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)

 

Reversion of a file with no comment

Hello, was there a reason for reverting this file on 7 August 2022? [File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - R-29.svg] Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

In the reference PDF [1] the sign looks not like your latest version, but like the other version. The diagonal red bar covers more of the arrow's end in the reference PDF. --Rosenzweig τ 13:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, yes, you are correct, but, this PDF file is old and has many outdated sign designs, in most cases the diagonal red bar doesn't cover the entire pictogram, [2] [3] [4]. And since the diagonal red bar doesn't cover the pictogram's end, I decided to left it like that to match the physical signs. Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:'A hearty lunch'. Oil on canvas. Signed 'FM Bennett' (lower left).jpg

And also:

• File:'Another fine vintage'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1935' (lower right).jpg
• File:'Discussing strategy'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1932' (lower right).jpg
• File:'Reading the news'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1945' (lower left).jpg
• File:'Scholars taking tea'. Oil on canvas. Signed and indistinctly dated 'FM Bennett 192-' (lower left).jpg
• File:'Watching the day go by'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1939' (lower right).jpg

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 00:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Rosenzweig. Out of curiosity, what difference does this make? RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello RodRabelo7,

it's a housekeeping and tidying up measure. The single deletion request pages (like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RodRabelo7 in this case) are grouped together to larger pages, like Commons:Deletion requests/2023/01/13 and Commons:Deletion requests/2023/01 in this case, or Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/01/13 when the request will have been closed. In technical terms, the single pages are included in the larger pages; that's what the double curly brackets {{}} do. Now if you use the <noinclude></noinclude> tags, anything written between those tags is not included in those larger pages. Without the tags, not only the single page is part of the Category:Agência Brasil related deletion requests, but also those collective pages I mentioned. With the tags, only the single pages are part of the category, which is more tidy. Take a look at Category:Undelete in 2026: See all those Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/XXXX/XX at the beginning of the listing of contained pages? Those are all archive pages which have at least one deletion request containing Category:Undelete in 2026 without the tags. That's not a catastrophe or anything, but it makes some already convoluted categories even more convoluted and harder to navigate. So my preference (and it's probably even policy, though I'd have to look that up) is to use the tags. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Stamps were no artist is named

Hi. Since you brought it up I've been wondering what the procedure for stamps where the artist isn't named on the stamp but we know who the artist is. I know there's an exception in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany that says the copyright term for anonymous and pseudonymous works is 70 years after publication unless the author reveals their identity within that period of time. Otherwise, the term of copyright is life + 70 years. With the stamps where we know who the artist is but it's not printed on the stamps, I assume we know that information because the artist revealed their identity. Otherwise, the only other party that could have released is Deutsche Post AG and I assume there's some kind of clause they sign stating they won't release the name of the stamps artist or it would make the whole stipulation pointless. I'm aware there isn't going to be 100% proof that we know who created the stamp because the artist revealed their identity, but it's pretty likely they did in most cases. So I assume we would default to the precautionary principle and delete the images. I was wondering what your thoughts are about it are though. Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wrote it in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Ewald Manz: There is a somewhat obscure provision in an older German copyright law that is still relevant for some pre-1966 works and takes precedence over the general rules for anonymous works. {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is for that provision. The work in question must have been released before 1966, by a juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts, while not naming a (natural) person (that is a human being) as the author. Stamps that were issued by the Deutsche Bundespost (or the Deutsche Post in East Germany – not to be confused with today's Deutsche Post AG – and the Deutsche Reichspost until 1945) are such works, and if they don't name the stamp designer, these stamps are in the PD in Germany after 70 years. Some stamps do name the designer (70 years pma in Germany then), and in all cases there's still the URAA to consider for all stamps issued from 1926 on and for stamps with a named artist even before 1926. For stamps from 1966 onwards, the general rules apply. --Rosenzweig τ 00:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, crap. It seems like a super complicated thing. So I think I'm going to keep nominating German stamps for deletion based on when the person died or whatever and let you sort out the other nonsense about the URAA when you close the DRs since doing it that way seems to be working fine so far. Hopefully that's OK. I don't really know how else to do it. Basing it on which post office had what rule when is a little over my pay grade lol. I appreciate that you've been willing to put the time into sorting it all out and making sure they un-deletion dates are correct and whatnot though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rosenzweig, thank you very much for explaining the legal situation to Adamant1. I've tried the same, but it seems you're more convincing ... But now on to another point: There was a decision in 2014 saying: "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion." Until today I thought this decision is still valid. Or have I missed something? That's totally possible, but if so, please give me a link to that newer decision. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robert Weemeyer,

