Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links if required as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Hi all, we seem to have developed a bit of a backlog at DR. As of now, there are currently awaiting admin attention, or worth of backlogs. TO ALL ADMINS: please donate a few minutes of your time and close some DRs listed in the logs below. If everyone helps out, we'll be done in no time!

• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/29
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/01/31
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/02
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/03
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/05
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/06
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/07
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/08
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/09
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/10
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/11
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/12
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/13
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/14
• Commons:Deletion requests/2014/02/15

PS: If you don't already use it, I highly recommend using the gadget DelReqHandler to close DRs (which can be activated in your preferences) -FASTILY 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of files waiting for Administrators' or license-reviewer's attention.

First, we still have 370 files in Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed. (current stat:0 sub cat included)

And, we have 84 files in Category:Flickr images needing human review. (current stat:43 sub cat included)

Also, we have 39 files in Category:Panoramio review needed. (current stat:0 sub cat included)

Finally, we have 209 files in Category:License review needed. (current stat:71,714 sub cat included)

All numbers are as of 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

If all admins and reviewer reviews 3 or 4 files for each, we can eliminate our backlogs quickly. Thanks.—레비Revi 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Picasa there's a Bot awaiting permission to take over the job, see Commons:Bots/Requests/Picasa Review Bot (clone). Maybe it's possible to create a Bot for Panoramio as well. --Denniss (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picasa Review Bot 2 is approved, FYI. —레비Revi 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that one of my images was used in a video on YouTube (with nearly correct licence usage). I added {{Published}} to the image talk page and wanted to include http://youtu.be/oCEKMEeZXug?t=1m35s as url. The page tells me "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: youtu.be". Does anybody know why youtu.be is on the spam list and youtube.com is not and how this can be fixed (it seems somewhat ridiculous to me)
EDIT: The image is Mercury-vapor lamp-in use-lamp PNr°0116.jpg btw
thx for yout time and help --D-Kuru (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@admins: Special:Log/spamblacklist --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m:Spam blacklist: \byoutu\.be\b --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m:Special:Search/youtu.be prefix:Talk:Spam blacklist, most notably m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-12#youtu.be. Commons administrators cannot help here. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rillke: You can locally whitelist here ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot about this, sorry. As I read it - the Meta Admins' main concern was that it would be possible adding youtube videos to articles that were previously blacklisted; as Commons does not suffer from such kind of vandalism very frequently one could really consider doing so. But I'd like to get a second opinion first: @McZusatz and FunkMonk: What do you think about locally whitelisting that shortcut url to youtube? Aside from that, there are now global abuse filters (see checkbox) (see status), I believe and couldn't they simply use some regexp magic to match both domains on m:Spam blacklist for youtube videos? -- Rillke^(q?) 12:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can use Youtube.com links. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to change the message from warning about spam to tell what the real problem is. (I.e. replacing the short url with the long one.) Though I don't know how to accomplish this. --McZusatz (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything useful in the spam blacklist source. Anyway, that message would have to be also fetched by the API when editing with the API and most API clients don't care for that.

But where to go from here?

1. Local whitelisting
2. Asking meta admins to use a regexp matching both domains
3. Asking meta admins using a regexp for each video for each of the two domains
4. Making meta admins aware of global abuse filters

-- Rillke^(q?) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not on meta. It is more that local wiki admins only block the long urls of videos (e.g. en spam blacklist). Am I wrong? If I am right we would have to edit every local Spam blacklist to match both: The youtu.be and youtube.com url before disabling youtu.be on the global spam list. --McZusatz (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right. So we're going with #1? -- Rillke^(q?) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess... What about: Local whitelist and local abusefilter telling you to replace the short url? Is this even possible? --McZusatz (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, we could also remove the global blacklist entry and add an appropriate global abuse filter to tell users to use the long urls. Is this what you meant by #4? --McZusatz (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to find out what this condition limit means (Of the last 5,216 actions, 3 (0.06%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000). Sometimes it is exceeded and I don't have the feeling that it should while I have the feeling that adding more rules will possibly make it happen more frequently. Does anyone know? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe User:Bawolff knows something about it or can leave a comment. --McZusatz (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its really common to blacklist url shorteners, it may make sense to add a line to mediawiki:spamprotectiontext/mediawiki:spamprotectionmatch advising people to use the long form of url. I don't know much about the abuse filter. I believe the condition count is just the sum of all abuse filter statements tested for a given edit (note: bugzilla:41693 implies that short circuiting does not apply to condition counts). If that's correct, adding more filters will increase the likelyhood that an edit goes past the condition limit. You should be able to see the average number of conditions a filter takes up via the statistics line when viewing details of the filter. Bawolff (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to temporarily remove it from the blacklist, add the link, then restore the blacklist? IMO, there should be a way for some of the more trusted admins to squeeze a link or two through the blacklist once in awhile when they figure its necessary, and also manage to keep the link blacklisted for the rest of the time. (Like a bypass-blacklist user-right). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have noticed that some people, including admins, tag obvious copyvios (images with Google, Facebook, as source; covers; promo shots, etc.) with "no license". This sends the wrong message to contributors, and the copyvios stay here for a week of more. Could you please tag obvious copyvios with {{Copyvio}} (preferably using the gadget, so that the uploader is warned)? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some obvious copyvios tagged with "no permission" too when they should just be speedied. INeverCry 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures were taken by the son of a degree that would bring them raises ask now Here to delete the pictures. Treatment operators trustees.
These are the pictures:

