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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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)

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]

• File:Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Conference Setup - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--Rocky187 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg
• Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-09#File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

Arguments against deletion were again not taken into account.

The photo depicts a portable metal board of a travel office, with many similar leaflets containing large color titles in Russian (suppossed to be simple non-literary texts, without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface) and illustrative photos of the destinations offered (indistinct due to the proportions in the whole composition and resolution of the photo, apparently De minimis par excellence). The subject of the photograph is the fact that the Bohemian city of Karlovy Vary is partially Russian-language. This is an encyclopedically significant fact and the photos documenting this fact are in scope of Commons.

• Yann argued "These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text." He ignored the arguments, that the texts (titles of the leaflets) have not sufficiently creative authorship and that the included photos are small, indistinct, de minimis. He did not specify which elements or aspects of the leaflets he considered copyrightable and why he disagree with the contention that the included photographs, given the size, composition, resolution and subject matter of the overall photograph, are "De minimis".

• Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope." This reasoning does not respond to my arguments. My argument was that the headlines of the leaflets are non-creative PD-Texts, and the photographs contained in the leaflets are "de minimis" in relation to the whole composition and subject of the photography. The composition of individual leaflets also cannot be considered an original creative work either.

• Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights." Again, an argument based on a false premise. The subject of the photo is the distinct headings of the leaflets, especially the language used, which is in scope as the subject of the photo. The headings are claimed to be not copyrightable, as simple texts without sufficiently creative authorship, in a general typeface. The only thing that could be copyrightable on those leaflets are the illustrative photos of the destinations, which are so small and indistinct in the overall composition that exactly correspond to the principle "de minimis", par excellence. (Btw., the rack itself could be also in scope.) --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose I don't read the language, but there appear to be enough legible words there to have a copyright in the USA -- which only takes a single sentence or two. Also, many of the photographs are large enough so that they cannot be called de minimis. As I said, there is nothing in this image that is interesting that does not have a copyright as text or photos or both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Дмитров1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: this may be a test UNDEL case. Deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дмитров1.jpg, on the grounds that it contained one component image that was a violation of NoFoP-Russia for copyrighted public monuments.

RG72 gave an interesting case though, in 2019–20 concerning a postcard set, one of the constituent postcards contained an image of a monument in Yekaterinburg whose sculptor filed a copyright complaint (see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#NoFoP should be amended). The case reached the Russian Supreme Court, which denied the sculptor's complaint (essentially dismissed), because the involved monument was only depicted in one of the postcards of the set (the set is considered the entire reproduction, and the monument is not the main object of the whole reproduction because it was only depicted in one of the postcards). Perhaps while the original images should stay deleted, the montages or collages where those deleted images were being used should be restored, in light with this slightly-lenient ruling by the Russian court narrowing sculptors' economic rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping other participants of that CRT/Russia talkpage thread @Alexander Davronov@Alex Spade. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (on June 25, 2024) the Yekaterinburg case and some similar cases were subject of trial in the Russian Constitutional Court (the highest court of the RF, higher than the Russian Supreme Court). See discussions in ru-community: 1st+2nd ones on Commons and 1st+2nd ones in Ru-wiki.
In short: the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade how about the possibility of the montages/collages being lawful based on the court ruling, since the monuments themselves are not the main objects of the collages/montages. Similar analogy to the court ruling itself that concerns a set of postcards, even if one of the postcards unambiguously shows the monument itself as its sole depiction, the entire postcard set is lawful (the monument is not the main object of the entire postcard set) and the sculptor's claims dismissed, if I can understand RG72's comment in the CRT talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This is interesting PoV (suggestion), but Jim's point below (We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons) is too strong. Alex Spade (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose There is a simple answer to this. We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons, freely licensed. We do this in order that we can check the copyright status of each image. Obviously, the offending image in a situation like this cannot be present separately on Commons, so we can't keep a montage containing it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Firstly the author of the image expressly freely licensed his image to the Commons. Secondly, according to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [8] and [9]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's simple fair use, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:1962 Rangoon University Protests8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Since the photo were taken in 1962, which are now in public domain per Myanmar's 2019 copyright law. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 06:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose They were not public domain in 1996 as photographs would have been creation plus 50 years under the old British law which means pre-1946 photos. These would have entered the public domain only in 2013. So URAA applies. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg was closed rather quickly today, and I was halfway through typing out a keep for it at the time: I think it's a good illustration of a person genuinely engaged in editing a video on a home computer, to the point where I would have used it at en:Video editing#Home video editing, or even in the lead there. The concern that the photo is a social-media style "selfie" seems misplaced, as the subject is facing away from the camera.

As someone who's had to fake a screen onto a similar stock photo before, decent photos of people doing something specific on a computer, where the photo emphasises the act of work more than the person as an individual, can be quite rare. --Belbury (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I agree with Belbury. Definitely not "rubbish" as the speedy deletion nominator had said, and a good illustration of someone using editing software. This is not some social media selfie. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak   Oppose: "Someone using iMovie" is different than a picture that could illustrate that use. The screen is blurry, and since it is a free software, anyone can create a useful picture or video. This is not one of them. If anything, this could illustrate a teenager's desktop, but nothing else. Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Very busy, low quality image. The screen is out of focus. The half cup on the right should be cropped, also some of the left..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Since there is clearly disagreement, can this be restored and a regular deletion request (not a speedy) be opened in order that we are able to get additional opinions from people who can't currently see the deleted media? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 14:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is at [10]. Yann (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]