that was not really a decision, more like a temporary claim. There were further discussions after that, and as a result, Commons:Licensing still says “Wikimedia Commons only accepts media * that are explicitly freely licensed, or * that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” This is the official policy. Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says “A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” So you need to look into the cases, consult help pages like en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights and the individual country pages of Commons:Copyright rules by territory to find out if the file in question was copyrighted on the URAA date for the respective country or not (because, for example, France did not have 70 years pma on its URAA date, but 50 years pma + wartime extensions). It's complicated, and you may find that a specific work was in fact not protected anymore on the actual URAA date. Which would mean the URAA did not restore ths US copyright of that work. Germany however already had 70 years pma (or 70 years after publication for some works) on the URAA date, so the evaluation came to the result that these stamps were still protected by German copyright on the URAA restoration date of January 1, 1996. Which means they were copyrighted in the US for 95 years after publication. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, one of the reasons I've continued to use the 70+ PMA as a delete reason despite Robert Weemeyer explaining it to me (like I didn't know what the law for "anonymous" stamps of Germany was before he told me, but that's a separate issue) is that the situation with how we handle URAA copyright violations seems kind of like a catch 22 since it can't be the "sole" reason for deletion even it's perfectly valid. In the meantime, the way I'm doing it has at least led to the correct outcomes even if 70 years PMA thing is technically unsound in certain cases. At the end of the day the files should and are going to be deleted regardless. So IMO you (Robert Weemeyer, not Rosenzweig) are making an issue of something that doesn't really matter. The important thing is that Commons doesn't host copyrighted material. Personally, I'm not super concerned about the specific details of how we keep that from happening. Just that we do. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Charles Crodel

If you delete such files, do it thoroughly. The Category:Interior of Katharinenkirche (Frankfurt) contains more photos to delete. --2003:CD:F730:6E00:C932:ADEE:DC7A:A37 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you file a deletion request then? --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your business, not mine as IP. I'm anyway finished with Wikimedia. Bigotry is not my business. --2003:CD:F730:6E00:C932:ADEE:DC7A:A37 00:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Chronologie des ASMG e.V.png

I'm using Google translate a little because I don't speak German, but I doubt https://as-mg.de/ licenses under Creative Commons. So should I nominate for deletion, tag "no permission" or tag copyvio? Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither, IMO that qualifies as {{PD-text}}. It's just a list of events by year, there's no creativity in that. And the typography and little graphic adornment (that gray arrow or whatever it is supposed to be) is PD-ineligible by German standards. --Rosenzweig τ 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I had also meant to ask if it was below TOO in Germany or not. Thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Good work. Very kind of you. Vysotsky (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Heute wurden wichtige Dateien gelöscht

Hallo, siehe meine Diskussionsseite. Sind die von Benutzer Krd gelöschten wichtigen Dateien wiederherstellbar? Grüße GFHund (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Manche vielleicht. Beispielsweise diejenigen, deren Urheber deine Eltern sind, da könntest du per E-Mail eine Genehmigung erteilen, wie ich es dir am 14. Februar auf deiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite beschrieben hatte. Gruß--Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ich hatte Genehmigungen direkt erteilt (über den offiziellen Weg). Aber die Bearbeitung meiner Anträge dauert noch an. Oder hat sich das jetzt erledigt? Es waren auch etliche Bilder dabei, wo ich selbst der Urheber (Fotograf) bin. Das hat Benutzer Krd nicht beachtet. Grüße GFHund (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Welche denn? --Rosenzweig τ 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Falls eine VRT-Genehmigung für eine Datei akzeptiert wird, kann auch eine gelöschte Datei wiederhergestellt werden. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Schaun mer mal. Ich habe noch andere Arbeiten zu erledigen. GFHund (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

About : File:Anna Greki.jpg

Hey,

you wrote a comment in the Anna Greki photo in wikimedia common "please upload colorized versions, AI "improvements" etc. as separate versions"

I would like to ask you why should we upload it as a seprated file?

and by the way those aren't AI improvments I edit them myself yousing adobe photoshop.

