Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive. Closed requests (older than 8 hours) will be archived at 12:00am (UTC). Currently 23 requests (12 waiting for archival).

• File:'Surf', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1940, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
• File:'Menemsha Bight' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1928.jpg
• File:'Menehune with Fish' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1936.jpg
• File:'Menehune on Surfboard' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1924.jpg
• File:'Hills of Baguio' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1931.jpg
• File:'Pele' by D. Howard Hitchcock, c. 1929.jpg

These are all photographs of paintings by the American artist D. Howard Hitchcock, who died in 1943. The only book on this artist (Maxon, Helen Hitchcock, D. Howard Hitchcock, Islander, Honolulu, Topgallant Pub. Co) was published in 1987, so it has no bearing on whether the works are public domain. A review of more general books on art of Hawaii at the library of the Honolulu Museum of Art did not did find any of these works published from March 2, 1989 through 2002. Therefore, they are public domain. Hiart (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If any of these works were included in the 1987 book then those works are copyrighted until at least 1/1/2048. (That assumes that the book had the proper copyright notice, which virtually all books from that era did.)

Works first published after 2002 are copyrighted for 70 years pma and would be, as you say, PD for an artist who died in 1943.

However, you do not speak to the question of publication before 1989. If any of the works appeared in books or were on exhibit in places where photographs or other copies were permitted, then they are not PD unless you can show that the appropriate notice and renewal were not present. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support restoration of File:'Menehune on Surfboard' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1924.jpg on January 1st;  Weak oppose on the rest which were probably published before 1989 and could have been published the year of their debut. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Abzeronow, copyright runs for 95 years after publication, not creation, so in order for the 1924 work to be PD this week, it must have been published in 1924. That may be the case, but, much more likely, if the work went into a private collection, it would not have been the case. I say "much more likely" because few works by minor artists are published at all. Proof of publication is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that particular painting when I do a websearch but D. Howard Hitchcock was an established artist by 1924 and he did exhibitions in Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1924. I can understand the need for caution, I think it's a little unreasonable to require affirmative proof that it was published in 1924. Perhaps @Hiart: could share with us if they know if that particular painting was exhibited to the public in 1924. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell you whether these paintings were exhibited in the 1920s. However, most museums, including the museums in Hawaii, did not permit photography at that time.Hiart (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I usually have no problems assuming publication around the time it was made, unless there is specific documentation of some kind to suggest that something remained unpublished (such as still being in possession of heirs). Paintings are particularly difficult in this regard, as they could more easily remain unpublished. The wiki article does mention a painting of his being donated by his son in 1966, so some paintings were (though that painting was put on public display in a national park, so became PD at that point). On the other hand, if there was no copyright notice, it became PD immediately on publication anytime before 1989. So to not be PD, it would have to be published 1989 or later, and before 2003 (unless there was a copyright notice, in which case we would have a known year to search for renewals, but presumably that would be visible on the painting). I could see using the {{PD-US}} tag to indicate some uncertainty over how we think it's PD, but to me it not being PD is more of a theoretical doubt than a significant doubt, unless there is some more concrete evidence. I don't see any records with his name online at www.copyright.gov, and with a google search on his name and "catalog of copyright entries" I only see some stuff he illustrated in 1906, so it doesn't seem likely there are any renewals, which would make anything published before 1964 OK. And stuff published afterwards would need a copyright notice, with the sole exception being first published from 1989-2002, which seems like a very unlikely scenario, as he was a reasonably well-known artist in his lifetime from the sounds of it. If any of his works were unpublished as of 2003, they became PD in 2014, as publication no longer matters after that date. As always, better information is helpful, but we can also delete if better information comes to light. I guess the main question is if the 1987 book can be considered to be the first publication, so many years after he died. Did the book mention "never before seen" or anything like that, or any source information at all? That is probably the only realistic chance, and not sure that rises to a significant doubt. We seem to have hundreds of paintings by this artist already uploaded; not sure what would make these particular ones special. Seems like they were deleted in 2013 as they were the only post-1923 ones at the time, so there was a presumption of publication at the time of making for the rest. I'd  Support the 1924 one, and probably the others too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment@Jameslwoodward: Whether you still oppose Abzeronow or not, the fourth one is already restored, so let's discuss the rest, please? Okay? And thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 DR basically only targeted the post-1923 paintings Commons:Deletion requests/D. Howard Hitchcock, two of which were undeleted for being 1924 paintings. Since some of these aren't in the DR, I could post the files directly in the Undelete in 20XX pages if we decide to hold off on undeleting the rest. Carl's information could be persuasive enough to decide to undelete the rest. Then again, I can see the wisdom in holding off until each date opens up in the U.S. public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the 1924 works are OK. Like Carl, I'm ambivalent about the later works. I wouldn't restore them myself, but I won't jump up and down if someone else does. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am  Neutral about them. Ankry (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support There seems to be no consensus here, with a majority favoring undeletion. When there is no unequivocal violation of Wikipedia rules, or applicable law, files should never have been deleted in the first place.Wmpearl (talk)

