• Previous talk: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namoroka: Could you please give the picture URL on the Open Minister's Office homepage? All links do not load for me. Yann (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Maybe they are all region-locked. Internet Archive, Archive.is.--Namoroka (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Namoroka per Ox1997cow before, KOGL has several types. Which type of KOGL are you referring to? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are using KOGL Type 1. Please compare it with the File:KOGL 1.svg. It's really small, but you can still differentiate it.--Namoroka (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is similar to a FOP situation. The picture would be OK on Commons, even if a crop might not be. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If it's the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/85567416@N03/37211095091, I would say it's directly in line with Ets-Hokin. Similar to de minimis, cropping to just the label may be an issue (it changes the "underlying work"). Though in this case, the only copyrightable parts of the label are the pictorial representations of the fruit and leaves, so that may be actual de minimis as well. But a pictorial label would still be "incidental" to the photo of the entire bottle regardless, per that ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Lindberg: Yes, that's the file. The other one is this picture. Yann (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Commons applies the principle of Ets-Hokin since almost the beginning of Commons and keeps photos of whole bottles. It used to be specifically mentioned in the page Commons:Casebook (until a user modified the presentation of that page, commenting that they would reinsert it, but apparently they did not reinsert it in the proper section). Once in a while, some users request deletions without being aware of the previous discussions, and some admins have deleted files. The Ets-Hokin case was about a photo of a non-creative whole glass bottle of vodka. The tricky thing has been to try to know where to draw the line when extending the principle to images of other things. Files can probably be kept when they are free images of non-creative whole bottles of something. There doesn't seem to be a reason to distinguish glass bottles of vodka from glass bottles of other beverages, or from plastic bottles. It should probably not be stretched too far to other types of objects or to completely different types of situations. But the two files here are probably ok. Ankry mentioned a good point: although the images are ok, it is a limited exception to the idea that most Commons files are usually more modifiable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.

Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.

Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[3]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico so this must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Foxy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico had a term of 30 years since publication until 1948 for artistic or literary works so the only question is they would be public domain if these are artistic works published before 1918  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photography is art The New Foxy (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this would be an artistic work rather than a scientific work but you're also making an assumption that this photograph was published in 1914. If it were published in 1919, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this probably was published before 1918. Abzeronow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ankry, according to the website cited as the source (archived version), the file seems to have been taken from the book Anales Gráficos de la Historia Militar de México, 1810-1970 published in Mexico in 1973. It doesn't mention whether it is the initial publication of the photo or not though it states that the photo was taken in June 1914. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was first pulished in 1973, it is still copyrighted in Mexico and you need a free license from the photographer's heirs in order to host the photo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mickey mouse is public domain ltbdl (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not completely accurate. The 1928 and 1929 designs of Mickey Mouse and the works that Mickey appeared in from 1928 and 1929 are public domain as well as works that didn't have copyright renewed that are just based on the 1928 and 1929 designs. Several of the photos feature a Mickey Mouse design from 1939. Additionally a few photos have Pooh in his Disney design and Barney the Dinosaur. I see three that I might be able to undelete (I'll have to research Epic Mickey a little) Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a web search seems to indicate that Epic Mickey uses a 1936 design but @RP88: to check on whether I should undelete File:Fan Expo Canada 2016 Epic Mickey IMG 0133.jpg, File:FXC17 Oswald and Mickey cosplay.jpg and File:Mickey Mouse costume.jpg or leave a note on the DR for undeletion of those files in 2032. Abzeronow (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not only do the costumes probably infringe on the Disney copyright, but the image infringes on the copyright for these costumes. That may surprise some people, but remember that until Bridgeman even a photograph of an old painting had its own copyright and a modern painted copy of an old painting certainly has a new copyright of its own. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Candidplatz - Flickr - iEiEi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Candidplatz Subway Station Munich.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 02 810000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 10 378000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Bahnsteig).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Farbgestaltung).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.

Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted for "no permission". Based on the title and timeline I'm assuming this is an image of the organization's current logo. If so, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection as below the US threshold of originality (it's just an outline of California and some words in an unexceptional font). Would like to have undeleted, properly documented, and used at the English Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was deleted because of the griffin in the flag. The griffin is copied from the coat of arms of the city of Rostock which is public domain by German law. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleph Kaph: The griffins are dissimilar, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an exact copy of the outline of the city's griffin but it's very similar. Laying the two shapes over each other shows that there is some distortion but the shape of the tail, the head, the wing and each leg is copied, even the individual pointy ends of the tail, the fur at the lower front leg, or the placement of the pointy ends of the feathers in the wing. The biggest difference is that RFC's griffin is missing the three pointy protrusions to the front.