Riad Salih (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Riad Salih,

the official policy is Commons:Overwriting existing files. Basically, only minor improvements may be uploaded as a new version of the same file. What you did (colorization, Photoshop alterations) are not minor improvements, but substantial changes; those should be uploaded as new files. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information, I didn't know that at all.

I Have another question if possible:

How to upload a work under this License  :File:Mustapha Ben boulaïd.jpg

I have some works that I would like to upload but when it comes to License I don't know how to share the work under this License "This Algerian photograph, which was first published prior to January 1, 1987, is currently in the public domain in Algeria because it was granted a term of protection of 10 years from publication by Article 64 of Ordinance No. 73–14 of 3 April 1973." Riad Salih (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}? Just edit the file description page and insert the following under the information template:

== {{int:license-header}} ==

{{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}

And then save the changes. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you very much for your help I really appericate it Riad Salih (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

File:André Derain, Boote im Hafen von Collioure.jpg

Lieber Herr Rosenzweig, leider habe ich zu spät bemerkt, dass André Derain erst 1954 gestorben ist. Also muss das Bild sofort gelöscht werden! Entschuldigung! Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Friederike FriedeWie (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ist wunschgemäß gelöscht. Ich habe die Datei in Category:Undelete in 2025 eingetragen, sie wird dann 2025 wiederhergestellt werden. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 05:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nimes art by Pertus

Jim closed the UDR before I could add a piece of information that I found that gives a date for Pertus's 673 art http://www.nemausensis.com/Nimes/pertus/pertus05.htm which is 1930. https://nimesartethistoire.fr/nimes-au-fil-des-siecles/nimes-au-fil-des-siecles I'm not going to contest how that was closed since the one with a source is better and I would have tried to upload that instead. So would 2026 be a good plausible restoration or new upload point for the 407 artwork? Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think so. Created in 1930 for the city hall, therefore basically published in that year, in the PD now in France, and the US copyright restored by the URAA will expire at the end of 2025. I've added the appropriate category with some remarks to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les hordes « barbares » de Crocus pillent le Languedoc (Gravure de Ferdinand Pertus, XIXe siècle).jpg. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A couple of questions.

1. File:Cajla - Coat of Arms.jpg. It appears to be extracted from a freely licensed photo but it's just the coat of arms. COM:Slovakia says that municipal symbols are not copyrighted. So should I relicense this or will I need to file a DR?

2. File:Timbre Boheme et Moravie.jpg was apparently a stamp from the German Empire. Does the license that covers pre-1960s German stamps that don't credit an author cover that? (I'm asking in case I need to file an undeletion request). Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

1. If this were an official coat of arms I'd say relicense. But is it? Cajla became a part of a larger town in 1947 apparently, so it may not be official anymore. If it ever was. One would need to know more. For all I know this could be a private drawing made by someone because there was no official coa.

2. This is a scan of another copy of this stamp. Without the perforation apparently (straight edges) and slightly lopsided, so perhaps of interest to philatelists. The Protecorate of Bohemia and Moravia had been officially annexed by Nazi Germany, so we can apply German laws to the stamps, and {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} would apply. The artist who created this stamp, Bohumil Heinz, died in 1940, so it's in the PD in the Czech Republic as well. Not in the USA though because it was published in 1939, still protected there until the end of 2034. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll file a DR on 1 since we don't know if it's official or one that somebody just made up for the sign in the photograph. Thanks for the information on the second one, I'll put an undeletion date of 2035 on the DR for that. Abzeronow (talk)