The author of this painting is unknown, but not the art studio where it was made : Bogaerts Bruxelles (the Belgian branch of the Dutch parent company Peinture Bogaerts). The painting has been signed Bogaerts Bruxelles. So, the signature Bogaerts does not refer to an individual artist, but refers to the art studio/workshop where it was made. Therefore the painting is actually anonymous; the actual painter can not be traced. Anonymous works from 1900 - 1902 are in public domain because of their age. --Ronny MG (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronny MG: , bedoel je dit schilderij? :-) Lotje (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, het signatuur linksonderaan luidt Bogaerts Bruxelles, wat duidelijk verwijst naar een atelier, niet naar een individueel kunstschilder. Anders zou Bogaerts vooraf gegaan zijn door minstens de eerste letter (hoofdletter) van een voornaam.--Ronny MG (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Het komt wel goed. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant  Oppose. It's not anonymous, it's a painting by Hubert Bogaerts. Commons can accept works from named authors that we don't have the death date 120 years from creation, so I'd support restoration in 2023. Abzeronow (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are two real possibilities here and one incorrect one:

First possibility, this is the work of Hubert Bogaerts. If that is the case, then, since we do not know his death date, PRP requires that we assume that he lived to a reasonable old age. He was born in 1869, so if he lived past age 80, this is still under copyright.

Second possibility, this is the work of his studio. If that is the case, then the work is under copyright until 70 years after the death of the last member of the studio to die. That is surely later than 1949.

Third, incorrect, possibility, this is an anonymous work. This is incorrect because the fact that we do not know the names of the studio members, does not make this "anonymous". In copyright law, the fact that a work's creator is unknown does not make it an anonymous work. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the work qualifies as "anonymous". In that case the work becomes PD 70 years after it was first lawfully communicated to the public. However, it is entirely possible that this work was not published until it appeared here. At the original DR, Ronny MG says,

"By the way, I published the image with permission of the recent owner, who I know personally."

That implies that the painting is now in private hands, which makes it very unlikely that it has ever been owned by an institution and unlikely that it has ever been published. If we consider this possibility (as Ronny MG asks above), then publication before 1949 must be proven.

