least for cases that go through the Federal Circuit - I'm not sure how that would apply to a case making its way through one of the numbered circuits). --B (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you read that wrong. That part was about the icons, not about the text. COM:PCP uses the term significant doubt, which is open to interpretation. My assessment is that I do not have significant doubt that the icons are below the threshold of originality. And I wrote right at the beginning "I don't agree that the text is above the threshold of originality", so no doubt there either. --Rosenzweig τ 09:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kimmel meets Hallo Hessen.jpg

Hallo, ich weiß, dass wir angehalten sind Angaben in Tickets zu vertrauen, aber hast du dir mal den verlinkten Instagram-Post angeschaut? Das Senderlogo ist doch eigentlich ein relativ eindeutiges Indiz, dass es sich um einen Screenshot handelt. Eventuell kam es zu einem Missverständnis, weil der Screenshot von der Person "selber erstellt" wurde? Gruß --Themakfal (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ja, habe ich angeschaut. Ich habe mir auch die Versionsgeschichte der (gelöschten) Datei in de.wp angeschaut, und da war zuerst ein anderes Bild von derselben Sendung (Kimmel trinkt aus der Tasse, die er in der Hand hält, mit ABC-Logo), und dann wurde eine andere Datei drübergeladen und mit OTRS bestätigt. Das ist dann die, die auch nach Commons verschoben wurde. Ich weiß aber nicht, was ans OTRS geschickt wurde, und kann deswegen nicht sagen, was von diesen Behauptungen stimmt oder nicht, daher habe ich mich an die Aussage von Jeff G. gehalten. Wenn du mehr weißt, bleibt es dir unbenommen, die Datei unter Angabe dieses Mehrwissens erneut zur Löschung vorzuschlagen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Es handelt sich doch aber eindeutig um das gleiche Bild wie das auf Instagram, nur dass das Logo herausgeschnitten wurde. Im Ticket steht ja anscheinend, dass das Foto von der Inhaberin des Accounts selber aufgenommen wurde, was damit doch nicht stimmen kann, oder? Mehr weiß ich leider auch nicht. Themakfal (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wie geschrieben: Ohne Kenntnis des Tickets weiß ich nicht, was stimmt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Würde der Kontext zu dem Bild, der dem Wikipediaartikel zu entnehmen ist, schon als Mehrwissen für einen neuen Löschantrag ausreichen? Themakfal (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Eher nicht. Was da steht, schließt nicht aus, dass sie selbst oder ein Begleiter das selbst vor Ort fotografiert hat. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In Verbindung mit dem Wasserzeichen aber schon, oder nicht? Das Problem ist letztendlich wahrscheinlich, dass uns ein Stück weit die Hände gebunden sind, wenn falsche Angaben gemacht werden, weil alles darüber hinaus zu sehr ungesicherte Detektivarbeit ist, sehe ich das richtig? Themakfal (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Letztlich musst du beurteilen, ob diese Freigabe korrekt ist oder nicht. Ohne Zugriff auf dieselbe geht das nicht. Jegliche weitere Diskussion dazu führe bitte woanders, ich kann und will nicht mehr dazu sagen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sollte ich mich auf dem "Noticeboard" des VRTs nochmal bezüglich einer Überprüfung der Plausibilität der Freigabe melden? Themakfal (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Question - not familiar with Commons internal workings

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War. I'm an admin over on enwiki, but don't pop over to Commons very often so I'm not all that familiar with internal workings. The English version of the map in question has been corrected at File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR (revised).svg. I'm unfamiliar with policy in Commons (is redirecting files generally considered okay?), and what is the best way to get the usage of File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR.svg (the incorrect English version) transferred over to the new one without trying to communicate over on the wikipedias for languages I don't speak? I think everyone can agree that the much more accurate new version is desirable over the old error-ridden file. Hog Farm (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hog Farm,

the easiest solution seemed to be to merge the two files, version history and all, using the original file name. I did that, and I think it worked as intended. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Hog Farm (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914—1918

Hi Rosenzweig, regarding this DR which I closed (thanks for your research), I indeed think all files of this search result you mentioned should be nominated for deletion, or can they be deleted speedily? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa, those files were uploaded by several different users who were most likely not involved with the original deletion request, so I think they should be given the chance for input and enough time to replace those files with others in whatever Wikipedia articles (or else) might be using them. Now that the DR backlog is four months instead of 10 or more, it won't take that long until the DR is decided ;-)

Two things about the DR you linked:

• One, the file was actually taken from a volume published in 1934 ([2]), not 1932 as erroneously claimed in the image description. And

• two, I always understood {{PD-old-assumed}} to actually mean 120 + 1 years, that is, the term lasts until the end of the year as with our other tags. The documentation text mentions this when referring to the really old works "created more than 190 years ago (i.e. before 1832)", note the before, and Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain#Time based public domain describes PD-old-assumed as "for works assumed to be public domain because they were created over 120 years ago and the author's date of death is unknown". Most of the time we don't know the exact date a work was created, so I think "over 120 years ago" must mean "before 1902" as of right now. That's also how the German Wikipedia describes this (Commons) copyright tag at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Pragmatische Regelung für Bilder, die älter als 120 bzw. 100 Jahre sind. How do you see it? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Point two, agree, my mistake. I corrected the undelete statement. I nominated the files for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg". Ellywa (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not recreate deleted content

 

---

Your image or other content, File:Example.jpg, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding.

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Ahmed11224. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Rosenzweig τ 07:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Speedy (1928) Trailer Starring Harold Lloyd-lV8XgB YK k.webm

I really wanted the redirect deleted. It is a useless redirect that was moved within minutes of creation. Please do delete it. Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

OK in that case. --Rosenzweig τ 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soldiers and cavalry of Ming.jpg

I don't like to edit others' comments so I left it, but I believe you meant to put "kept" not deleted when closing that one. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for letting me know. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 23:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Thank you for keeping the contributions of newcomers, separating the wheat from the chaff. Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Lidl locations.png

Hi! Can you update the image? It should also include Serbia (without Kosovo), Latvia and Estonia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think most articles switched to File:Lidl Europe.png, which already has these countries. So there's probably no need? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Auto converting unresolved issue tags to CSD.

Over on Wikipedia I found that I had imlemented some logic in PD-Australia to categorise something differently, if an issue was unresolved after a certain period.

Adapting one of my templates {{Lifetime needed}} , the following code would implement an auto conversion to CSD 30 days after the last revision to the file description page.

<includeonly>{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}<={{#time:U|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}-2592000|{{Speedydelete|1=Insufficient information provided to enable determination of public domain status}}'''</includeonly>

This means that if the lack of in this instance an Author lifetime remains unresolved, the file eventually gets tagged for CSD. That coupled with a bot to periodically clean out CSD's would mean a considerable reduction in Admin backlog, and obviates the need to manually tag files that had already been tagged for certain issues.

This could equally be applied to other templates like for example {{Wrong license}} for example.

I've not yet implemented this because I'd like a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Automated deletions by bots? Now that would certainly need a broader discussion. Apart from that, what would be the benefit of your proposal? What makes it better than immediately tagging a file as lacking source, permission etc. which is then put in a dated category anyway? 30 additional days added to the usual week or so? --Rosenzweig τ 20:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the automated conversion to CSD that is the important thing, currently most issue tags (that are not already CSD) don't automatically convert.

In respect of the specific tag, in many instances the files have a source, and a nominal permission, but because the author lifetime is missing, that permission ( typically pd-old-70) can't be confirmed outright. Commons does not (un)intentionally want to host copyvios, and hence any media that can't be confirmed as PD (or appropriately licensed) outright should be removed in a more timely manner, than at present. Flagging files to DR is slow due to backlogs, and also requires that admins/contributors manually file the DR's to sart with. By having issue based templates which auto convert to CSD's if unresolved, that need for manual intervention is removed, other than a contributor flagging the issues, and an admin/bot resolving it after a month.