File:Marie-Louise Moru.png

I'm conflicted on what to do about this 1940s photograph taken at Auschwitz. It definitely cannot remain without a license, but I can't quite think of a justifiable license to put on it either. Should I just file a DR on it? Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We would need to know, among other things, the publication history of that photo to determine its copyright status. The 1944 date of creation must be wrong if this woman came to Auschwitz in January 1943 and died there in March 1943, so 1943 is the correct date. Auschwitz was in a part of Poland that had been annexed by Germany, so one could consider it a German image. It's not an official work or similar, German copyright doesn't work like that. The photographer was probably a member of the SS (who ran the camp) or someone working for them. Is that person anonymous in a legal sense? Perhaps, but not necessarily. If it was published in Germany first (not very likely IMO), it would have been protected for at least 70 years from publication, possibly 70 years pma if the name of the author and their date of death became known somehow. It would also still be protected in the US, possibly for 95 years from publication if published in Germany pre-1989-03-01, for 70 years pma if published later with a known author and death date, or for 120 years from creation if first published after 2002 without a known author or death date. If first published in Poland before May 23, 1994, {{PD-Poland}} might apply, and it would be in the PD in Poland, which might be considered the source country then. PD-Poland works are usually considered to be in the PD in the US as well, though I'm not so sure that is true given the specific wording of the URAA, which talks of works being in the PD in their source country through expiration of term. Finally, if it was first published in France, it all depends on when it was published, including the URAA question.

The chances of the photo being in the PD both in its source country (if we can determine it) and the US are rather slim in my opinion. The safest license tag choice for such a photo would probably PD-old-assumed 120 years after creation, in 2064 in this case. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that we would need more information on the history of this photograph to keep it. I'll file a DR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing about protection of the photo in Germany: It (and two others taken at the same time) is also shown here. It's clear that these are standardised photos with little creativity, dozens or hundreds of people photographed one after another in a short time. Germany does have a provision for simple photographs (called de:Lichtbild in legal terms), which we normally don't use here (there's no tag for it). Usually that category is restricted by newer court decisions to automated photographs, surveillance cams, satellite imagery, X-ray images and so on, but one could argue that this photo is such a case. Simple photos are protected in Germany for 50 years from first publication, or 50 years from creation if not published within that period. So again we'd need to know when and where it was published first, which again also determines the copyright status in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georg Friedrich Zundel Paula Bosch 1907.jpg

Der Art wie Sie sich in der obigen Löschungs"diskussion" geäußert haben, entnehme ich, dass Sie wohl eher nicht über einen juristischen Hintergrund verfügen. Die Sachlage stellt sich meines Erachtens weit weniger eindeutig dar als Sie es in Ihrer Einlassung dargelegt haben. Die von mir angesprochene Thematik (auf die Sie nicht eingegangen sind) ist jene der Abgrenzung von Lichtbildwerken und einfachen Lichtbildern. Da es sich im konkreten Fall wie dargelegt um ein Lichtbildwerk handelt ist die von Ihnen vorgebrachte Bestimmung hier nicht anwendbar. Ich bitte also meinem Antrag statt zu geben und das unrechtmäßig hochgeladene Bild umgehend zu entfernen. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis. Gzjun (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Das sehe ich anders. Ziel der recht neuen Vorschrift, die übrigens als Reaktion auf die Reiss-Engelhorn-Affäre entstand, ist es eben, genau solche Fälle der erneuten Unterschutzstellung gemeinfreier Werke durch die Hintertür zu verhindern. Das mag manchen nicht gefallen, die zuvor, gestützt u. a. auf die BGH-Rechtsprechung, ein Geschäftsmodell darauf aufgebaut hatten. Der Gesetzgeber hat dem aber nun einen Riegel vorgeschoben. Ich werde die Datei daher nicht löschen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 16:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Die von Ihnen vorgebrachte Parallele erschließt sich mir nicht. Hier geht es - auf unserer Seite - nicht um ein Geschäftsmodell. Anders ist dies allerdings auf der von Ihnen repräsentierten Seite. Ich gehe davon aus, dass Sie persönlich noch nie Geld in die Hand genommen haben um Kunst der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen. Wie Sie über Menschen sprechen, die dies (im Gegensatz zu Ihnen) tun, sagt viel über Ihre Geisteshaltung, Ihren Mangel an Empathie und Ihre Unfähigkeit ganzheitlich zu denken. Glauben Sie es werden mehr Menschen Geld in die Hand nehmen für solche Dinge, wenn jeder "Lump" sich diese einfach aneignen und einer eigenen Verwertung zuführen kann?