Thus, whichever of the three possibilities we assume, the work cannot be kept on Commons for at least ten years (first possibility) or much longer in the second and third cases. The only way the image could be restored sooner is if it were proven to have been published before 1949 either in a book or magazine or by exhibition in a public place where copying was permitted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the work of the studio, then it's not "the last member of the studio to die" -- it's anonymous. The human author had to be named. Publication without attribution is anonymous publication, and it has apparently been signed explicitly with a corporate mark, not human author. The "latest to die" is only for a joint work, i.e. where multiple people are documented as having contributed expression. The fact of someone simply working at the company is irrelevant. If that is the case, then the EU term is 70 years from publication (or actually "communication to the public", which is a much easier standard to obtain), or if never published, then 70 years from creation. For the U.S., the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. For an identified human author though, we do need to know the death date. I do find some references of Hubert Bogaerts living at Karlsruherstrasse 14, Berlin-Halensee, and filing a number of patents (usually relating to printing or oil painting, and noting he was a Dutch citizen). The last dates I see from there are 1933 or maybe 1934, so he lived at least that long. So if we are pretty sure he was the author (as opposed to say his brother Henri, who apparently owned the firm and died I think in 1933), perhaps waiting until 2023 would be best (120 years after creation, {{PD-old-assumed}}), unless we can find a death date. If we think it's anonymous though, that it could have been done by any employee of the studio (or even that the author was not identified within the anonymous copyright term), I think it's fine. Dutch law explicitly says the term is the anonymous term when the human author is not actually named on copies communicated to the public, unless the author identified themselves within the 70 year term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria Bogaerts (Hubert Bogaerts) was one of four brothers who owned the Dutch company Peinture Bogaerts. In April 1900 he travelled to Brussels to establish a Belgian branch in that city, Bogaerts Bruxelles or Portretten Bogaerts in Dutch or Portraits Bogaerts in French. The names Portretten Bogaerts and Portraits Bogaerts were very frequently mentionned at the top of commercial advertisements in Belgian newspapers, e.g. in the city of Kortrijk between October 1902 and February 1903, where my own great-grandfather (Jan Tremmery) was a representative/salesman of Hubert Bogaerts. Commissionned by Hubert Bogaerts, Jan Tremmery in his store in Kortrijk held permanent exhibitions of oilpaintings made by Bogaerts Bruxelles in order to sell them to the public (beeldbank.kortrijk.be). As far as I know, Bogaerts Bruxelles was the only branch of Peinture Bogaerts in Belgium and my great-grandfather the only representative/salesman in Belgium. On each oilpainting made in Brussels, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles of the art studio was mentionned, but never the name of an individual artist, making each painting anonymous. Bogaerts Bruxelles stopped its activities at the end of December 1902, when Hubert Bogaerts travelled back to the Netherlands (Boxtel), certainly due to the death of his father Henricus Adrianus Bogaerts (Henri Bogaerts sr.). In the Netherlands, Peinture Bogaerts stayed active until at least 1938. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Ronny MG claims here: "The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist", but elsewhere he claims the opposite, see here. He even changed the maker's name on September 24, 2019 and requested to change the name of the file with the name of the creator "Hubert Bogaerts". Gouwenaar (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Bogaerts being the maker of the painting was just a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts who was in Belgium between April 1900 and December 1902, the period wherein the painting was made ... Fact remains that the name 'Hubert Bogaerts' is not the signature on the painting, the signature is Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly refering to the studio ... Whichever artist working for Bogaerts' studio could have made the painting, so, obviously, due to the absence of the name of an individual artist as signature on the painting, the painting is anonymous. Here Taivo (a Wikipedia administrator) maintains in Commons another painting made by the same studio, it has the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles and it has the same age [1] :

'Behouden, as much as I understand, here 3 Bogaerts all worked in same workshop and signed their works as Bogaerts. Under such circumstances I have feeling, that signature "Bogaerts" does not mean artist, but workshop, and the painting is actually anonymous, because you cannot trace the actual painter. Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age. Taivo (Overleg) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)'

--Ronny MG (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion "Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age" is simply wrong. Under Dutch law, unpublished anonymous works are under copyright and remain under copyright until 70 years after publication. Under US law, works by unknown authors unpublished before 2003 remain under copyright until 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first.

