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

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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closed DR discussions

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

Current DR discussions

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Russian Federation Investigative Committee medals
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Transport (Russia)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:40 let polyota Gagarina.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:For distinguished military service (The Russian Federation FAGCI)

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

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

In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).   Support if yes,   Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can we verify its official status? Where and when the decission that established this reward was published? Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the specific Russian department lists its award(s) on its official site (for example, награды Минобрнауки). Also, department order (приказ) of award establishment can be found in the Russian juridical databases (like pravo.gov.ru, consultant.ru, garant.ru, docs.cntd.ru, and others). Alex Spade (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I do not see "Awards of Rostekhnadzor" on the page mentioned above. Ankry (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Минобрнауки (Minobrnauki) was just example, it is not Rostekhnadzor. Link to current Rostekhnadzor awards. Alex Spade (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg was deleted because of "Suspected Flickrwashing" simply because the Flickr account the account did not have many uploads or followers. The file was uploaded to Flickr in late 2015, well after Flickr had lost popularity to sites such as Facebook and Instagram. The account should not be expected to have followers. The subject of the image (Paul Gogarty) was a political candidate and elsewhere the account makes clear they were uploading the images with the hope they would be used on Wikipedia. The account name is "Paul G", obviously Paul Gogarty.

I believe the image should be undeleted because the subject/uploader's intent was for the image to be used publicly, and there is no good reason to suspect anything else. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain or a free license, which we require. Also the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject. Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject

Typically yes, but these photographs were taken for a political campaign. It is almost certainly the case that there will be an agreement between the Photographer and the Candidate that once the photographs are taken, that the copyright will go to the subject so that the subject can use the images on campaign material such as leaflets and posters. We should Commons:Assume good faith.

Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain

The image has been placed under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not almost certainly the case that the copyright will be ceded to the subject. If it was ceded in this case, it needs better evidence. I took photos of political candidates for their campaign photos and I did not cede the copyrights to them. Giving the right to use is different from ceding the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info: source on flickr, 17 September 2015, original Commons log (slightly different filename), 18 September 2015, DR, December 2019, logs of Darepng. The uploader to flickr and to Commons may be the subject but it is not obvious that the subject owns the copyright or that the photos are self-portraits. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose While it is entirely possible, even likely, that the photographer gave permission to the candidate to use the image for his campaign, it is, as Asclepias says, very unlikely that the photographer gave the candidate a license which permitted the candidate to freely license the image as required here. We should not restore this image unless we get a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg was deleted on the grounds of a "Copyright Violation". However, per the discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term, it seems files from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu are believed to be acceptable to be used under an Attribution license. File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg has the same notice all files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term do; that a simple Attribution to the European Union is all that should be required for their use. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I do not understand the comments above. The cited page, which is also cited on the file upload page, says:

"As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." (Emphasis added)

This is an ND license, which we do not permit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see User:Rlandmann's comment in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term? They stated:

The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.

There are currently over 600 files Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term uploaded from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu under an attribution license, so one way or another this issue has to be addressed. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this image is deleted for possible copyright violation. The original photographer and owner of the photo gave explicit licensing for this image in her instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBTliRmPGZ-/?img_index=2 in the following language: "©️I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I This follows the wiki commons image upload copyright and licensing instructions for images from instagram posts.

Exact instructions from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team I/We publish on social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Post your photo with a description or comment indicating that it is published under a free license. (Alternatively, edit an existing post to include such a comment. If the platform does not allow editing of posts, then make a new post referring back to the photo.) Please ensure that visibility is set to public.
--Etherealmama (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose This is license laundering. The images were originally posted at https://m.weibo.cn/profile/7574935809. The Weibo user has around 32K followers while the Instagram has only a handful. Also, in this post https://m.weibo.cn/status/5056100426056506 it is clear that the images can only be used for personal usage «所有图可以自印自留，但不授权自印后作为无料发放（举例：印了自己放家里收藏可以，但是不能公开发放❌，更不能标价开团❌）», (defective) Google translate: «All pictures can be printed and kept by yourself, but you are not authorized to print them and distribute them for free (for example: you can print them and keep them at home, but you cannot distribute them publicly❌, and you cannot mark a price to start a group❌)». Günther Frager (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image was deleted due to no FOP but as per Category talk:Raine Karp there is a permission from the architect.

For same reason also please undelete the following images that depict buildings by the same architect:

• File:Mustamäel, Sõpruse puiesteel asuvad üheksakorruselised kortermajad. Arhitekt Raine Karp.jpg
• File:Sakala keskus.jpg
• File:RR side view.jpg
• File:RR front view.jpg

--2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:D594:5491:AFB9:1C58 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazli Choucri gave permission to use photo for her Wikipedia a page and freely on internet to fit your licenses. It was deleted because we did not use proper channel to upload. So she will email with the text from the upload template (Commons:Email templates) the the URL that points to that URL address to use photo. The email will come from (Redacted).

I'm making the request because in the template, it says to use URL that points to the image, but since it is delated, it may not work.

JMAmit24 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nazli Selfie photo.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose once the we have an explicit permission, a member form COM:VRT will ask for its undeletion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]