Ich bleibe dabei: Die von Ihnen vorgebrachte Auslegung ist überschießend und entspricht nicht dem Willen des Gesetzgebers. Sie ziehen nicht die richtigen Schlüsse aus der von Ihnen angesprochenen Reiss-Egelhorn-Affäre und der seither erfolgten Gesetzesänderung. Lichtbildwerke sind weiterhin geschützt. Wikipedia ist eine kriminelle Organisation. Gzjun (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ich sehe in diesem Foto kein Lichtbildwerk, sondern eine Reproduktionsfotografie, also ein nicht mehr geschütztes (einfaches) Lichtbild. Eine weitere Diskussion erübrigt sich wohl. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ich habe in der "Diskussion" bereits ausgeführt, warum ich Ihre Auffassung hinsichtlich dieser Ablichtung für falsch halte. Das mag Ihnen nicht gefallen, weil Sie Ihr Geschäftsmodell auf dem Klauen von Dingen die andere mit Kraft, Schweiß und Geld geschaffen haben besteht. Gzjun (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loudumo

You cite the wording "oeuvres [...] d'architecture" from the French intellectual property code in your close of this deletion request. The problem is that bridges do not seem to be works of architecture from a French language perspective. It is worth noting that the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (which is authoritative when it comes to the French language) does not include bridge (or "pont") as an example of a work of "architecture" or as a type of "édifice". No one has presented an example where bridges have been protected as objects of copyright under French law and the plain reading of the statute (that you yourself cited) makes it seem unlikely that they would be. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. It's a work, it has an architect, it's a work of architecture. I don't understand why reading the law in question would make that unlikely. The Académie française is probably not tasked with defining concepts in French intellectual property law, but ultimately, neither of us seems to be a native speaker of French, so perhaps someone else should judge that. And does it matter that nobody showed an example of a bridge protected by copyright in France? Do we need one? It seems at the very least rather likely, and COM:PCP says delete in such a case. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite true that I'm not a French speaker, but I'm not trying to parse out subtle meaning. I'm just trying to see if a certain word appears in the law or definition of architecture. Anyways, if there is no demonstratable case law, and no statutory evidence that a particular class of object might be copyrighted, I don't think it is reasonable to say that PCP applies. Saying that there is significant doubt without case law/statue seems like a bridge too far (apologies for the pun). IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, we obviously disagree. In the end, I was also following precedent, these were not the first images of that bridge which were deleted. If you want a broader discussion (about all of them), COM:VPC or COM:UNDEL might be the proper venue. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Brought it up at COM:VPC. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

How convinced should we be of PD?

Hi Rosenzweig, I will not go into a wheelwhar, but I would appreciate your comment on this discussion on my talk page: User_talk:Ellywa#File. Not because of this particular file, but in order to know how to possibly act in similar cases in future. Thanks Ellywa (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ellywa: ,

sorry, that reply took a bit longer because I was occupied IRL. I've looked at the case, and there are quite a number of problems there. First the good news: The 1927 date is most likely correct, assuming the person with mayoral chains we see is really this Hugh Lupton fellow. Accd. to en:List of mayors of Leeds, he was Lord Mayor of Leeds in 1926/1927, so the photo should have been taken then.

But the file has no proper source, because it is not from this Telegraph article given as the source. I've looked at multiple archived versions in the Internet Archive as well, the image is not there. So there is no proper source, we cannot know when it was published first, and we cannot know if it is really anonymous as claimed. Which means the whole license used for the file is not backed up by any evidence. Reading through some discussions in which the uploader participated, I did not get the impression that this is a reliable person with copyright knowledge, which would explain the wrong source.