This work is apparently in private hands, which strongly suggests that it was unpublished until it was first uploaded here. It might have appeared in an auction catalog or a book before now, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, Jim, paintings are usually published on year of creation. The opposite would be very unusual and such claim needs some evidence. I wanted to say "Anonymous works published in 1902 are in public domain due to age". Taivo (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the Netherlands (like all EU countries), if anonymous works are not communicated to to the public (or published) within 70 years after creation, copyright expires. There is no infinite copyright for unpublished works. In the Netherlands, it would have had to been first communicated to the public between 1950 and 1972 to still be under copyright as an anonymous work -- which is highly unlikely, and extremely theoretical. If it has never been communicated to the public, it is PD in the Netherlands (and the rest of the EU), though not the United States. "Communication to the public" includes public display, so if these were displayed in the store, that likely counted. Most likely, it was published at the time, which would make it PD in the US. The Netherlands does have a clause stating that copies without the naming the author are anonymous, unless the pseudonym leaves no doubt to the authorship (which may be the case here) or the author makes themselves known before the 70 year period is up, in which case it becomes 70pma. Although, it sounds like Belgium may be the country of origin, which doesn't have that explicit "copies with names on them" clause, but otherwise is the same. If "Bogaerts Bruxelles" can be taken as a pseudonym for Hubert Bogaerts though, it could be 70pma, which gets us into the question if we can take PD-old-assumed. If we know of works pre-1900 for him, we would technically allow those under PD-old-assumed, and then it becomes a little silly keeping some of his works based on assumed date of death but not others. On the other hand, living to 80 isn't all that unlikely either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you simply dismiss the conclusion and the decision of another Wikipedia-administrator (Taivo) ? Do you realize, you being a Wikipedia administrator too, that this means Wikipedia contradicts itself ... ? The simple fact that a Wikipedia-administrator retained in Commons a painting with signature Bogaerts Bruxelles dated 1900 -1902 for reasons of anonymity, implies/demands that any other painting (e.g. the painting presenting Georges Rutten) with the same characteristics also has to be retained in Commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made some interwikilinks, to make it easier. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ (Jameslwoodward) : I can proove that the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles publicly exhibited the paintings that it made. I quote an article in the Belgian newspaper Gazette Van Kortrijk from 4th September 1902 : 'Wij lezen in "Le Patriote" : De zoo beklagensweerdige wed. van Lucas Meyer heeft deze dagen de tentoonstelling van geschilderde kunstportretten van M. Bogaerts, in de Bergstraat No 20, te Brussel, met een bezoek vereerd.' The translation Dutch into English from the words in bold : ' ... the exhibition of painted art portraits from Mister Bogaerts, Bergstraat No. 20, in Brussels, ...' Here [2] is a link to the article (click on the article to enlarge). --Ronny MG (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also inclined to believe that the painting was published/lawfully communicated to the public in 1902. I also think COM:PCP would have us treat Hubert Bogaerts as the author. And absent a death date for him, we should wait until 2023 when Commons policy would allow us to restore the painting. But I can also be convinced by Taivo's argument. Abzeronow (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because Hubert Bogaerts was one of the owners of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles that he was the author of the painting. His full name is not mentionned on the painting. Wichever artpainter in service of Bogaerts' workshop could have been the actual maker. Apparantly, they were asked to sign their paintings with the name of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles. If the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Guido Gezelle is compared with the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Georges Rutten, we clearly see that the handwritings differ considerably from one another, indicating two different persons/artpainters. --Ronny MG (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper piece says only that two or more paintings were exhibited. It does not say that this painting was exhibited. That does not get us past "no significant doubt" which is our standard of proof. Also note that it does not speak of paintings from the workshop, but rather "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" so, again, you are trying to have it both ways == the painting is a work of Bogaerts and the painting is by the workshop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Taivo passed "no significant doubt" by keeping the portrait of Guido Gezelle in Commons. This portrait has exactly the same characteristics as the portrait of Georges Rutten : it has exactly the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles, so it was made by exactly the same workshop and it has exactly the same age. So, if Wikipedia is consistent, then it also has to undelete the portrait of Georges Rutten in Commons.