File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 01.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 02.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 06.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 07.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 08.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 09.jpg

Thanks in advance. נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader requested at he.wiki the deletion of recently created unused files. Neukoln (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alan ^(talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All uploaded files of TheSuperGlow are blatant copyvios. Can someone delete them? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hola: Como puedo hacer para borrar este archivo rigth, llevo varios días tratando de borrarlo pero no puedo. Yo subí la imagen aunque no soy el autor y no me pertenece. Ya existe una versión vectorizada de este dibujo. Gracias. Saludos. --Retaux (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normalmente consideramos la nominación más o menos después de una semana. Probablemente alguien va a tratar con el caso hoy o mañana. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Retaux: te he dejado un comentario en la solicitud de borrado. El borrado queda pendiente de respuesta. Alan ^(talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the last month, there have been several files deleted as copyvio, because they were using the same copyvio eagle as File:Grand Duchy of Finland COA.svg and File:Tsar's banner of the kingdom of Congress Poland.jpg. This last file shows that the eagle have been simply vectorised from a 2003 Italian ex-libris: http://cs409524.vk.me/v409524916/6ec4/225ObnzNn-4.jpg . The vector version used in the deleted files seems to have first been added on commons in a bunch of imperial Russia coat of arms. These files have recently been updated and the incriminated eagle has been removed. The copyvio elements remain, however, in the revision history of the following files. In order to end this case, these copyvio revisions should be deleted. Could an admin take care of cleaning the revision histories of these files :

• in File:Lesser CoA of the empire of Russia.svg, keep only 00:07, 2 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 23:25, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the empress Maria Alexandrovna of Russia.svg, keep only 23:27, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia.svg, 23:32, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the empress Maria Fiodorovna of Russia.svg, keep only 23:30, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the grand duke tsesarevitch.svg, keep only 05:43, 26 January 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the younger sons of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 23:04, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the daughters of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 22:04, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the elder son of the grand duke tsesarevitch.svg, keep only 05:47, 26 January 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the grandsons of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 23:10, 1 February 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the granddaughters of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 22:21, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the granddaughters of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 22:02, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the great grandsons of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 23:15, 1 February 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the great granddaughters of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 22:19, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the great granddaughters of the emperor of Russia.svg, keep only 21:55, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princes of the blood of Russia (4th generation).svg, keep only 23:19, 1 February 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the princesses of the blood of Russia (4th generation).svg, keep only 22:16, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princesses of the blood of Russia (4th generation).svg, keep only 21:59, 1 February 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the princes of Russia (5th generation).svg, keep only 22:14, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princes of Russia (5th generation).svg, keep only 05:55, 26 January 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the princesses of Russia (5th generation).svg, keep only 22:10, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princesses of Russia (5th generation).svg, keep only 21:58, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of Charlotte of Württemberg as grand duchess.svg, keep only 22:46, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of maria nikolaievna of Russia (1856).svg, keep only 04:58, 2 February 2014
• in File:Great Coat of Arms of Maria Nikolaïevna de Russie (1819-1876).svg, keep only 05:00, 2 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the Grand-duke Konstantin Nikolaievich of Russia.svg, keep only 22:38, 1 February 2014
• in File:Personnal CoA of the Grand-duke Konstantin Nikolaievich of Russia (1858).svg, keep only 22:36, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the Grand-duke Nikolai Nikolaievich of Russia.svg, keep only 22:32, 1 February 2014
• in File:Personnal CoA of the Grand-duke Nikolai Nikolaievich of Russia.svg, keep only 22:30, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the Grand-duke Mikhail Nikolaievich of Russia.svg, keep only 22:28, 1 February 2014
• in File:CoA of the dukes of Leuchtenberg, princes Romanovsky (1852-1974).svg, keep only 22:23, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princes Romanovsky.svg, keep only 05:51, 26 January 2014
• in File:Greater CoA of the princesses Romanovska.svg, keep only 23:35, 1 February 2014
• in File:Lesser CoA of the princesses Romanovska.svg, keep only 22:25, 1 February 2014