I've also searched newspapers.com for newspaper articles from 1927 about mayor Hugh Lupton, and I found quite a few, but none of them with a photo. Newspapers in those days printed less photos than now, so it's not at all certain that the photo we see was published at the time. These two things together are enough for significant doubt per COM:PCP, so I think your decision to delete the file was correct.

If anyone disagrees with that decision, the proper way to go would be to file an undeletion request at COM:UNDEL. Just restoring it out of process is not the right way to do it and reflects poorly on the admin who did it.

So just because someone decided to go rogue you shouldn't change your way of coming to decisions IMO. If you want to take any further action (and if yes what kind) is your decision. One could file a new deletion request just for this file, giving the arguments above (and possibly more). If there is more chance for debate, maybe someone can find a proper source? Or if not, at least perhaps someone else comes to a decision that is less out of process. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rosenzweig, thank you so much for the work you did, much more than needed. Please do not feel guilty because you needed some time, no need for any apologies. We all have a life besides Commons and so much needs our attention.

I had to think a little bit about this, and what steps to take. Good to hear my general approach is correct. So we need evidence that a file is in PD to maintain a file on Commons. The evidence should preferably be provided by the uploader (or somebody who likes to spend their time on research). This is not a task of the closing admin. Your comment is quite a relief, because I still feel like a beginning admin.

After some thought, I think two actions are now needed:

• A renewed deletion request. I will take action, and will use your information, including a ping with your name, of course. Please note Commons:Deletion requests/File:1927 - Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton (in Mayoral chains) at a luncheon in Leeds with Lord Harewood (left).jpg.
• A phabricator task, in order to receive an alert if somebody "reverts" deletion of a file. I filed such a task. If you are interested, you can follow it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T334607

Kind regards, and again many thanks, Ellywa (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Carl-Fredrik Reuterswärd - Non-Violence im Kanzlerpark, Berlin, August 2017.jpg

Guten Tag! Sie haben im Oktober 22 o.g. Datei löschen lassen (Deleted: per nomination, FOP is only for views from public places, and that place is only accessible to the public once a year or so. The sculptor died in 2016, so the file can be restored in 2087. Ich habe gerade folgenden Antrag zur erneuten Freilassung des Dokuments gestellt: Reason: Die angegebene Begründung für die Löschung ist unzutreffend. Es mag ja sein, dass man nur einmal pro Jahr direkten Zugang zu dieser Skulptur hat. Öffentlich sichtbar war und ist sie aber ständig. Siehe Dokument: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/neue-skulptur-am-kanzleramt-enthullt-1250152.html The reason for deletion of this file is completely incorrect. Even though it might be true that direct public access to the object is only possible once a year, the sculpture is freely visible all year round. See attached document!!! --Designkritik (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Was ich überhaupt nicht nachvollziehen kann: Wenn Sie als WP-affiner Mensch in Deutschland leben, dürfte es Ihnen ja doch bekannt gewesen sein, dass die Begründung des Antragstellers aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach ganz bewußt irreführend war. Aus welchen Beweggründen auch immer. Dieses signifikante Werk ist eine der weltweit berühmtesten Skulpturen. Eine Version steht bekanntermaßen vor dem UN-Gebäude. Die Sulptur vor dem Bundeskanzleramt war sogar eine Schenkung des Künstlers an das deutsche Volk. In der öffentlich erklärten Absicht, dass die deutsche Öffentlichkeit sie zu sehen bekommen sollte, womit er auch auf mediale Werkreproduktionsrechte explizit verzichtet hatte. Der Versuch, seine Schenkung nun aus der medialen Öffentlichkeit verschwinden zu lassen, ist daher ebenso beschämend wie kontraproduktiv. Für den Fall, dass Sie sich haben in die Irre leiten lassen, könnten Sie Ihren unbewußten Fehler nun wenigstens wiedergutmachen, indem Sie Ihren Löschungsentscheid aktiv wieder zurückziehen. Frohe Ostern und Frieden auf Erden wünscht Ihnen Designkritik (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wenn mir jemand in diesem Tonfall ankommt, werde ich ganz bestimmt nichts „wiedergutmachen“. Die Seite für die Löschprüfung ist hier: COM:UNDEL. Schöne Grüße --Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Julius Henniger