--Ronny MG (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) You didn't read the whole article. I quote the last paragraph : 'N.B. Wij vernemen dat op het laatste van deze maand de portretten der Boerengeneraals en dit van president Krüger zullen tentoongesteld worden bij de vertegenwoordiger van het huis Bogaerts, ... The part in bold translated from Dutch into English : ... will be exhibited at the representative of the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, not Mister Bogaerts. With "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" the newspaper of course meant art portraits made by the workshop owned by Mister Bogaerts ... The name The House Bogaerts is mentionned in a number of articles/advertisements in Belgian newspapers, 2) The company Peinture Bogaerts always exhibited every new painting at the shops of its representatives, mostly newspaper stores in the Netherlands, in Belgium in the store of my great-grandfather J. Tremmery-Jacqueloot in the city of Kortrijk (see below in the article), and in the workshop in Brussels, 3) I'm not trying to have it both ways. I said earlier that Hubert Bogaerts being the author is a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts in Belgium at that time, 4) fact remains that the signature on the painting is Bogaerts Bruxelles representing the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, the signature is not Hubert Bogaerts, making the painting anonymous and while the work was published in 1902 it is in public domain due to age, as your colleague Wikipedia-administrator Taivo very correctly concluded. --Ronny MG (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here : [3] an advertisement that also mentions the House Bogaerts from Brussels (hence the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles - in French - on the paintings presenting Guido Gezelle and Georges Rutten) and the repeated exhibition of the portraits the workshop made. I quote the advertisement published in the Belgian newspaper Gazette van Kortrijk (29th June 1902, amongst other dates), first paragraph : 'Ik heb de eer het publiek te melden dat ik, het huis Bogaerts van Brussel voor geschilderde kunstportretten vertegenwoordigende eene eerste tentoonstelling van portretten die alle maanden zal veranderd worden, zal openen op Zaterdag 5 Juli aanstaande, ...' Translated to English : 'I have the honor to inform the public that I, representing the House Bogaerts from Brussels for painted artportraits shall open a first exhibition of portraits that will be changed every month on Saturday the 5th of July upcoming, ...' I quote the third paragraph : Het Huis Bogaerts aanveerdt geene orders voor Kortrijk en geheel het arrondissement zonder tussenkomst van zijnen vertegenwoordiger. Translated to English : The House Bogaerts doesn't accept orders for Kortrijk and the whole district without intervention from its representative'. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.189.240.35 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this document out there, a very in-depth researching of a Gezelle portrait, which had the same signature, and was definitively attributed to Hubert Boegarts. I assume that was written by Ronny MG ? Does sound like they did exhibit many of their paintings in the store, and also had another exhibition of many of them in Kortrijk in 1902. I don't see any reason to doubt that was communicated to the public at the time. Asking for full publication history is never realistic -- there is no indication it was kept private then, rather there are indications to the contrary. However, that would also make Belgium the country of origin. The copyright rules are very similar, except it does not have the Netherlands explicit clause where copies without a natural person actually named should have the anonymous term. Instead, the Belgian law says However, where the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the foregoing subparagraph [70 years from making available to the public], the term of protection of the work shall be that laid down in paragraph (1) [70 pma]. If there is some doubt as to the author, then it seems like it had the anonymous term, and it expired long ago (as did US copyright), and it's fine. If there is "no doubt" that Hubert Boegarts is the author though, and that fact was known at the time (as possibly shown by the Gezelle research), then the term is 70pma and we only have a birth year of 1869, though the US copyright is still fine. Not sure we have come up with a guideline on that, though PD-old-assumed would want to wait for 120 years from creation, which is three years away.