The 30 days, is more than enough time for other contributors or the original uploader to resolve the status of a media they've posted, (and generally they should be providing ALL relevant information to confirm it's status at the time of uploading anyway). This is in contrast to the situation where some media reported for DR, remained unresolved for an extended period, in one instance sufficiently long that the nominal copyright expired while the DR was in progress. This meant Commons was (unintentionally) hosting potential copyvios, for the period between the DR being filed, and the eventually expiry. With automated conversion of certain issues to CSD tagged media, and a cleanout bot, the longest a potential copyvio (or unresolved wrong license) could remain unresolved is 30 days + a week + the time it takes an admin/bot to clean out the CSD categories, which is a potentially shorter time than the response of some DR's especially for simpler cases.

Many other platforms use semi-automated removal tools to keep thier platfroms free from potential copyvio, so I don't understand the aversion some have to a more assertive bot assisted removal policy here at Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witraż w Sanktuarium (5699564528).jpg

File:Witraż (8707252630).jpg File:Witraż w Sanktuarium Bożego Miłosierdzia (9214601666).jpg Matlin (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Sanctuary of the Divine Mercy in Kraków-Łagiewniki. --Rosenzweig τ 17:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Arena Lviv

Hallo Rosenzweig, im DACH-Raum wären diese Dateien per Panoframafreiheit ok, daher können sie lokal in de-WP hochgeladen werden. Könntest du das bitte veranlassen? -- Chaddy (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Du meinst die 2022 gelöschten, richtig? Ich denke, nur ein Teil von denen ist mit dt. Panoramafreiheit ok. Die meisten sind (aus der Erinnerung, ich habe jetzt nicht mehr alle durchgesehen) Bilder von innen, ein paar zudem Luftbilder, und diese wären auch nach deutscher Panoramafreiheit nicht ok. Es gibt da keinen automatisierten Prozess oder so, den man “veranlassen” könnte (zumindest nicht für die de.wp, die Russen hingegen haben Category:Images for transfer, die von Bots abgearbeitet wird). Du müsstest die daher schon selbst hochladen oder jemanden beauftragen. Ich kann sie zu diesem Zweck temporär wiederherstellen, und du gibst Bescheid, wenn du fertig bist, damit ich sie wieder löschen. So ok? Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Genau, die meine ich.

Okay, die Innen- und Luftaufnahmen müsste man dann nochmal im Einzelfall prüfen, ob da auch mangelnde SH in Frage kommt.

Von mir aus können wir es so machen. -- Chaddy (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, die Dateien sind vorübergehend wieder da. Du musst nicht hetzen, es wäre mir aber dennoch lieb, wenn ich die in zwei Wochen oder so wieder löschen könnte. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Danke. Ich hab die Dateien und deren Beschreibungsseiten bei mir lokal gespeichert. Hochladen kann tatsächlich noch etwas dauern, aber dafür hab ich ja jetzt alles. Kannst also direkt wieder löschen. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Perfekt. Alle sind wieder gelöscht. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice sought

Hi Rosenzweig, can I ask your valued opinion/advice about some DR's? I find DR's about supposedly erroneous images difficult to handle, because I am not a specialist on all such aspects. Recent examples are;

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason de Tissemsilt.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:20210128193024!Countries by Corruption Perceptions Index score (2020 - ColorBrewer RdYLGn).png.

If a disputed file is in use on the projects, I always decide to keep, with motivation: "No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The file is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained."

But what should I do in cases like these examples, where no further discussion arises and the image is not used on the projects? I could decide to keep them as well, but to ask the nominator to add a template like Template:Disputed coat of arms or Template:Inaccurate-map-disputed, or add them myself, or should I just delete these items?

Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ellywa,

in the case of the map it's pretty easy to check the facts. The color scheme for the map can be found in the WP articles like de:Korruptionswahrnehmungsindex (which also still has the 2020 map), and the points (linked from the article) are at [3]. Russia has 30 points in 2020, so it should be the same color as Ukraine or Mongolia, but it's not, it has the color for countries with 40 to 49 points. So that is clearly incorrect, and I would delete that, because a file that is objectively incorrect is not educationally useful and therefore not in project scope.

The other file, the coat of arms, is more tricky. The deletion request does not say why the file should be fake or rigged. And why were the similar files File:Blason de la wilaya de Tissemsilt .png and File:Tissemsilt Coat of Arms (French Algeria).svg not nominated as well? One could say "no valid reason for deletion" here, meaning the deletion request does not sufficiently state the reasons why the file should be deleted, and keep the file. Or you could decide to dig deeper, try to guess what the nominator really meant by web searches – potentially time consuming. Or ask the nominator to explain in more detail why this is supposedly a "fake" file, wait for a few days and then decide. If nothing of substance comes up anyway, probably keep as well then. But IMO it's not very clear-cut in this case. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Rosenzweig. I will add your first comment to the DR. And do as you suggest for the second. Ellywa (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

File:SleepingBeautyCastleParis.jpg

Why have you deleted the file for such a strange reason? --94.42.60.198 22:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. That should have been “per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disneyland Paris”. I see now that has happened for all four files, both the two that I deleted as well as the two I kept (the links on the file talk pages). I was using the keep/delete links offered to admins on the DR page, but obviously something was wrong there. Perhaps that whole deletion request page became too big. --Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for letting me know :-) --Rosenzweig τ 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Signature file deletion

Why you deleted this file? We already discussed it was just a signature, so please read Commons:signature and restore it. Thank you Sailko (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "just a signature", it's a part of a painting with the signature. So no, I won't restore it. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Commons:Signature is a redirect to Commons:Signatures, and that is about the user signature here at Wikimedia Commons. You probably mean Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the painting corner was "commons:De minimis", the main subject was the signature, which is something accepted by the Commons community. --Sailko (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that what was shown of the painting is de minimis. We're talking about fine art here, even black or red squares are considered copyrightable in that domain. I have, however, restored the file, uploaded a new version cropped to really show just the signature and hid the first version. That should work. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Pir Alauddin Siddiqui 2.jpg

Sir, I need this portrait for Wikipedia article, can you help in this regard to upload it correctly. Realone102 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Realone102,

I'm afraid that will not be possible, at least not here. Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, in other words files that are either freely licensed or which are in the public domain. See Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. This file is a photomontage using a photograph of en:Muhammad Alauddin Siddiqui that has been on the internet for a while (since at least 2017), and it is unclear who the actual photographer (or in a legal sense: the author) of this photo is. Only if this (unknown) person were to license that photograph with a free license (like the one in Commons:Licensing) could we keep it here at Wikimedia Commons. We don't know the photographer however, and the file is not under a free license, so we cannot keep it.

If you want an image for the English-language Wikipedia however there might be another way: uploading a non-free photo directly to the English Wikipedia. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. There are guidelines for what is allowed and how it must be done when wishing to upload such a file there, so you might want to inquire first about how to proceed, perhaps at the en:Wikipedia:Help desk. I'm not familiar with the further details there, so that's as far as I can help you. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laws of the Earliest English Kings.djvu

Your conclusion of this discussion is incorrect. If the work was simultaneously published in the U.S., that makes it a U.S. work for Commons dual-licensing purposes; it does not matter if it was also published in the U.K. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite any official Commons policy that says so? Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing only mention "the source country". A book that was published, per the title page, in "Cambridge, at the University Press", Cambridge being the one in England, doesn't strike me as having the USA as "the source country". It was also published at the same time in Tokyo. Does that make Japan "the source country"? --Rosenzweig τ 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Rosenzweig: From Commons:Licensing: “Wikimedia Commons only accepts media” “that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” First, look to U.S. law to determine copyright status (because that is the first step of the public domain licensing test). Under U.S. law, this was initially in the public domain because of a failure to comply with U.S. formalities (there being no copyright notice). The work could be granted a renewed copyright under the URAA, but that would require the work to have been a U.K. (or at least non-U.S.) work. Under the URAA, you look for “simultaneous publication” (which is sale or offer-for-sale within thirty days). The colophon, showing that Cambridge University Press has offices in New York where they would have sold (or offered for sale) this book indicates that it was published simultaneously in the U.S., is thus a U.S. work, and is thus not subject to renewed copyright under the URAA. Then, to the second step of the inquiry, about “source country.” As I have just stated, the work is a U.S. work, and it definitely in the public domain in the U.S. Thus, it is acceptable to host this work at Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the work is in the PD in the US because it was not affected by the URAA. But that is not what my question was about, I've accepted right away that is in the PD in the US. You didn't really bring any arguments why the US would be the source country. Thankfully, User:Xover over at Wikisource was more helpful in that respect by bringing up the Berne Convention and its rule that “The country of origin shall be considered to be [...] in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection; [...]” and linking Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Source country vs simultaneous publication. So in this case – early work of someone who was long-lived – the US definitely has the shorter term than the UK, even if it had been the full 95 year term. Effectively, the term was 0 years in this case because of the missing copyright notice.