and

• in File:Great Coat of Arms of Congress Poland.svg, remove only 05:32, 5 December 2012

Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathisma (talk • contribs) 15:23, February 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 11:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename to "Antoni Macierewicz signature" (now is uncorectly - "MaciArewicz"). Lowdown (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You can use {{Rename}} for future requests. INeverCry 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

After the response of the WMF Board of Trustees, we must raise the mass restoration of all deleted images by the URAA.

Letters

• Wikimedia Israel.
• Wikimedia Spain.

Response

• Wikimedia Foundation, Board of trustees.

The position of the WMF BoT is clear, don't delete anything at the moment.

Regards, --Alan ^(talk) 16:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support the restoration of the files that have been deleted so far Poco² 18:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the Board of Trustees is not "don't delete anything"; it's "we are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion." That's a pretty passive non-recommendation, different from "we recommend that no deletions are made" and very far from "we are recommending restoration of deleted files." —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The board recommends deleting images after a DMCA takedown notice is received. Doesn't that mean they advise that deletions that were not triggered by a DMCA takedown notice were premature -- a mistake? If they were premature mistakes, why should't we correct them? Geo Swan (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - I agree with LX. We should not take this as carte blanche to upload URAA-violating files either, because that's not what the statement says. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral Oppose Don't delete anything does not mean restore right now. —레비Revi 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC) / Changing to oppose after reading comments below, —레비Revi 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If the BoT don't recomended to take mass deletion I consider that the Commons Community should restore all the deletions until the problem is perfectly clear. --Elisardojm (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per LX, as the statement is not recommending restoration, merely restraint in mass deletions going forward. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The damage produced because the deletions of the image is too big and there isn,t legal issues keeping them in Commons Ezarateesteban 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Se borró de manera preventiva, sin que hubiera requerimiento legal de hacerlo. Solicito la restauración de las imágenes. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral I would atleast support discontinuing URAA deletions and DRs until we're more clear on what the board's position is. INeverCry 03:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The statement is pretty supportive of keeping URAA-affected images, much better than last year analysis, so yes. Yann (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose "Not continuing deletions" ≠ "Restore everything deleted". The core basis of this proposal is patently flawed. -FASTILY 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The response was pretty clear that "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice"; many (most?) of the images were deleted regardless of that consideration and that's why they should be restored or reconsidered. --CyberXRef^☎ 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per LX. But I am with INC and the board to not undertake mass deletion of URAA copyright restored material. On the other hand, we must not encourage uploading these to Commons. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support stopping useless DRs + restoring files. But I suggest to have images identified as having URAA issues be clearly marked with an URAA warning template. --Denniss (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support As Laura has said, it's a case of preemptive deletion. My oppinion is that no file should be deleted if any other option is available. All afected files that have been deleted should be restored. We cannot let files be lost just because nobody shouted stop! fast enough. B25es (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support We can't accept "preventive deletion" without a legal requirement Tramullas (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Without a legal requirement - Is U.S. law not a legal requirement? -- Rillke^(q?) 11:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In US, of course, yes. In the rest of countries, at this moment, no. Anyway, Do yo accept that US laws can be applied to every contributor of Wikipedia/Commons in any location of the world? Tramullas