I don't know if that qualifies the RFC logo as public domain or eligible for Commons, I just wanted to provide a source for the griffin shape as that was named as the reason to delete the file. Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted primarily because of a claim that it was COM:OOS, however there are literally a page on Wikipedia that has been translated to multiple languages regarding Apple Intelligence.
While yes, there has been dispute over the copyright status of the file in question, I stand by the rationale that I laid out in the original deletion request that this is, in fact, a free file. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does the existence of articles on Apple Intelligence make a person's profile image in scope? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We currently do not have any file generated from the Image Playground in particular, it was highlighted by Apple as one of the big features. The main demonstration Apple used was, in fact, to generate images of people from an album. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, Soy Omar Erre, fotógrafo y autor del archivo "Archivo:BALTC POR OMAR ERRE.jpg". Me informé que fue denunciado por derechos de autor, pero quiero aclarar que es de mi autoría. Adjunto enlaces que lo corroboran: https://x.com/om_visuals/status/1891269882722820484 https://www.instagram.com/omar__erre?igsh=MW1tMHlyMXNzMHU3MA== Autorizo el uso de estas imágenes bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 4.0. Quedo a disposición para cualquier consulta. Saludos, Omar Erre--OMAR.ERRE (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bueno, gracias a Ud. Puede confirmar la licencia libre indicando en una página web vinculada, o enviando por correo electrónico la prueba de autoría y licencia por COM:VRT. Salud. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It might be some misunderstanding to delete all my own files (shoot from my personal camera and mobile phone) from a bot request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DangTungDuong. I am photo-reporter fyi, so I met so many people. I got file deletion without any notification, any verification and no answer. Please help me restore those photos for the project. DangTungDuong (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DangTungDuong: There is no bot request. The nomination and deletion were by people. Who is HOA? What does it mean? Yann (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also previously, you uploaded pictures by others without a permission, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dang Tung Duong. How can we trust you? Yann (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. HOA is the name of my camera !!! And all those photos are my photos taken by myself. Tho I already put the cc share on them, didn't I ? DangTungDuong (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I do not believe the uploader. I examined five of the images. Two have no EXIF. The other three were taken with three different cameras -- a Nikon D800E, a Sony ILCE-7M3, and a Canon EOS 80D. These are all expensive cameras -- over $1500 each -- and it would be very unusual for a photographer to own three different, incompatible, high end cameras. Also note that one of the EXIFs calls out "Author=HOA". The uploader claims above "HOA is the name of my camera !!!" -- but the camera is a Sony and that space is for the author, not anything related to the camera. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you help ? I am a new Wiki author. I placed the following file: File:Davy Holden Wiki Page Image.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. It is a photograph of Davy Holden taken by Davy Holden. He completed the required boiler plate copyright text, and emailed this text to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org", on 12 February 2015. The image has been deleted. Can you let me know what I need to do to un-delete it. Thanks, Firbolgfan--Firbolgfan (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose IMO, not a selfie. If and after VRT team accept his authorship and the license, they will undelete the image or request for it. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry point of information. You cannot say for sure this isn't a selfie. On many occasions I've positioned a camera on a wall or a windowsill and delayed it so that I could take my own picture. This could have very easily been the case here. You must not assume that this individual did not take their own picture. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 19:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot say for sure that it is. And a reasonable doubt doesn't allow us to host the imnage per COM:PCP. If this is a selfie, we need an evidence, eg. info about timer settintgs in the original EXIF. Ankry (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* File:Volturian-9 (54310808305).jpg 
* File:Volturian-8 (54310808370).jpg 
* File:Volturian-7 (54310616649).jpg 
* File:Volturian-6 (54309507567).jpg 
* File:Volturian-5 (54309507682).jpg 
* File:Volturian-4 (54310617909).jpg 
* File:Volturian-3 (54310632738).jpg 
* File:Volturian-21 (54309504402).jpg 
* File:Volturian-2 (54310809770).jpg 
* File:Volturian-19 (54310805895).jpg 
* File:Volturian-18 (54310614329).jpg 
* File:Volturian-17 (54310384426).jpg 
* File:Volturian-16 (54310384216).jpg 
* File:Volturian-15 (54310630163).jpg 
* File:Volturian-14 (54310806675).jpg 
* File:Volturian-13 (54310615889).jpg 
* File:Volturian-12 (54309506142).jpg 
* File:Volturian-11 (54310630768).jpg 
* File:Volturian-10 (54310631383).jpg 
* File:Volturian (6) (54310810510).jpg 
* File:Volturian (54309509062).jpg 
* File:Volturian (5) (54310633588).jpg 
* File:Volturian (4) (54310387976).jpg 
* File:Volturian (3) (54310810935).jpg 
* File:Volturian (2) (54309510097).jpg 
* File:Volturian (1b) (54310811260).jpg 
* File:Volturian (1a) (54310619569).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-9 (54310395706).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-8 (54310642683).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-7 (54310642898).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-6 (54309518477).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-5 (54310397001).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-4 (54310628859).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-3 (54309519017).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-24 (54310815590).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-23 (54310624529).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-22 (54310816360).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-21 (54310639718).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-20 (54310393646).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-2 (54309519292).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-19 (54310625354).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-18 (54310394006).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-17 (54310394451).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-16 (54310817110).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-15 (54310817930).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-14 (54310818395).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-13 (54310395131).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-12 (54310641353).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-11 (54310627229).jpg 
* File:Hellcats-10 (54309516997).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (7) (54310821475).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (6) (54309519812).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (54310821595).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (5) (54310630134).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (4) (54310822245).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (2) (54310822305).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (1) (54310645343).jpg 
* File:Hellcats (0) (54310630599).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-9 (54310830660).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-8 (54310408361).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-7 (54310655093).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-6 (54309529742).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-5 (54310655088).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-4 (54310640084).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-34 (54310826260).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-33 (54309524882).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-32 (54310634529).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-31 (54310403251).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-30 (54310635159).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-3 (54310640114).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-29 (54310826765).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-28 (54310635694).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-27 (54310635744).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-26 (54309526242).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-25 (54310636019).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-24 (54310651193).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-23 (54310636619).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-22 (54309526787).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-21 (54310652028).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-20 (54310406021).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-2 (54310640579).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-19 (54310652843).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-18 (54309527867).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-17 (54310652928).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-16 (54309527872).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-15 (54310830910).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-13 (54310407621).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-12 (54310407321).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-11 (54310654503).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown-10 (54310654238).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown (54310409436).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown (2) (54310655703).jpg 
* File:Frozen Crown (1) (54310650398).jpg 