So there we have it: because of the strange interaction of the Berne Convention and peculiarities in US copyright law, a book published by the Cambridge University Press in England is considered to have the US as its country of origin. Which was probably not something that the creators of the Berne Convention had in mind, because the US chose to stay out of the Convention for such a long time before finally joining a century later. Works affected by similar circumstances will probably be mainly from countries speaking English and from some science publishers, though the latter will probably have started the practice of simultaneous publication in the US at a later time so that those publications will still be protected by copyright.

I will adjust the result of the deletion request accordingly and also tell Wikisource that. Thank you for bringing it up anyway, even if the convincing argument was supplied by someone else. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Jack Woolams 1946.jpg

Thank you for your oversight on copy right violations. I see you pulled the portrait photo of en:Jack Woolams and mentioned something about the Facebook page not having a CCO. I didn't get the photo from a Facebook page, but from the Edwards Air Force website photo archives(edwards.af.mil). Here is the link: https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000192175/ It is listed as a "Courtesy photo". I hope the photo is still acceptable. All the best, KlausVonVilver (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello KlausVonVilver,

I don't understand a number of things here. First, the source given in the description and at upload was a FB page, see [4], not the link you wrote above. Second, the uploader was User:Vasilf - is that you? And third, those are two different photographs. Is this a misunderstanding or mix-up? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The image you uploaded is probably File:Jack Woolams at Edwards AFB 1943.webp. That one is still here. Though I'm not so sure the {{PD-USGov}} license tag is correct for a "courtesy photo". Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about this, yes it is a mix-up. I am not Vasilf (that user account is closed). He must have changed the portrait photo with the Facebook image you found, but left no summary of changing the photo in the comments. I incorrectly thought it was the 1943 photo, hence the confusion. Keep up the good work - KlausVonVilver (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:NoUploads_until_2023&diff=next&oldid=679684165

(what is this doing here?) -> it shows, that there are exeptions and not just "no upload at all... ;-) AnBuKu (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That is already part of {{NoUploads}}. {{FoP-Switzerland}} is intended for file description pages, not categories. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO this is not very smart, as {{NoUploads}} intimidates the user - red signal, with a text and text and text - instead of encouraging to upload images which are not part of surveillance of the copyright police. Just my 2 cents (as a FOSS and open data fan boy)... AnBuKu (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Mihail Romanescu

Here, the file "Caracterizarea ofițerului.jpg" is sure not an artistic photo, it is his official photo (see the markings on the collar, type late of 1940 – already communist era) taken by the army record service for his file. Being a general, obviously the photographer took a good photo of him, so he wouldn't be punished. As a photo originating from an official document, (not something "published"), it is (Romanian) „acte”, not protected by copyright. Turbojet (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Turbojet,

and what are you trying to tell me by that? You had added the template {{PD-RO-exempt}} to the file, but I don't see photos in any of the bullet points of that license template, except the last one, but that one is about “photographs of letters, deeds, documents of any kind, technical drawings and other similar papers”, not about photographs of persons. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Documents of any kind", with all their content, including photos. Especially when they are official documents. --Turbojet (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that in this bullet list item. From the context, and logically, this is an exemption to prevent a new, additional copyright for photographs that simply reproduce text documents and technical drawings, which does not invalidate the original, underlying copyright of the documents that were reproduced (if they have any). If you want to request undeletion based on that, please try COM:UNDEL where perhaps a broader discussion can be achieved. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No military grants copyright to the works of its employees in the line of duty. The Americans said it explicitly, the others took it so obviously that it's not even worth pointing out. What you say is add to the law, not allowed.

I have experience at Commons. I know that all the administrators protect each other so that they don't lose their authority. So a undeletion request has no chance. But it is deeply dishonest. Regards. --Turbojet (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

“No military grants copyright to the works of its employees in the line of duty”: That is not correct. I know for a fact that the German military does. They do have usage rights, yes, but that does not mean that those works are immediately in the public domain and anybody can use them for any purpose. Your theory “that it's not even worth pointing out” basically totally disregards written laws and advocates keeping or deleting files here just on how we, you or anybody really feels how it should be. But that's not how it works here. Since you seem to be convinced that Commons is deeply corrupt anyway, it's probably not worth the trouble to argue with you anymore. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Don't ever give me a chance to talk to you again. Being a Commons administrator is not an achievement in life. Regards. --Turbojet (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ottugi Sesame Ramen 20201211 002.jpg and others

Hi. You tagged me in some DR's that I closed. I just wanted to check - were they re-opened or were they not closed properly? I am pretty sure I closed them - just wanted to check Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gbawden,

there were several cases like this that I noticed when reviewing Category:Deletion requests April 2022, decided by various admins. The deletion request pages were closed and decided with keep or delete, but files decided as kept still had the deletion template, and files decided as delete were not deleted. That happens regularly, for whatever reason. Maybe there were technical problems, or they were simply overlooked. I decided to to execute the decisions that were already written in the deletion requests, noting in the log that the actual decision was that of another admin. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that cleanup work, also noted with my decisions. Sometimes I forget to remove the template, or indeed it is a technical issue which sometimes happens with long lists or other reasons. Regards Ellywa (talk)

Category:Hölderlinuhr

Hallo Rosenzweig, ich möchte Dich auf die drei Bilder hinweisen, die sich in dieser Kategorie befinden. Sie wurden vom Besitzer eines Uhrengeschäfts in Tübingen eingestellt und dienen offenbar Werbezwecken. Außerdem als Autor ist der Besitzer des Ladens angegeben, der wohl nicht identisch mit dem Autor der Darstellungen ist.
Gruß Mewa767 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ja, das geht so nicht, danke für den Hinweis. Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hölderlinuhr. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 20:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Löschung von Foto

Hallo, warum wurde das Porträtfoto von Dirk Skiba (Slata Roschal) heute gelöscht? Der Fotograf hat die Verwendung auf Wikipedia schriftlich genehmigt.

Viele Grüße 123wis123 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Das habe ich im Löschantrag Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slata Roschal - Porträt von Dirk Skiba.jpg begründet und beschrieben: Zum einen reicht eine Genehmigung zur "Verwendung auf Wikipedia" nicht aus, wir brauchen eine Genehmigung, dass jedermann das Foto unter einer freien Lizenz für jeglichen Zweck verwenden kann. Inklusive kommerzieller Zwecke. Zum anderen müssen solche Genehmigungen dokumentiert werden. Das Verfahren läuft per E-Mail direkt vom Genehmigenden (also hier: dem Fotografen) an das Commons-"Support-Team". Details siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 17:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A question about procedures

Hi Rosenzweig, besides being admin I am a VRT agent reviewing permissions etc. Do you think it is allowed to directly undelete images if a correct permission has been received, or should I ask for a undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. This only in case the image is deleted because of missing permission or obvious copyright violation. Thanks for your insights on this. Ellywa (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ellywa,