That's irrelevant; there are no copyvios that are copyvios in every location of the world. There are places in the world where it's still legal to post the latest Hollywood movie. We constantly delete stuff from the EU that's out of copyright in the majority of the world, which is still life+60 or less.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose The Board's statement still places confidence in the Legal team's statement last year, which says (in part): "The community should evaluate each potentially affected work [...] and remove works that are clearly infringing." Neither mass restorations nor mass deletions are appropriate. --Avenue (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What they realy say is: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA". Please do not try to be more righteous than the pope. Hanay (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I agree with B25es. Dorieo (homerízate) 18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Should be restored until a final decision is made. --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose "Do not continue mass deletions" does not really mean "please mass restore". Taivo (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose of course. The WMF has told us several times that all files hosted must be free in the U.S. And now we should ignore the URAA? A U.S. law, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court? Just because the WMF doesn't like it? Come on! Why not ignore other parts of copyright laws, too? Why not ignore copyright altogether? Upload to your heart's desire and let the foundation remove things when a DMCA takedown request comes in. If that's really what people want, we should stop pretending the Commons was a repository of free media and be honest about it having become a repository hosting whatever we can get away with. We're already playing a stupid game of picking the law that is most favorable to us and just ignoring any others, and doing so inconsistently even. Let's not make it even worse. Lupo 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support the restoration of the files that have been deleted so far --El Pantera (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  SupportAll the pictures should be restored. Do not delete any more pictures. I realy did not understood the eager to delete pictures that according to the previous owner the copyright had been expired. Hanay (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - I think the best thing is to freeze any URAA action (deletion or restoring) until we have clear policy. Commons is not a yoyo. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support There is not a copyrights infrigment in these photos and they are useful. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support חיים 7 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support same as Hanay. Kooritza (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support; (I am using this as a case in point; there are many other similar ones); A large number of files such as that were deleted even after strong indication they were in PD (such as released by the Israeli Gov). The response says "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice." Many photos were deleted without this consideration, there were no actual knowledge of infringement, and furthermore there were no valid DMCA takedown notices. It is for this reason that they should be restored. In the rare case that a DMCA or an infringement is shown, then and only then we should act on these individual files. We, as community volunteers, are not lawyers (and certainly not lawyers for the WMF). You shouldn't interpret laws in the strictest literal sense, and certainly not to your own detriment. The WMF certainly evaluated the risks and that's their reply. This is not the place for people's opinion regarding the law, it's the actions the we need to take to be aligned with the WMF BoT. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support restoration of deleted files, regards, Nurick (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Platonides (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support עידן ד (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support We need this pictures! Israel it's not USA! FireSky (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the USA is not Israel, and the USA is the place where the WMF is headquartered and therefore the law they have to follow.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what! Commons serve the community all over the world. You are not a lawyer, and the board said that it is ok by them. Do not try to be more righteous than the pope. Hanay (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support מישהי שאיכפת לה (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Lupo and Taivo. Some supporters straight above = meatpuppets? --A.Savin 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Carlos (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose @CyberXRef If this is not the case for people's opinions on the law, then huge numbers of files should be undeleted, as we continue to delete files under non-US law that the WMF doesn't concern itself with. In any case, this opinion simply does not say that we should undelete anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me stand by the URAA. Remember that virtually everything published prior to 1989 outside the US was out of copyright in the US, and the URAA was forced on the US by non-US nations to restore copyright to those works. The lack of the rule of the shorter term is not part of the URAA--it is part of long-standing US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright and IP issues are extremely complicated. I think I speak for a large fraction of people here, who can't remember what you asked us to remember above, because we never knew it in the first place. What is the significance of 1989? How is "shorter term" part of "long-standing US law". Is there a document on commons that explain this history? A wikipedia article? If not, would you consider opening a thread on the talk page, explaining it to those of us who don't know this history? Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. —RP88 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Supportאודלן (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support B1mbo (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - we must apply the law. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the copyright concept is to grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution, Here the creator such as the state of Israel says: The copyrights of the pictures were expired., and everyone can use them all over the world as he pleased. You are here trying to interpret the law in order to help countries and foundation that do not ask for your help and do not need it. It is amazing to see that governments that usually are more conservative are saying: it is ok, and users here that they are part of the free knowledge movements, saying no. There is no risk to keep the pictures, only a good things for the common good. Hanay (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support As said above - deleting these pictures makes no sense. I agree with user: Hanay above. אבנר (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Itzike (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Restore all images, until a particular image receives a specific DMCA takedown notice. 