Hi, it seems the file File:TabukGold.jpg has been deleted, according to reasons stating "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license." However, the source of which the image was taken and uploaded to commons from the following: https://www.deviantart.com/marcusburns1977/art/TabukGold-1050089119 is actually visibly licensed as 'Creative Commons 3.0" and is thus in fact, free to use under those terms. Who-ever opted for its speedy deletion request probably did so mistakenly, possibly not having seen that written license. Paraxade13 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade and Krd: Any reason not to believe that the license has been granted by the author / copyright holder? Ankry (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real weapon or an AI creation? If it's an AI creation, it is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a different angle/perspective, but it appears Saddam Hussein had a gold AK-47 that is similar in appearance. Whether this is an original photo of that or an artistic rendering of it is unclear to me. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcr25, @Jameslwoodward - This appears to be art/ AI, but not is not real. --Ooligan (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deviantart is full of stolen photos. I don't believe the same Deviantart user owns the copyright both to this photo and and to the technical drawings of the F-4 Phantom. Thuresson (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though the site status regarding IP ownership between users may sometimes be questionable, it shouldn't be discounted that there indeed still exist many real users, even notable ones, who do indeed upload and keep, original artistic works there. Acknowledged user Thuresson's opinion against is made in good faith, but doesn't seem to provide much objective information as to the particular IP status of the work currently in discussion, outside of just a blanket generalization? Paraxade13 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a reverse-image search via Google Lens for any duplicate or near-duplicate images that may exist online prior to the given image source's upload date, and there currently doesn't seem to be any. The image source & accompanying license may very well likely be original, be it a painting, photograph or otherwise? unless anyone users should present evidence for the contrary? HanyNAR (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With no further context it seems unlikely that a random DeviantArt user should have dozens of rare and obscure firearms totaling a worth of more than 100k laying around just to photograph Trade (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. However judging by other contents within that DeviantArt account user's profile, seems many (if not all of them) are either original 3D rendered computer generated imagery, lined drawings and/or even paintings(?), might not necessarily even be photographs? Of course its not very likely some deviantart user (or anyone else in particular) would realistically have more than USD$100k+ worth of such rare items to photograph. Attempted to emulate some reverse-image search results as put forth by user @HanyNAR. This is some of the ('similar') results found from other published sources. Some of them are also indeed drawing's/paintings, but not necessarily objective indicators that those artist themselves has physical access/ownership of that item to draw/render/paint from? Paraxade13 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for requesting that you undelete Byron Randall, Back file are below: I hereby affirm that I, Laura Chrisman, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Laura Chrisman 2024-06-02 --Allimoneo78 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allimoneo78: Hi, The permission has to be sent by email via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally uploaded in 2016 under another name, moved in 2019. Is it the same work as File:Byron Randall, 'Back', 1968 Woodcut.jpg uploaded in 2019 or a different work? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same work. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann and Ankry: Where are we with this work? Do we have suitable permission to undelete? Or are we still awaiting some missing information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need either free license permission from author's heirs via VRT or an evidence that it was published in US without copyright notice near creation date. For both mentioned images. If the permission is to be sent to VRT and verified by them, nothing can be done here. They will verify if Laura Chrisman (claiming to be the author of this work) and Byron Randall (who died in 1999) are the same person. Ankry (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

• Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
• This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.

The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:

1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,

(snip)

4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality

(b) ...

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.

Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.

It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.

When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.

I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some of the images at the DR show only generic parts of the building like window frames, the images may be restored as the parts are not unique architectural components (tag: {{PD-structure|PHL}}). But if all images show the complete appearance of the sides of the building or the entirety of the structure, then do not restore. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't see a request here -- only a comment. And note that even parts of an architectural work have copyrights unless they are truly generic, just as a sentence from a thousand page novel can have the same copyright as the whole book. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward I cannot see the deleted images, so I cannot list files that only show portions of window frames and other generic elements of the said building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated File:EPA Aerial view Lemon Springs Kaniva.jpg for deletion for breach of copyright. It had a CC BY 4.0 DEED license. I didn't know at the time that user Oli.f28 was a Wikipedian in Residence [[1]] and had permission to upload the file - "I uploaded around 35 photos on Commons, including a majority from EPA Victoria’s internal library shared kindly by EPA’s graphiste, and used 27 of them on Wikipedia." Melbguy05 (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated File:Kaniva Lemon Springs - EPA investigation.jpg for deletion for breach of copyright. It had a CC BY 4.0 DEED license. I didn't know at the time that user Oli.f28 was a Wikipedian in Residence https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/EPA_Victoria_WiR_April_2024_Update and had permission to upload the file - "I uploaded around 35 photos on Commons, including a majority from EPA Victoria’s internal library shared kindly by EPA’s graphiste, and used 27 of them on Wikipedia." Melbguy05 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05 and Oli.f28: Permissions are required to be within our database per Com:VRT and then we can apply the requisite permissions, rather than simply noted elsewhere. If that VRT process is followed, we should be able to undelete the files that are identified in their permission letter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to have an illustration of the character--Trade (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Where exactly you want to use it? Ankry (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement for scope Trade (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es el escudo municipal de mi localidad y quiero agregarlo al perfil de la ciudad.

It is my own took photo Agilight (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the 2016 photograph since I assumed you wanted to discuss the 2012 upload, which was previously published and would need VRT confirmation. Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

На комиссию же отправляли письмо. Странно, что все равно удалили. Авторы и правообладатели картины уже отправляли. Agilight (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose once the COM:VRT evaluate possitively the permission you sent them, they will undelete the file. Günther Frager (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please undelete the image as I need to use it for Adil Raja's Wikipedia page. We are not using this as a free image hosting service. This will add value to Adil's Wikipedia page making it look better, hence, please undelete it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrioryt44 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose en:Draft:Adil Raja has been rejected. Thuresson (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm still trying to work on it Warrioryt44 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the album cover of rap artist FACE. It is allowed for fair use. This file was published in all the artist's social networks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fterik (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Common's licensing policy doesn't allow fair user content. Günther Frager (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Secret Invasion poster.jpg ( · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This file I uploaded was deleted under the misconception that I didn't provide proof of permission by the author to upload it even though I am the author. WonderManimal (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file was (re)uploaded 3 times in the last 10 days by the same person. The criteria was derivative of copyrighted work, and the last time due to missing permission. If the author created the derivative work and the original artwork has a free license, then they should submit an explicit permission to the COM:VRT team. Günther Frager (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason of "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doutrina_e_Convênios.jpg" I took these photos. In addition to the other uploads that were deleted, these three are my own. I think ADM should make sure before mass deleting, as done

เป็นภาพที่ไม่มีลิขสิทธิ์ เป็นภาพฟรีบนยูทูป และเป็นภาพฟรีที่เผยแพร่ทีวี สาธารณะ