I can't find any direct rules for such a case. This is about trust and accountability I guess. Can Commons trust you to get it right and correct your actions if you don't? Let's say you make this undel request, I see it and restore the file(s). I can't see the VRT e-mails, so all I can do is trust the VRT agent in question. Since VRT agents are known to the WMF, they are trusted I should think, as are admins who were elected in the projects. You are both, so you should be doubly trustworthy :-) Of course VRT agents can misunderstand something, and in that case some other agent would be needed to perhaps look into the relevant mails and shed a different light on things. A formal undel request makes such an undeletion probably more visible and allows other agents to look into the case as well, though I don't know if the VRT mail system provides such visibility as well. So in a nutshell, my opinion is that you should be trusted enough to do it right away, but an undel request makes the whole procedure perhaps more visible and allows other agents to weigh in if necessary. Though I'm not sure I understand the VRT side of that completely. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (for your trust), I will act directly in this case. Regarding points you do not know of. The VRT system has various queues, this is no secret. The queues relate to the various email adresses of Wikimedia, per language mostly, or by project. The agents can have access to one or more queues. You can see which agents have access on m:Volunteer Response Team/Personnel. This list is not complete however, it is made by hand. The admins of VRT have a complete overview. The Dutch volunteers can see the same queues, sometimes we help each other, but apart from beginning agents, there is no systematic review of work of collegues. This would be too much work, we have around 10 or more mails a day in my language only, this is quite a project on its own. Ellywa (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Entfernte Löschtemplates

Danke, dass du die Löschanträge auf den Seiten raus genommen hast. Da muss ich beim schließen des Antrags irgendwie einen Fehler gemacht haben oder das Tool hat mal wieder nicht richtig funktioniert. Vermeide in solchen Fällen aber besser die Verlinkung des Users im Bearbeitungskommentar. Ich habe mehrere Hundert Benachrichtigungen und Mails bekommen. Ist jetzt kein Problem, aber nur die Verlinkung der Antragsseite reicht ja eigentlich aus. GPSLeo (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ups, das war nicht beabsichtigt. Die Mitteilung an sich schon, aber x-fach muss nicht sein. Danke für die Mitteilung, ich werde es bei künftigen Massenoperationen berücksichtigen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Zirkel2.gif

File:Zirkel2.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leonel Sohns 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Review of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Botminh24 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dokientrung

Guten morgen Rosenzweig,

Can you please review those two Deletion requests since it proposed by unsureness and happened after I didn't obey these users about contribute to military projects in Viet Wikipedia

It is pretty confused about licensing on Wikipedia, I don't understand why those images have my own work by taking pictures of the object in real life, and some of them just get recreated to visualise the insignia, which does not literally show the real insignia, why they still get deleted? For example, these 2 files:

• File:PhuHieuCoAoCACapTuong.png
• File:Vietnam Senior Colonel insignia.png

The first one was taken by me and sure do, you cannot find any other similar images because it was taken by me and published only to Wikicommon. And the Vietnam Senior Colonel insignia is not even the real insignia, I just redrew elements of the insignia, including 4 stars and 2 lines, just for the visualisation purpose and it still got deleted. Additionally, all of the objects about military, especially insignia, I believe they are common knowledge since we can easily find them in public places, media and so on. Also the stuff in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dokientrung, I am not sure about the medals, but regarding the insignia, most of them were drew by User:MrInfo2012. Those are his original works and to be honest, they not even look exactly similar to the actual insignia but still good enough for the visualisation purpose. Why they still get deleted? From what I read in this thread, these images get deleted by unsureness from proposed user. Is it reasonable enough?

Thank you for taking your time to dig into this thread! Danke! Botminh24 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Botminh24,

those deletion requests were open for almost five months. You were notified about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Botminh24. Why are you only reacting to them now, after the files were deleted? It would have been much easier to take what you are saying into account if you had reacted in a more timely manner. Anyway, since multiple files and users are involved, I suggest you take this to COM:UNDEL for a centralised discussion. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 06:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response! I did not react because I know that was just an act of avenge when they wanted me to delete this template link but I don't see the reason why I have to remove it, the template just shows the rank of Viet military generals and I believe admins on Wikicommon knows what to do and would not care about this. I also have a lot of work to do in real life so I don't want to take time to make any argument with them (people in Viet wikipedia). Addtionally, the discussion which you guys have, it does not notify me so I did not know anything until multiple military project in Viet wikipedia affected (such as Quân đội nhân dân Việt Nam, Template:Insignia and so on, then I realized this problem and contacted you right away. Botminh24 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rosenzweig and Botminh24: FYI I undeleted one of the images Botminh24 mentions, per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Botminh24. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion discussion Huis van Gerrit van der Pot...

Hi Rosenzweig, I thank you for your comments on the recent undeletion discussion about the File:Huis van Gerrit van der Pot aan de Korte Hoogstraat, 1932.jpg, see here. Now I wanted to ask you some more about your latest comment for the reason that this might bring some new insides into the complex URAA matters.

With your latest comment of 08:53, 17 October 2022 you brought up the quote "the community should evaluate each file potentially affected by the URAA and remove works that are clearly infringing," apparently implying that was actually the case: Hosting that particular file under the IRL conditions at Commons under that particular licence (Anonymous-EU- which implicitly implicates possible URAA consequences) violates URAA...!?

Now there are several things I cannot comprehend here. In order to establish such a conclusion, the IRL situation should actually be considered: Physical condition of upload, where and when and how; legal conditions, non-American, non-American soil; organizational conditions, for example, editing under the real name and as such as legal entity not being a legal part of the system of anonymous users operation governed by the WMF, etc, etc...

If you go down that road, you can end up at different points: On the one hand there can be determine if there is a IRL violation of URAA or not, and on the other end if there is a "contradiction" with the WMF goal to "establish a free collection of images". In this particular case I think the work doesn't violate URAA, but does contradicts that WMF goal: The image can be used freely everywhere in the world except in the US for another five years.

It seem to me these conditions are not just the case for this particular file, but for lots if not most of Anonymous-EU files correctly licensed. Probably I am still missing all kinds of details, but at the moment I am under the impression that this releases this particular file and most others. What do you think? -- Mdd (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the actual question here, your style of writing is rather rambling and not to the point. Accd. to what you researched, the file in question was first published in 1932 in the Netherlands without naming an author, and there is also no author to be found, so it is considered to be anonymous. Anonymous works were protected for 50 years in the Netherlands, so the Dutch copyright initially expired at the end of 1982. But in 1995, the copyright duration was extended to 70 years, and per [5], “De in deze wet voorziene beschermingstermijnen zijn met ingang van 1 juli 1995 van toepassing op werken die op 1 juli 1995 in ten minste één lid-staat van de Europese Unie beschermd worden door de nationale wetgeving op het gebied van het auteursrecht.” So any works that were still protected in other EU member states were (again) protected in the Netherlands on July 1, 1995. Other EU countries already had longer terms than the Netherlands (Spain had 80 years since the late 19th century), so this work was again protected in the Netherlands, and it was protected on the URAA restoration day, January 1, 1996. Which means the USA protected this work inside the USA according to their law, for 95 years from publication, until the end of 2027. The photo is still protected in the USA, and hosting it on a server of the WMF, a US organisation, violates US copyright (= it infringes). (Unless you use it under the US copyright provisions of fair use – which is what the en.wp can do –, but that would mean you would have to reduce the file size, tie its use to specific articles, write official rationales why you use it and so on. Not relevant for Wikimedia Commons anyway, because per WMF decision, Commons does not accept fair use files.)