Hallo Rosenzweig, du hattest das Bild Julius Henniger löschen lassen, da es zu wenig Information über den Copyright Status geben würde. Ich habe nun eine E-Mail des Enkels von Henniger, dass dieses Bild aus dem Privatarchiv stammt, verwendet werden darf und aus den 1950ern stammt. Wie kann ich diese E-Mail vorlegen um das Bild nochmalig hochzuladen? Torben Friedrich (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Habe gerade die permissons-de@wikimedia.org gefunden. Danke für dein genaues hinschauen. Hoffe diesmal geht es durch. Torben Friedrich (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ob diese Angaben reichen, bezweifle ich. Es müsste zumindest klar werden, dass besagter Enkel auch tatsächlich über die Bildrechte am Bild verfügt, weil er bpsw. der Nachfahr des Fotografen ist. Bild aus dem Privatarchiv kommt mir da zu vage vor. Die Entscheidung darüber trifft aber nun der COM:VRT-Freiwillige, der sich der Mail annimmt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Danke für den Link auf COM:VRT, sehr spannend. Den Bereich kannte ich noch nicht und ich habe mich schon gefragt, wie da wer nun was entscheidet. Die Angaben sind ja mehr als hier geäußert. Der Vater (Sohn der abgebildeten Person) ist der Fotograf gewesen, Vater ist verstorben, er ist der einzige Erbe. Bild nun hier mit Ticketnachweis wieder hochgeladen: Julius Henniger (Ornithologe).jpg Torben Friedrich (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also eigentlich sollte das eher so laufen, dass der VRT-Mensch die Genehmigung akzeptiert, dann (wenn alles ok ist) die Ent-Löschung (Wiederherstellung) der Datei veranlasst (oder selbst wiederherstellt, wenn er Adminrechte hat) und schließlich die Vorlage {{PermissionTicket}} einträgt. Erneutes Hochladen ist da nicht nötig. --Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Ron deHart.png

Thank You Rosenzweig :) FYE31 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Wothlytype.jpg

Please explain what information I need to add to the description of this file. The URL is that of the collector who holds a copy of the image Which he provides on his blog post. It also appears at Luminous Lint website [5]. I have provided the name of the author of the image Jakob Wothly and the image is a Wothlytype - an example of the defunct photographic printing technology discussed in the article. It would be a unique copy as the Wothlytype was not permanent except under rare conditions. I have given Wothly’s life dates. The image is in the public domain under German copyright. Please elucidate…what is missing? Jamesmcardle (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jamesmcardle,

per Commons:Essential information “If you are uploading a file that originally came from an external website, you should provide at least a link to the web page (i.e., the URL) on which the image or file is displayed (that is, not the web address of the file itself, but rather the web page containing the file)”. I don't see the URL of the web page, just the URL of the JPEG file. Also, ist Wothly the photographer of the photo or just named because he invented this printing process? That is the type of information probably found on the source web page, which you did not give. Also, you need a correct license tag, not the incorrect one I found. If Wothly is indeed the author, {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1873}} should be ok. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that distinction re URL. Will amend accordingly. Wothly is the author of the image, but since this is an image of an image of a mediaeval artwork, that anonymous person might be described as the author. Which applies here? Luminous Lint http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/592545308163059429726/ with an identical digital copy of this file gives Wothly as author. Jamesmcardle (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wothly as author should be fine, the rest of the information should be in the description field. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Kamal Bahamdan photo deleted for copyright violation (lack of permission)

Isn't File:كمال باحمدان الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة صفناد القابضة الذراع العالمي لمجموعة باحمدان القابضة.jpg, used in w:Kamal Bahamdan, the same photo as the deleted File:Kamal Bahamdan - CEO.jpg? Of course I can't see the deleted file, but I know you can. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It is, thank you for reaching out. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:كمال باحمدان الرئيس التنفيذي لشركة صفناد القابضة الذراع العالمي لمجموعة باحمدان القابضة.jpg. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

• New partner:
  • Perlego
• Library access tips and tricks
• Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)