Does seem as though Hubert moved around some. He was in Brussels in 1902, then I guess moved back to Boxtel. This 1905 patent for "Process of Producing Copies of Oil Paintings" was filed by "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, residing at Burgakker, Boxtel" which I would have to assume is the same person. Found others from 1907 and 1908, also living at Boxtel. There is also a 1917 patent for "Processes of Manufacturing Reproductions of Paintings, Maps, Wall-Papers with Relievo-Patterns", credited to "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, and residing at Berlin-Halensee, Germany", which would seem to be the same person again. They were still living there for this 1927 patent of "Method of Producing Oil Paintings" filed in 1927, and the last one I could find was this 1933 patent, also filed in Germany in 1932, so seems like he was still living there then. Did find mention of a patent assignment in Canada to "Sydney Hayden and David Hayden, both of London, England, assignees of Hubert Bogaerts, Berlin Halensee, Germany, 8th May, 1934". Very hard to say how long he lived, though there are indications the Dutch company was still going in 1938, per your paper.

I think the US copyright is fine, so this could at least be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-US-expired. The question is the Belgian copyright -- does it qualify for the "no doubt" clause of being authored by Hubert (and we would be better waiting for the PD-old-assumed tag to apply), or if there is some doubt that would leave it with the anonymous/pseudonymous term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower left corner of the painting of Georges Rutten. Here : [4] on page 16, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower right corner of the painting of Guido Gezelle. These signatures, although referring to the very same workshop, clearly represent two different artists. The first artist had a finer handwriting and put the signature in the lower left corner, the second artist had a much more robust handwriting and put the signature in the lower right corner. The signature on the Georges Rutten painting runs diagonally, whereas the signature on the Guido Gezelle painting runs almost horizontal. This indicates at least two artists in the workshop and we don't know if one of the handwritings is that of Hubert Bogaerts. These facts, together with the absence of an individual name on the paintings, emphasize that the paintings are anonymous. And again, it's illogical/inconsistent to retain in commons the one painting, and to delete the other one, knowing that both paintings were made by the very same workshop and knowing that they have the same age. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronny MG: Thanks for the links on the signatures. Hm. Placement of the signature and even angle doesn't always mean much -- have seen artists vary those in the past. I'm not a handwriting expert... I'm not sure I'm convinced either way. Not sure I see elements that definitely show a different hand, but also far from convinced they are the same person. Hm. Well, I guess the law says there needs to be "no doubt" as to the identity to qualify for 70pma, so if there was some possibility of another hand working there, that would make it the 70 year anonymous term, so I guess I'd lean  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again,  Keep is only logical, because the Gezelle painting, made by the very same workshop as the Rutten painting in the very same period, has been kept in commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, on page 32 below a picture of the Peinture Bogaerts workshop in Boxtel (Netherlands, where is was active from 1891 till 1938) with clearly several artists working. Peinture Bogaerts always worked with a team of artists, because the company's activity was production of art-reproductions, based on photographs and/or on existing paintings. So, the same (several artists in service) goes for the branch Bogaerts Bruxelles in Brussels as well, making the paintings anonymous. --Ronny MG (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When eventually a decision is gonna be made on this topic ? --Ronny MG (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No strict date. And I am not even sure that a decision will be taken. To take a decision you need and admin that is convinced and a consensus. I am not familiar enough with Dutch law to judge here, so I am  Neutral. Also, I see no clear consensus whether this work should be considered anonymous or not. I will not act here. We must wait for a decision of another admin. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be so difficult ? I said earlier that another painting (representing Guido Gezelle) made by exactly the same workshop as the painting representing Georges Rutten and having exactly the same age as the painting representing Georges Rutten, has been approved in Commons. So, again, if Wikipedia is consistent, then the painting representing Georges Rutten logically must be undeleted. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does Wikipedia have to do with this? And neither Commons nor Wikipedia are consistent. It is so difficult because it is hard, which is part of the reason it is inconsistent and anything making decisions about the real world will be inconsistent about marginal cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approving one painting and deleting the other one while both paintings originate from the same workshop and have the same age has nothing to do with what you said above, it's called inconsistency, nothing more, nothing less. --Ronny MG (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and fixing that inconsistency would take O(n³) operations on n files, with verifying consistency not being a cheap operation. The US Copyright Office, the criminal justice system, pretty much all human system do not claim absolute consistency, because getting things done is more important, (the criminal justice system in the US literally promises a speedy trial and no double jeopardy, making this consistency impossible) and because no matter how you could have tried to ensure consistency, the unhappy side will argue you weren't consistent, because no two cases are exactly the same. Inconsistency is a reality, no matter how much it upsets you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