So it's a clear case: after research, the conclusion is that the file infringes, and it must be removed from Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately, some people here don't want to accept this, because it is inconvenient. Which it is. Not the copyright protection in the USA as such, but that its duration is often so much longer than elsewhere (though not always), because the USA does not use the en:Rule of the shorter term. If they did that, the whole problem would go away. But they don't. Which is stupid IMO, but even a stupid law is a law. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You are giving a summary of the general conditions and then assume:

• The photo is still protected in the USA, and hosting it on a server of the WMF, a US organisation, violates US copyright

This in general would mean hosting a copyrighted photo on a US server is a copyright violation. That is just false. Hosting a copyright protected photo as copyrighted on a US server is in line which US copyright. Take for example Flickr - 99% of all photographs shared there are under copyright and they run on US servers. -- Mdd (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I get the distinct feeling that you are not very familiar with copyright in general. Your conclusion „hosting a copyrighted photo on a US server is a copyright violation“ is very flawed, and it is not at all what I wrote. In a nutshell, hosting a copyrighted file is only legal if the copyright holder is ok with it or if one (in the US) employs fair use (which has several conditions, see above). Commons does not accept fair use files, also see above. And you can host copyrighted files on Commons, no problem, as long as they are under a free license which makes them available for everybody and for any purpose. Such a free license must be granted by the copyright holder, meaning they are ok with hosting the file on Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 16:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And re Flickr: The copyrighted files there should have been uploaded by someone authorised to do that. So if you upload your own photos there and share them as copyrighted, that is fine, you are the copyright owner and can do that. We require such photos to be under a free license, but Flickr does not. And if you upload someone else's still copyrighted photos to Flickr without being authorised to do so, that is a copyright violation. Which happens regularly (we delete tons of files with copyright problems imported to Commons from Flickr), only Flickr does not care as much as we do. --Rosenzweig τ 17:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about these images on Flickr. I just came to the same conclusion. It just realized it is more complicated then that. For example a strange thing here is that a European server can host these images after 70 years, and an American indeed in general cannot. This alone raises all kinds of questions: For example, does a European server violates copyright if it shows that work in the US, or is a US server allowed to show those images in Europe? -- Mdd (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC) / 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

National laws work with various constructs here. Usually the law applied is that of the country where the company or person running the web site is located. Sometimes a country will also declare its own law applicable if a web site is geared towards the market of that country, even if the company running the site is located abroad. Some German authority tried to impose German law on a couple of German language porn web sites (which would then be required to perform stringent age checks), but the company running them is located in Cyprus and refused. The authority then had a court order the large German internet providers to block the sites, but they simply changed URLs, and the block order (which was for the original URLs) was then pointless. So it's all still in flux. --Rosenzweig τ 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, national laws might work with various constructs here, and it all is in flux. And for that there are all kinds of legal ins and out about this particular case and in general. Yet, there are the more general aspects of cultural heritage that set conditions as well. If for example Wikimedia Commons upholds too high a standards, it disqualifies itself as partner in culture heritage preservation. Strictly upholding URAA to the letter seem to burn a hole of 25 years in the representation of European history, and every new year those borders move a year. Personally I have been directing quite some time into those era's, and I still trying to reconsider what to do next.

Also, in your 13:45, 18 October 2022 comment seem to apply to all Anonymous-EU files. Yet, in your 08:53, 17 October 2022 comment you wrote:

The WMF, in that same statement, also wrote that the community should evaluate each file potentially affected by the URAA and remove works that are clearly infringing... -- 08:53, 17 October 2022, Rosenzweig τ (UTC)

The WMF has stated that "each file potentially affected" should be evaluated, which you just dismissed in your 13:45, 18 October 2022 comment. I would like to see what the WMF meant by that, and how this has been put into practice. One thing is clear to me: you haven't directed one single word to the that particular file of or particular conditions. You just summarized some general conditions. But maybe again I have been missing something. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC) / 22:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by “the particular file of particular conditions”. If that is English, it's not a variety I understand. If you mean File:Huis van Gerrit van der Pot aan de Korte Hoogstraat, 1932.jpg: I did analyze the copyright status of that file quite thoroughly in my first reply above. „Each file potentially affected“ just means any work which is claimed to be affected by the URAA. Not every one of these will actually be affected by the URAA, because many people are not very well informed about copyright. If, for example, this anonymous 1932 file would have been first published in France instead of the Netherlands, it would not have been affected by the URAA, and its US copyright would not have been restored. The reason for that being that France, like the Netherlands, has extended its copyright duration from 50 years (+ 4 years for wartime extensions) to 70 years, but unlike the Netherlands, they did it after the URAA date. So that photo would not have been protected in France on the URAA date, and its US copyright would not have been restored. That is what is meant by “A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.” in Commons:Licensing: You have to look into the case and see if the URAA actually does apply („Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws.“) In my France example the URAA does not apply, in the Netherlands case at hand however it does. And if it does: “If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” (Commons:Licensing again) --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that while I spoke of copyright conditions and organizational conditions, you keep returning to URAA conditions as if that is all that matter. While you seem to insist we blindly follow the law, the WMF has shown us a way to work with it. -- Mdd (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I am reading this discussion with interest and an idea came up. Has it ever been discussed to introduce fair use on Commons specifically and only aimed at the URAA cases? I mean images which are in PD at their source country and which might be copyrighted due to the URAA restoration? If that was accepted, a template could be introduced (or {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} could be adjusted) with a clear warning for re-users of the material not to use the image in the USA, because of a (slight or even negligible) risk for a take-down notice. It would put an end to a lot of frustration, and it would put an end to the project Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review, which appears not updated since March 2014. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's probably been discussed, but as far as I know, it's not an option. It would have to be an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP, see meta:Non-free content), and per foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, Wikimedia Commons may not develop and adopt an EDP (“In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP.”) So unless the WMF changes that part, it won't happen. --Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind explanation. Ellywa (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Maps in Henry Field's book

Hi. Thank you for pointing that out, I had not notice that the preface names the map authors. It seems that Figure 5 (File:AhwazEthnography1939.png and File:Alahwaz-map1939.jpg) was drawn by Carl F. Gronemann (staff illustrator of w:Field Museum of Natural History) and Figure 8 (File:Arabistanmap1939.jpg) was created by w:Erwin Raisz (cartographer of the Institute of Geographical Exploration at Harvard d:Q61934020). Can you please explain how PD-US-no notice applies to these files? Does that mean the whole book is in public domain? Thank you for taking the time to answer me. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the whole book is in the public domain. You can see the whole book at archive. org ([6]), it does not have a en:copyright notice, and at the time of publication in 1939 you needed to have a copyright notice for your work to be protected by copyright in the US. This book has no notice, so it was not protected. See Commons:USA. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi:

I would like to know why you reverted my demands of deletion for 3 images and then reinstated them with the comment "let's make this a proper DR" (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Front_View_of_the_Hotel_de_Boer.jpg&action=history)?

Pierre cb (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Because you did not file proper deletion requests, you just wrote the DR text in the file pages. You didn't create deletion request pages (instead you linked them to another deletion request page for another file,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Sylvia of Sarawak.jpg, which has long since been closed), and you did not notify the uploader, all of which you should have done. There were only 2 files btw to which this applies, not 3. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. I used the fonction on the left hand side "proposition for deletion", there might have been a mix-up in the automatic request. Pierre cb (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if you let Wikisource know when you delete a file like File:Pocahontas and Other Poems (New York).pdf

It leaves behind a residue at en.wikisource, that someone else has to cleanup.  :(

Where was the good version please? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hallo ShakespeareFan00,

yes, and that someone should be the uploader and nominator, User:Esme Shepherd, also active at en.ws and the creator of s:Index:Pocahontas and Other Poems (NY).pdf there. This file was nominated for deletion by the uploader within 5 days, so it's a clear case of COM:COURTESY. I think if WS users upload multiple versions of files to Commons and then request deletions, they should be able to clean up at WS as well. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded Pocahontas and Other Poems (NY).pdf to replace Pocahontas and Other Poems New York.pdf because for some reason I was unable to upload a new version of Pocahontas and Other Poems New York.pdf. It doesn't matter to me whether Pocahontas and Other Poems (New York).pdf. continues to exist or not, I just thought it might be cleaner if it disappeared because it belongs in no category. I have no idea how to remove pages, I assumed that was part to the deletion process. Pocahontas and Other Poems (NY).pdf has now been fully transcluded to Author:Lydia Huntley Sigourney, whereas none of Pocahontas and Other Poems New York.pdf has. I would add for clarity that this New York edition is very different from Pocahontas, and Other Poems.djvu, which is the London edition. If there is any doubt, please leave well alone. Thanks. Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I must add that it is absurd to expect a lay contributor to be deleting files. What is the point of having a request to delete, if it is not going to be carried out properly, i.e. in full. As I pointed out, the only reason for the multiple files is that due to problems at wiki, I am unable to upload revised versions of files and can therefore only upload them under another name. If deletion is a problem, can you please tell me where I should put redundant files. I have made Redundant Files Categories under the author's category but this doesn't seem rational to me in the long run; they just need hiding away.Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Esme Shepherd, I don't know how it's supposed to work at en.ws, it's a separate project and I don't contribute there. Perhaps leave a note or ask at the s:Wikisource:Scriptorium or have a look at their help pages? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/DFoidl