6.7 billion non-American people should not be affected by an extremist interpretation of an intra-American affair. ליאור (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Same as Hanay - all the pictures should be restored and the deletion of more pictures must stop immediately. Liadmalone (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In case people wonder why so many Hebrew users vote on this topic, it's brought under the attention of the hewiki users here. Trijnstel_talk 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Crocsh (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I don't agree with the interpretation of the law, if the images are from israel so their copyrights should be too. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I fear means are making us lose focus on the outcome: the way Commons has "pre-emptively" implemented URAA is hurting our mission more than helping it advance. The prudent policy being proposed by the Foundation would allow us to comply with legal conditions and yet protect hundreds of thousands of free educational contents from becoming "pre-emptively" unavailable. --Galio (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support These pics have great historic value, and it's important to restore them. רדיומן (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support As in Israel the law permits the usage of the pictures they should not be deleted only because the server is in the U.S.--Yoavd (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Ykantor (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support We are here to provide information, and not to hide it. דוד שי (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support like דוד שי+ These are all free photos. There is no problem with the photos only with the Host. One may consider changing the location of the host. Assayas (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I think it's time to set a precedent where the Movement and its communities define opening up data as a default policy, and not trying to think of every way possible to not open data. We have nothing to prove by deleting those photos, only what to gain by restoring. NLIGuy (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The purpose of the copyrights are to save the rights of the creator. If the rights are granted to a state and by this state's rules the copyrights were expired, I don't see a reason why to delete them. Shannen doh (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support In this case there is no danger of copyrights infringement whatsoever. These photos are free for use universally. Oyoyoy (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Same as Hanay. איתן96 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support . Danny-w (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. not only stop delete picture but restore all deleted picture. Yona B. (t) 07:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Gilgamesh (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) the same as Hanay 07:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support of course. GuySh (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. not only stop delete picture but restore all deleted picture.בן נחום (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A comment to user Trijnstel first - of course many users of the He Wiki vote here as according to the current interpretation of some admins here, ALL PD photos from Israel (from 1946 till 1996) have to be removed/deleted from Commons. If this seems reasonable for some it makes no sense to me. I spent many hours of uploading images to Commons and putting them in cats' instead of uploading all of them directly to the Hebrew Wiki. I currently feel quite stupid following the recommendations given at that time by Commons. If this irrational pre-emptive approach does not stop soon, i'm afraid the result will be having very few images from Israel in commons left, and i don't think this is the aim commons was erected for. By the way, this URAA issue affect surely many other countries beside IL. Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Kippi70: since when is this a vote page? Natuur12 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course this matter concern many countries see Category:URAA-related deletion requests and see how many pictures were deleted from many many many... countries. Hanay (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • • That is not what I asked. I asked: since when is this a vote page? Arguments are important, input is important but just a support without arguments is quite pointless since this is not a vote. Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • This isn't a vote, this here is a farce. Most supporters obviously have been summoned here and most "arguments" are just babble like "Deletion is evil" or "Israel is not USA". --A.Savin 11:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a farce. This matter was discussed a lot in he:wik Village pump, and users were very angry about the deletion of important historical pictures of the state of Israel that was done by few here without raise this matter first before to the community As you can see above wikomedia Israel sent a letter to the BoT. When it was published last night in the village pump that there is a discussion here on this matter, of course users enter here to express their opinion. Unfortunatly not every one ןit easy for him to express himself in English so it is easier for them to say the same as. It is also not easy for me to express myself in English. But what they thinks it is matter and the community here should listen. Hanay (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is so important, why are we still deleting files that are completely public domain in the country where the WMF is headquartered? Whether or not they are under copyright in France,Israel,etc., is completely irrelevant. Why is it so important that we restore works that illegal for us to host while still deleting works that aren't illegal for us to host?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ¿The position of the BoT is "just" an opinion? Do not try to be more righteous than the pope. --Aleposta (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Delete these pictures doesn't make sense. We, which are in charge for accessibility to knowledge, and information, should not behave, as, dry technocrats , when it comes to such a treasure. Ariel Palmon 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Previous deletions of these images are not in accordance with the new statement of the BoT. The images should be restored and further deletions per URAA should only be considered if a valid complaint or DMCA takedown notice is received. The position of the WMF was made very clear in this statement and Commons, as it serves all other Wikimedia projects, should comply with this position. • Yael (Meronim) • 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support All the pictures should be restored. Do not delete any more pictures. I do not understood the eager to delete pictures that according to the previous owner the copyright had been expired Ovedc (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support *I looked at Golan vs. Ashcroft, and in the introduction it is written that the case is about trying to strike down the relevant part of the " Uruguay Round Agreements Act" saying that "Congress has extended copyright restoration automatically to all foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States if, among other things, (a) the work "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection."[1]