' ... no two cases are exactly the same.' Then tell me why two paintings from the same workshop, with the same workshop-signature and having the same age are 'not exactly the same', why the one of the two paintings with both the same characteristics is ok concerning 'copyright' and the other one isn't. --Ronny MG (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image is designed and published by the official documents of Nantou County, a Taiwanese local government. It belongs to public domain according to Taiwanese Copyright Law, but it was deleted in last November without any discussion. I applied an undeletion request for it and people had discussed for one month. As discussion recorded in the archive, only one user keeps disagreeing with undeletion. So, this file should have been recovered based on the discussion. However, the admin closed last discussion without any reason for rejecting to undelete the file. Please kindly to recover the file of File:Flag of Nantou County.svg. Thank you.--Akira123 ^talk 15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akira123: As this is copyright related case, feel free to convince users with LR or admin permission (or other users who are known to work in copyright related fields in Commons) to give some feedback here. No such user supported the previous request, one opposed. And we need a consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: The discussion / argument of previous request finally focused on {{GWOIA}} a valid license or not. People even opened a DR to discuss it. We can see that as that DR discussion at least two people known to work in copyright related fields in Commons support to keep {{GWOIA}} a valid license. Thus, I think the previous UDR request should be pending and waiting for the final decision of DR for {{GWOIA}}. Logically, if {{GWOIA}} is judged a valid license at last, File:Flag of Nantou County.svg should be recovered because the reason to delete it is no longer existing.--Akira123 ^talk 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well,  On hold for a decision in this DR. Ankry (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Helmuth Weidling 1945May02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:346 big.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helmuth Weidling 1945May02.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:346 big.jpg

1945 Russian image. Source listed is Russian state archive. Worth discussing if this has entered the public domain or not. (I think the second file should be renamed if restored) Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, was the author and/or uploader participated the Eastern Front or not? If yes, then  still oppose because of course you have to wait for more 4 years to see its public domain status. If not, then  Support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this image is that we know nothing about its author and the only information about source is "Russian State Archive". I found no pre-2005 publication of this image (so it may be copyrighted till 2075 if anonymous(?)). Also, higher resolution of this photo is available on the net; if this is PD (I do not claim that it is), then why even bother with a lower-res. one? Ankry (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly point to these files not being public domain yet. Should I use 120-year rule on these if no other information on these comes forth? Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair. Ankry (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shot of gameplay used is from a piece of software which is available for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKangeroo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyingKangeroo: Just because a game is free-to-play, doesn't mean the entirety of the software and illustrations have been released under a particular free license, which is what is required for Commons. GMG^talk 20:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Screenshot of Butterfly Soup: From the source code of the Linux version: "This program contains free software licensed under a number of licenses, including the GNU Lesser Public License. A complete list of software is available at http://www.renpy.org/doc/html/license.html." Thuresson (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of Ren'Py are derived from code that is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, so Ren'Py games must be distributed in a manner that satisfies the LGPL. --FlyingKangeroo (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak support But somebody should identify which exactly of the licenses listed applies to this screenshot. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Ankry, FlyingKangeroo, and Thuresson: no suggestions of a free license at https://brianna-lei.itch.io/butterfly-soup. The engine is open source, but the engine (as I understand it) runs a game script (story etc) which loads assets. (like sounds and images) Modifications to the engine would have to be made available under a free license, but the games, as far as I can tell, do not. And even if they did: there doesn't appear to be a free license at https://brianna-lei.itch.io/butterfly-soup. If the engine would require all games to be released with an open license (which I don't believe it does), that doesn't mean any games using it are automatically freely licensed. The developer would have to release their work under a compatible license. If they don't, they would be violating the license terms but their work would not become freely licensed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

undelete file, theres a surplus of gay pictures of fellatio and very little depictions of heterosexual acts. --JigsawDelusionFake (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that is a strong enough reason for it to be in scope.  Neutral on your request right now  Oppose per below, uploader's request for deletion shouldn't be overturned. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose File deleted per uploader request which was made on the same day when they uploaded it. We can assume, that it was uploaded accidentally and that we, actually, have no valid license for it. Ankry (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Procedural oppose Although I disagree that we have anything that comes close to the surplus of male-on-male fallatio images, I do agree that looking at Commons it appears that at least 99% of humanity must be asexual. Primal insticts are eating and having sex, so I would expect there to be approximately the same ammount of media depicting both. Having said that, contemporary society in many regions sees outward expression of sexuality as shameful, and an individual shown may receive harrassment as the result of appearing on a site as popular as Commons. Therefore, it is very appropriate for the community to seek to increase its surplus of the media in that particular category in the way that does not cause such negative effects. So undeleting an image that has been deleted quickly at the request of an uploader should be denied. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose same as above. The stated reason is "파일을 잘못 업로드함" which according to Google translate means "File uploaded incorrectly", so that may indeed be a file that was uploaded by accident. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Fotothek df rp-a 0010022 Hochkirch-Rodewitz. Windmühle und Gehöft, Aquarell, 1945-46, Malerin aus Lettlan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fotothek df rp-a 0010022 Hochkirch-Rodewitz. Windmühle und Gehöft, Aquarell, 1945-46, Malerin aus Lettlan.jpg