Hi! Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/DFoidl. Given the doubt surrounding some files uploaded by this user, yesterday I marked some other uploads of his as "no permission" (please see here), but instead of providing evidence of ownership he's removed the tags. I don't know if that's OK or not here, so bringing it to your attention. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers,

unlike the files deleted with the deletion request these files are not credited to someone else, and I'd interpret this edit as an assertion of own authorship. If you have any actual evidence that these files are not the uploader's own work, please file another deletion request. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

File:2-Karte.jpg and other maps

Hi Rosenzweig, a few hours after you closed the undeletion request without undeletion, a new version was uploaded of this map, perhaps slightly different to being able to upload it. Some other maps are re-uploaded as well, which I deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FkMohr. You can note the blue links on the DR. What would be the way to proceed? Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ellywa,

delete them per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, G4 (Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus) and warn the user (there's a blurb "please do not recreate" or similar in the notification gadget). There was ample time to react and explain at undeletion requests. Just re-uploading the deleted files after not writing anything for two weeks is not ok. I was only getting involved at UDR because the user kept writing in German, so I tried to get an explanation how the file in question was created, not very successful it seems. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 03:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I acted according to your advice. Thanks also for your help with the German language. Although I live in a neighboring country, the subtleties of your language are difficult for me. Ellywa (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a German site dedicated to copyright?

I found your profile and you are German and an administrator so it doesn't hurt to ask, heh. AnAkemie (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello AnAkemie,

there are probably several, but I couldn't think of one immediately. A quick Google search for "Urheberrecht Forum" found [7]. There's likely more. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean something like https://www.copyright.gov/ . The closer I found was the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. AnAkemie (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably [8], though the scope of that page is likely much smaller than that of the US site. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Grüße

Hallo Rosenzweig,

Du bist ja ein Experte für die Region um Heilbronn. Da es mich inzwischen nach Böckingen verschlagen hat, hoffe ich, in Zukunft mehr Fotos aus Heilbronn und Umgebung beitragen zu können. Ich habe daher angefangen, mich mit den Kategorien etc. in diesem Bereich vertraut zu machen. Als alter Kategorien-Freak habe ich es nicht lassen können, gleich ein paar neue Unterkategorien anzulegen, Bilder zu kategorisieren etc. – sozusagen learning by doing. Sollte ich dabei etwas falsch machen oder verschlimmbessern, bitte ich Dich, nicht böse zu sein ;–). Ich mache auch mal Fehler, aber ich trage in bester Absicht bei, und wenn Dir auffällt, dass ich etwas missverstehe etc., mach mich bitte einfach kurz darauf aufmerksam.

Herzliche Grüße und alles Gute, --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg

Die Löschung dieser Datei ist völlig unberechtigt und ich protestiere dagegen ausdrücklich. Bevor ich COM:UDR bemühe, ersuche ich dich um einvernehmliche Wiederherstellung. Erstens wurden gemäß COM:FOP Germany, wo schwarz auf weiß vom Gerichtsurteil steht, welches Luftaufnahmen für zulässig im Sinne der Panoramafreiheit erklärt, bereits jede Menge Bilder wiederhergestellt bzw. danach auch Löschanträge abgelehnt. Ich sehe nicht ein, wieso jetzt hier eine Ausnahme vorliegen soll. Zweitens, was keineswegs außer Acht zu lassen ist, handelt es sich bei dem Bild nicht um ein Foto eines bestimmten Gebäudes, sondern um eine Panoramaaussicht, und da waren urheberrechtliche Einschränkungen auch vor dem Gerichtsurteil irrelevant. MfG --A.Savin 03:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hallo A.Savin,

ich habe die Löschung begründet und auch erklärt, dass ich mich nach wie vor an das Urteil des höheren Gerichts BGH halte. Dein zweites Argument zielt letztlich darauf ab, das Gebäude sei nur unwesentliches Beiwerk. Ein einschlägiges BGH-Urteil von 2014 (siehe COM:DM Germany) hat das aber derart verengt und restriktiv ausgelegt, dass ich nicht (mehr) sagen kann, das Gebäude sei in diesem Bild nur unwesentliches Beiwerk. Dazu ist es viel zu prominent im Vordergrund. Ich werde die Datei also nicht wiederherstellen und warte dann auf die Diskussion bei COM:UDR. Mal sehen, was andere meinen, vielleicht kommen auch noch andere Aspekte zur Sprache. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hanna Kunsch

Hi, This should not have been deleted, let alone speedy deleted. Since this person is notable and has a WD entry, we can have a creator template and a category. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

COM:CSD disagrees. Just why are people so hell-bent on keeping empty categories and unused templates? Restoring them is no problem at all if and when they are actually needed. Or even creating them afresh, creating a creator template when there is a WD entry is only a matter of seconds. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And I added a reference for a photographer named Hanna Kunsch with the dates (1872 - 1945). What's the issue with that? Yann (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There's only one source for that, and in light of everything else, those dates are obviously wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Jiang Zemin Official.jpg

Recently, user:Bzhang02 uploaded File:Jiang Zemin Official.jpg and I have some reservations on whether it is in public domain. In the permission section of the file, the user attached the {{PD-PRC-exempt}} license and stated that Article 5 of PRC's Copyright law allows "not only document texts but also images included in the qualified documents." This is first time I am seeing an official portrait of a CCP official uploaded under this license. Could you confirm if the file is indeed in public domain because I doubt if portraits of CCP officials can be considered as an official document to be in public domain? --Bookish Worm (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that there is now Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jiang Zemin Official.jpg, so any relevant discussion should be there. I couldn't "confirm" that picture is in the PD anyway. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File: Johann Franz Anton von Zedtwitz (1713-1784).jpg