  So, if I understand this correctly, the case is relevant to files that are not in the public domain in their source countries, but that had their source been in the US should have been freed to the public domain. But here we are talking about files that are in the public domain in their source countries! So I really can't understand why they were deleted in the first place? It looks to me that deleting those file was an unreasonable interpretation of the ruling, therefor those files should be retrieved immediately. Eman (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support As far as I understand from the Board of Trustees statement, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally covered keeping those files and deleting them onny if a valid DCMA takedown notice is received. Therefore, the images should not be deleted. Barcex (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Commons should not follow court decision so fanatically. PD is PD, and one decision can't change it. Netanel h (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral However I'm pretty dispointed by WMES and WMIL who decided to bypass the communities contributing to the different Wikimedia projects. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre, WMES and WMIL only expressed his opinion as chapters of Wikimedia. The opinion of the community is now trying. Cheers, Alan ^(talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think when you want to enforce/add/change the licensing policy of one project, you probably should involve the community of said project first. If the problem is local to IL or NL the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and exemption doctrine can be used on local wikipedia not movement wide. Well this is my vision of how the movement should work and I can accept that yours is different, however I want to point it out. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - As said above - deleting these pictures makes no sense. I agree with user: Hanay above. Danny-w (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I am often as annoyed by the URAA law as anybody else: I not to upload images that break URAA law, but also do not go out of my way to find such images. The most annoying part of the law is that makes some uploads possible only by elite group of users that can figure them out. To do everything by the book, {{PD-1996}} now requires a "reason" that should require an essay on why the work was PD in the country of origin on some date. That said I agree with user:Lupo and others that we do not cherry-pick laws. Is URAA is the law of the land than if we want to claim that images are in PD than they need to also follow URAA rules, no mather how ridiculos they are. However we should lobby to change the law, or at least make people more aware of the issues related to it. We can have something on the subject on the wikipedia and commons main pages, we could add information on the wikipedia pages that use graphics affected by the rule. Non English wikipedias like Wikimedia Israel or Wikimedia Spain could work on making their population and government aware of how the law affects the works of PD authors from Israel and Spain. They can make US government aware about unpopularity of the law, or at least help in future negotiations. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The letter from WMF says: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices." It is my impression that a very large fraction of those images that might be challenged under a naive, surface, interpretation of URAA, would actually be unequivocally PD, if looked at in detail. Didn't the USA use to require copyright holders to file paperwork, and pay renewal fees, in order to retain their initial copyright beyond 28 years? Isn't this how "It's a Wonderful Life", "Old Yeller", and thousands of other fine films entered the public domain? How many foreigners would have bothered paying an agent to go through this onerous paperwork? And yet, if I am not mistaken, if they didn't do so, those photos would unequivocally be public domain without regard to the URAA. Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the law says that even in the case that the work entered public domain because the copyright was not renewed, the copyright is restored anyway. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I agree with user: Hanay above, there is no sense in deleting these files . אור שפירא (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I am unsure such a straw poll on the AN is a good way to reach a consensus on this very complex and polarising topic of enforcing the URAA. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are aware of previous attempts to "reach a consensus on this very complex and polarising topic of enforcing the URAA" would you consider linking to them here? How did they work out? Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some background on the URAA, links to earlier discussion, etc. is available at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. More can be gleaned from the page history and discussion page. —RP88 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Files that are free in their source countries are free, regardless of the rules in the countries where Wikimedia servers resides. This is pretty obvious! You go by the laws of the country where the pictures were taken. בורה בורה (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment according to Commons:SCOPE#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country, if different: see Commons:Licensing. Please read commons policy's before commenting on this page. Arguments like VS is not Israel or it is in the public domain in it's source country are not valid arguments here according to the policy. See also: Commons:Licensing/nl#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law Natuur12 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Should be restored until a final decision is made. also i dont think that wikipedia should be Exclusively an american project, and Talmoryair (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment It is very sad that people oppose this benign proposal, inspite of the unambiguous WMF board support for this. Did you even read the board statement? Yann (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing edit war on that file page an a related discussion at the talk page. Does there any evidence that "this woman smoking crack from a glass pipe." Otherwise it should be simply "a woman smoking". Jee 03:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crack-smoking mayor Rob Ford's adventures have provided an education on how to distinguish when a drug pipe is being used to smoke crack. According to reporters who sought out experts, to smoke crack, the experienced user puts the drug is in the pipe, and heats the pipe with a flame held below. Smoking tobacco, marijuana or hashish, the experienced user puts the flame above the pipe.

I don't know where experienced drug users place the flame when using a crack pipe to smoke heroin or methamphetamines, or the new "bath salts". Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]