circa 1945/1946 work from Latvia. Would be old enough for {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} now. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, we have no evidence that it was published more than seventy years ago. However, even if 1945 publication could be proven, it still was not PD before the URAA date so, while it may or may not be PD in Latvia, it is certainly not PD in the USA..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia was 50 pma in 1995 per w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights so a 1945 publication would be public domain in the US. The DR and the closing admin both seemed to agree that it would be public domain in Latvia by now, and this is apparently an orphan work so the likelihood of any action in regards to URAA seems infinitesimal if published in 1946. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- I withdraw the second part of my objection above, but we still have no proof of publication -- this could have been sitting in a private collection until recently. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 40
CanonModelID	PowerShot SD300 / Digital IXUS 40 / IXY Digital 50

This is a screenshot that I took from my own YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGP0AwtLb9U). I would like to add it to the section of the page on Collar and Elbow where I describe the modern bouts that took place in August 2019. As a visual record of the first C&E bouts in over a century, I feel an image like this is quite significant.

I would like to request that it is un-deleted. If that isn't possible, please advise on the best way to upload such content (including the correct licence to choose). Thousand Holds (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thousand Holds: This video is not under a free license (standard YouTube license is not free in terms of COM:L). And unless it is under a free license, we need an emailed free license permission from the actual copyright holder of video following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official seal of a Spanish Government institution (Armed Forces). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallace CT (talk • contribs)

@Wallace CT: We are still waiting to your answer to the question from the DR: "Why is this under a free license?" Ankry (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose {{PD-SpanishGov}} lists the limited types of Spanish government works that are free of copyright. Seals and coats of arms are not included in that list. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the logo of the school # 9 in Novograd-Volynsky. I created it with my team. It was created in honor of 8 years of the of our site. I don't think I'm infringing. --Nikita.opanasiuk (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikita.opanasiuk: Maybe, but on-wiki license granting is accepted here only for original, unpublished images. And unpublished logos are considered out of COM:SCOPE. For eny image that has already been published elsewhere, free license permission following COM:OTRS procedure is needed. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gioia Osthoff.jpg

Auch wenn das Foto bei Facebook zu sehen ist, bin ich trotzdem der Urheber und darf es mit Erlaubnis von Gioia Osthoff, der abgebildeten Person, verwenden.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des Fotos "Gioa Osthoff.jpg" (Version gelöscht am 29. Februar 2020 um 16:11 Uhr), da ich der Urheber bin, auch wenn es bei Facebook verwendet wird. Ich verwende dieses Werk auf Wikimedia und Wikipedia mit 100%iger Erlaubnis der abgelichteten Person in deren Einvernehmen.

Reinhard Trinkler --Reinhard Trinkler (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is my work and not stolen from facebook. It is actually nowhere to find in the official internet, so don't fool around with me. I just wrote with the depicted person. I have the full right to use it here on wikimedia and wikipedia. So I advice you to restore the media.

Reinhard Trinkler --Reinhard Trinkler (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Für ein selbst aufgenommenes Foto ist die Auflösung mit 749 × 938 recht niedrig; das spricht eher dafür, dass es von der Facebook-Seite der Abgebildeten entnommen wurde. --Túrelio (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info This photo has Facebook EXIF data. Thuresson (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reinhard Trinkler: Please, upload the original photo from your camera, with complete camera info or follow COM:OTRS procedure where you can prove your authorship. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The photo in question is an official poster for the Korean drama "Unique! Chef Moon" by Channel A. I believe it is for fair use. I attached a news article for your consideration. https://www.news1.kr/articles/?3845205

Thank you

--My sunrays (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is not fair use to make up an image license and place the file in an image repository. See Commons:Fair use. Thuresson (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]