Hallo, warum hast Du die ursprüngliche Bildversion wieder aktuell eingestellt? Geische (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Gegenfrage: Warum hast du bei einem Bild, das von einem anderen Benutzer hochgeladen wurde, eine gänzlich andere, viel kleinere und schlechtere Bildversion drübergeladen? So etwas macht man hier nicht, siehe Commons:Overwriting existing files/de. Und eben weil ein solches Verhalten unerwünscht ist, habe ich die ursprüngliche Version wiederhergestellt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 11:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallo, "sowas macht man hier nicht"? Ich bin Besitzer des Originalgemäldes und habe ein eigenes Foto des inzwischen restaurierten Originals hochgeladen. Ich könnte natürlich das Bild in besserer Qualität hochladen, möchte jedoch in solch einem Fall zur Nutzung gefragt werden. Das von Dir erneut eingestellte Bild wurde seinerzeit einfach dem Auktionskatalog des versteigernden Auktionshauses entnommen, auf diesem Foto liegen jedoch die Rechte des Fotografen des Auktionshauses. Es ist nie eine Genehmigung für die Veröffentlichung des Bildes eingeholt worden. Das wäre aber nötig gewesen - egal was von Wikimedia oder Wikipedia in Rechtslage hineingedeutet wird. Auch das macht man nicht! Auf das Foto hat der Fotograf die Urheberrechte. Ich wollte das mit meinem Bild lediglich in Ordnung bringen und es frei zur Verfügung stellen. Wie können wir die Sache regeln? Geische (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Da ist nichts zu regeln. Den Löschantrag, den du vor ein paar Monaten gestellt hattest (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johann Franz Anton von Zedtwitz (1713-1784).jpg), habe ich unter Erläuterung der Rechtslage abgelehnt. Der Rechtslage aufgrund eines Gesetzes wohlgemerkt, nicht aufgrund von etwas, "was von Wikimedia oder Wikipedia in Rechtslage hineingedeutet wird". Ob du selber noch ein Foto des Gemäldes hochladen willst oder nicht, steht dir frei, es ist aber nicht in Ordnung, andere Dateien damit zu überschreiben. Niemand muss eine Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung des Gemädefotos einholen, und es ist auch niemand dazu verpflichtet, dich zur Nutzung hochaufladender Fotos dieses Gemäldes zu fragen, auch wenn du das Gemälde als solches besitzt. Das bringt die Gemeinfreiheit mit sich. de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache solltest du auch mal lesen, falls noch nicht geschehen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Du willst mich nicht verstehen, oder? Es geht mir nicht um das Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache, da müsste ja jemand in meiner Wohnung das Gemälde fotografieren. Auf das hier veröffentlichte Bild aus dem Auktionskatalog, also das Foto selbst (nicht das Gemälde, da ist der Maler längst verstorben und die Schutzfrist abgelaufen), hat der Fotograf die Urheberrechte. Daran ist nichts zu rütteln, auch wenn in der Wiki-Welt andere Auffassungen vertreten werden. Es gibt da eine eindeutige Rechtslage und auch Gerichtsverfahren die Wiki verloren hat. Es mussten sogar Fotos gelöscht werden, die vom Hochlader persönlich in einem Museum gemacht wurden, da das Museum das Hausrecht besaß und keine Fotos genehmigt hatte. Sowohl die Urheberpersönlichkeits- als auch die Verwertungsrechte kann der Urheber zu seinen Lebzeiten nicht auf andere Personen übertragen nur eine Nutzung erlauben. Sie bleiben für die gesamte Dauer des Urheberrechts bestehen. Ich wollte diese Situation lediglich entschärfen und ein eigenes Bild vom, wie gesagt, inzwischen restaurierten und optisch aufgewerteten Gemälde hochladen. Schade, dass das offensichtlich unerwünscht ist. 2003:CA:6715:144C:5D15:9049:DC5C:89EE 19:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ich kenne die Reiss-Engelhorn-Saga. Aber wie in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johann Franz Anton von Zedtwitz (1713-1784).jpg geschrieben: Seit es § 68 UrhG gibt, ist das alles Schnee von gestern. Der wurde explizit als Reaktion auf die besagten Verfahren neu ins UrhG eingefügt. Und das auf Grund einer EU-Richtlinie, also inhaltsgleich in allen EU-Staaten. Was du hier schreibst, stimmt schlichtweg nicht mehr. --Rosenzweig τ 20:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, habe nachgesehen - Du hast Recht und ich lag falsch, sorry. [9] Eigentlich möchte ich nur ein Foto des restaurierten Gemäldes hochladen und damit die "schlechteren" Bilder ersetzen - gern auch in höherer Qualität. Ich würde deshalb gern alle bisher von mir hochgeladenen Bilder löschen lassen. Geische (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Alles, was du in der letzten Woche hochgeladen hast, kann ich gemäß Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 ziemlich problemlos auf Wunsch löschen, auf den einen Tag mehr soll es nicht ankommen. Das sind aber alles nur die am 7. 12. hochgeladenen Dateiversionen; gib Bescheid, wenn ich die löschen soll. Für alles andere müsstest du einen regulären Löschantrag stellen. Und der wird wahrscheinlich abgelehnt werden, denn "ich habe es hochgeladen, also will ich es auch wieder gelöscht haben" ist kein akzeptierter Löschgrund hier, wenn die Datei ansonsten als brauchbar eingeschätzt wird. Bei File:JAF Zedtwitz 1783.jpg könntest du noch auf die andere Version File:Johann Franz Anton von Zedtwitz (1713-1784).jpg verweisen und der Meinung sein, deine Version sei schlechter und solle daher gelöscht werden. Ob das durchgeht, weiß ich nicht, oft wird in solchen Fällen auf Behalten beider Versionen entschieden, wenn nicht eine sehr viel schlechter und völlig entbehrlich ist. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, danke. Bitte die Versionen löschen, auf die Du zugreifen kannst (7.12.2022). Für alle anderen stelle ich einen Löschantrag und schaue was daraus wird. Gruß. Geische (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:NYU LR Logo png.png

Hi, Rosenzweig. What happened? The VRT check failed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I just saw that the file had been deleted (by Fitindia) and closed the DR. The log says No permission since 7 December 2022 is the reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The file had been marked as Missing permission on December 7 by Mdaniels5757. --Rosenzweig τ 23:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny. The uploader said they were in touch with VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays 2022/2023!

✴ Happy Holidays, Rosenzweig ✴ Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Buon Natale e felice anno nuovo! Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr! --Aristeas (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Löschung der Wingolfswappen

Moin,

da hast du dir ja einen ordentlichen Brocken Arbeit gemacht, einige der Wappen durchzugehen. Hochachtung für den Fleiß!

Mein Gegenargument gegen die Löschung ist recht knapp dargestellt: Die "-1912" Wappen hat Knodt nicht hergestellt, sondern zum größten Teil die Kunstdruckerei des Akademischen Wappentafelverlags von 1912 über den es keine Weiteren Informationen gibt, der scheinbar auch keine anderen Veröffentlichungen hatte als dieses Buch. Ich referenziere Knodt lediglich immer, um das Suchen zu erleichtern. Er ist kein Lithograf und kein Verleger, er war Pfarrer mit heraldischem Fachwissen, mit dem er Aufträge beraten hat. Knodt hat die Begleittexte geschrieben, den Lithografen Vorgaben über die Inhalte der Felder, Farben und Helmzier der Wappen gemacht aber nicht jeden Strich kontrolliert und vorgegeben. Daraus ergibt sich kein Urheberrecht, denn das Wissen über Fakten (Feld 1 Kreuz, Feld 2 Adler, Feld 3 Stadt, Feld 4 Kranz) ist nicht urheberrechtlich schützbar.

Ob die Wappen aus den 1920ern mithilfe seiner Beratung entstanden sind, ist überhaupt nicht klar. Sie sind vom Stil ähnlich genug, dass ich sie –in Abgrenzung zu anderen Darstellungen, wie bspw. denen, die Michael Doeberl et al 1931 (Akademisches Deutschland Band 4) herausgebracht hat– als "Knodtsche" Wappen zusammenfasse. Die Urhaber und Rechteinhaber der originalen Holzstiche sind überhaupt nicht festzustellen. Den Wingolfsverlag mbH von damals gibt es auch nicht mehr, den VAW e.v. als Träger hingegen schon und der begrüßt die Bereitstellung.

Die 1960er Holzschnitte sind nur unter Berufung auf die Knodtsche Vorarbeit entstanden. Sie stehen in der Tradtion seiner Vision, sind aber nicht aus seiner Feder. Die 1912er sind ja auch nicht aus seiner Hand in den Lithografiestein gegangen.

Daher sehe ich es so, dass die Urheber der Holzschnitte und Lithografien nicht mehr zu ermitteln sind und gehe davon aus, dass sie vor über 70 Jahren verstorben sind. bzw. vielmehr gehe ich davon aus, dass die Rechte an den VAW e.v. als Träger des Wingolfsverlag mbH und Auftraggeber des Wappenbuchs von 1912 zurückfallen, welcher mit der Veröffentlichung d'accord ist.

Konstruktive Gegenfragen:

• Ich bin kein Wikiprofi. Wie soll ich den Autor angeben, damit es nicht zu einem solchen Missverständnis führt und dennoch eine Rückverfolgbarkeit auf das Werk ermöglicht, das in Zusammenhang mit Knodts Namen steht (Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt)
• Wie kann ich eine Zustimmung des VAW e.v. als Träger sämtlicher Veröffentlichungen hinterlegen?
• Es wäre mir möglich, die Zustimmung über eine Erbin Knodts einzuholen. Wie soll ich diese hinterlegen, dass du mir glaubst?

Im Endeffekt ist es mir egal, ob du sie Löschen lässt. Feuer Frei wenn du meinst. Wiki verliert damit halt mich als einen interessierten und konstruktiven Mitbearbeiter und die Qualität der vorhandenen Dateien sinkt. Und das ohne, dass deren Urheberrechtsnachweise auf breitere Beine gestellt würden. Dein Verhalten ist also destruktiv.

Beispiel: Das Wappen des Bremer Wingolfs ist nach 1998 erst entstanden und der –mir bekannte– Urheber der Zeichnung, die als Vorlage für den Druck herangezogen wurden, welcher hier gescannt eingestellt ist, hat seine explizite Zustimmung zur Einstellung bestimmt nicht gegeben, freut sich aber sicherlich, auf der Übersichtsseite das Wappen dort zu finden, "wo es hingehört".

Konsequenterweise empfehle ich dir, mal nach den Wappen "von" Doeberl zu schauen, denn einer der Herausgeber ist erst 1963 verstorben, sodass nach der Logik sämtliche Wappen aus dem Akademischen Deutschland Band 4 hier nicht veröffentlicht werden dürften. Spranger hat aber sicherlich auch keine der Lithografien selbst angefertigt, was wieder meiner Argumentation folgt. Category:Corps (Doeberl), Category:Burschenschaft (Doeberl)

Du bestrafst mit deinem perfektionsitischen Vorgehen eine sinnvolle Zuweisung von Werken zu Personen – hätte ich es nicht dazugeschrieben und hätte behauptet, dass ich nicht weiß, von wem sie sind oder hätte gar wie so viele andere Uploader auch mich selbst als Autor dargestellt, wäre alles fein gewesen. Wheelix-de (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Wheelix-de,

danke für die Rückmeldung.

Vorab: Alle Dinge wie "hätte ich es anders angegeben, dann ..." oder "diese anderen Dateien haben auch Probleme, warum die nicht" sowie Vorwürfe in der Richtung wie "perfektionistisches Vorgehen" sind unangebracht. Es gibt hier einen gewissen Anspruch und gewisse Regeln, an die sich leider viele der Benutzer/Hochladenden (ob absichtlich oder nicht) nicht halten, und wenn man das merkt, gibt es eben bspw. einen Löschantrag. Manches Regelwidrige hält sich länger als Anderes, das heißt aber nicht, dass es dauerhaft bleiben kann. Dass bspw. deutsche Briefmarken nicht (mehr) als amtliche Werke angesehen werden, hat Wikimedia Commons (aufgrund einer Gerichtsentscheidung, die sog. Loriot-Entscheidung) schon um 2013 beschlossen. Dennoch wirst du noch jede Menge von Dateien hier finden, die urheberrechtlich geschützte deutsche Briefmarken zeigen. Einfach, weil die Manpower hier knapp ist und viel von der täglichen Flut von neu hochgeladenem Müll gebunden wird. Ab und zu wird aber immer mal wieder ein Block bereinigt, weil jemand einen Löschantrag stellt oder auch für manche Dateien feststellt, dass die Marken aus anderen Gründen gemeinfrei sind.

Zu Hermann Knodt: Ich frage mich, warum Knodt als Urheber dreier hessischer Kommunalwappen aus den 1950ern (Category:Coats of arms by Hermann Knodt) angegeben wird, wenn er doch, wie du sagst, keine Wappen gezeichnet hat. Wie kommt das? Diese Wappen, zusammen mit seiner Einordnung als Heraldiker (das sind üblicherweise die, die die Wappen auch zeichnen), ließen mich zu dem Schluss kommen, dass das seine Werke sind. Die Bücher, denen die Wappen entnommen wurden, liegen mir nicht vor. Steht da explizit drin, dass die Wappen von jemandem bei diesem Verlag bzw. dieser Druckerei geschaffen wurden, oder woher kommt dein diesbezügliches Wissen sonst?

Wenn, wie du sagst, die oder der Urheber dieser Wappen tatsächlich komplett unbekannt, also (eigentlich) im rechtlichen Sinne anonym sind/ist, haben wir dennoch ein Problem. Die "alte" Regelung für anonyme Werke im deutschen Urheberrecht (immer noch relevant für vor dem 1. Juli 1995 geschaffene Werke) schließt nämlich Werke der bildenden Künste (also auch diese Zeichungen) explizit aus. (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/de#Anonyme und pseudonyme Werke zum Nachlesen.) Die Zeichnungen können also keine anonymen Werke im rechtlichen Sinne sein, sondern sind bis zum Ablauf von 70 Jahre nach dem Tod ihrer/s Urheber/s geschhützt. Nun kennen wir die/den ja nicht, also wissen wir auch nicht, wann diese Frist abläuft oder abgelaufen ist. Um solche Probleme einigermaßen aufzufangen, hat man vor einigen Jahren den Lizenzbaustein {{PD-old-assumed}} eingeführt: Wir kennen den Urheber nicht oder wissen nicht, wann er gestorben ist, aber bei Werken, die vor über 120 Jahren geschaffen wurden, gehen wir davon aus, dass die Urheberrechte in solchen Fällen vermutlich alle abgelaufen sind, und halten diese Datei deshalb hier vor. Dieser Lizenzbaustein wäre für die Zeichnungen prinzipiell geeignet, aber erst nach 120 Jahren. Man könnte bspw. die 1912-Dateien also nach der erfolgten Löschung 2033 wiederherstellen und ihnen dann diesen Baustein geben.

Es gibt aber womöglich noch einen anderen Ausweg. Du hast gefragt „Wie kann ich eine Zustimmung des VAW e.v. als Träger sämtlicher Veröffentlichungen hinterlegen?“ und „Es wäre mir möglich, die Zustimmung über eine Erbin Knodts einzuholen. Wie soll ich diese hinterlegen, dass du mir glaubst?“ Deinen Schilderungen nach wurden die Zeichnungen von dem bzw. für die genannten Verlage geschaffen, und Rechte daran liegen (womöglich) beim genannten VAW e. V. Falls dem so ist, kann diese Institution eine Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung der Zeichnungen unter eine freien Lizenz hier auf Wikimedia Commons erteilen. Das muss per E-Mail geschehen; Details, Adresse und Formulierungen siehe COM:VRT/de. Das geht dann ans sogenannte Support-Team, und eine(r) von den sieht sich das dann an, stellt ggf. Rückfragen und akzeptiert dann (hoffentlich) die Genehmigung, wenn alles ok und schlüssig ist. Ebenso müsste es für die erwähnte Erbin Knodts laufen. Zu beachten ist, dass das Support-Team meines Wissens keine weitergeleiteten Mails akzeptiert (wurde wohl zu oft missbraucht), die Mails müssten also direkt von den genannten Personen ans Supprt-Team geschickt werden. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Die dt. Wikipedia hat was Ähnliches wie {{PD-old-assumed}}, nämlich die Vorlage Bild-PD-alt-100. Das heißt, dort werden Werke unbekannter Urheber schon ab einem Alter von 100 Jahren akzeptiert, wenn man zusichert, dass man gründlich nach dem Urheber recherchiert hat. Siehe de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist. Die 120 Jahre hier auf Commons haben auch manches mit US-Recht zu tun (vgl. {{PD-US-unpublished}} für eine der 120-Jahres-Fristen im amerikanischen Copyright), das hier eine gewisse Rolle spielt. Die dt. Wikipedia hingegen orientiert sich nur an D/A/CH-Recht und konnte deswegen diese 100-Jahres-Frist einführen. Wenn also hier auf Wikimedia Commons nichts geht, geht unter Umständen dort doch noch etwas.

Und noch zu deiner Frage „Wie soll ich den Autor angeben, damit es nicht zu einem solchen Missverständnis führt und dennoch eine Rückverfolgbarkeit auf das Werk ermöglicht, das in Zusammenhang mit Knodts Namen steht (Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt)“: Das Buch von Knodt kannst du wie auch geschehen in der Rubrik Quelle angeben. Bei Urheber (author) sollte derjenige rein, der der tatsächliche Urheber ist. Wenn der nicht bekannt ist, bspw. die Vorlage {{Unknown|author}} (dann wird es je nach Spracheinstellung des Betrachters auch gleich übersetzt angezeigt). Weitere Details lassen sich im Beschreibungsfeld unterbringen. Mit "other fields" lassen sich auch noch einige zusätzliche Rubriken unterbringen, siehe Template:Information. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)