Those images were uploaded by dario.demarco01 to Flickr, and marked as public domain. I uploaded them here with the Flickr-to-Commons tool, marking them with the {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}. For some reason Flickr-to-Commons automatically tags the images as having no license anyway, but I thought that was for an admin to manually review the files (even when we have bots that can do that). But Krd deleted them all, perhaps without checking. If it is needed to manually remove the no license tag after uploading, I will do so and remember that in the future. Cambalachero (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:Roma-foroitalico6.jpg
• File:Roma-foroitalico7.jpg
• File:Roma-foroitalico9.jpg

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR. The it:Complesso natatorio del Foro Italico was inaugurated in 1937 as part of the en:Foro Italico. As already pointed out in this UDR last year, the Foro Italico was commissioned by the en:Opera Nazionale Balilla, the fascist organization for children and youngsters (see here). The italian law considers the defunct fascist organizations as if they were italian public administrations for what regards copyright (see here articles 11 and 29). The Complesso natatorio was commissioned by the ONB to en:Costantino Costantini (see here and here, link to the donwload). Therefore in fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1958.
Within the Complesso natatorio between 1957 and 1960 it was built the en:Stadio Olimpico del Nuoto, used in the 1960 Olympics. This stadium was commissioned by the en:Italian National Olympic Committee to the architects en:Enrico Del Debbio and en:Annibale Vitellozzi (see here, pp. 62-63). The Italian National Olympic Commitee is a public entity since 1942, therefore the swimming stadium fell too under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1981. So, even if the photos depict the newer stadium and not the older structures, they'd be in PD too. In both cases we're talking about buildings built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. As per developments here regarding the outcome of a discussion involving myself and several others, I am requesting the below images be undeleted:

File:John Gacy Pogo December 1976 Martin Zielinski.jpg
File:Willie SteelmanArrestSacramentoNovember1973A.jpg (as can be seen here in this edition of The Daily Intelligencer). The image is on page three.
File:Amy Billig Daytona Beach Morning Herald Coconut Grove 1974. 13 March 1974.jpg (you can see in the masthead of this periodical there is no copyright claim or notice upon the newspaper masthead (image is on page 8-B). Kieronoldham (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image was deleted from Commons by the following notice.

  『 2025年1月25日 (土) 15:18 CommonsDelinker 会話 投稿記録  28,886バイト −46  Yasu によってCommonsから削除された 「地蔵桜縁起」詩碑.jpg を除 
   --Rubicon1215 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)去。理由: per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:「地蔵桜縁起」詩碑.jpg. 取り消し』[reply]

The copyright has been exercised by Ito Kazu for the following reasons. I, Rubicon1215, have been approved by Ito Kazu to use all of Mitani Koichi's works and images under the terms of the “Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license” for uploading to the Wikipedia page: 三谷晃一（詩人）. I would like to request that the deletion of this image be lifted.

• [All image files can be found on URL: https://www.sousiju.com/三谷晃一]

1. Related parties

  A. late poet Mitani Koichi: “三谷晃一”, died in 2005
  B. late Mitani Masako:”三谷正子“,wife of late poet Mitani Koichi, died in 2012
  C. Ms. Ito Kazu: “伊藤和”,editor-in-chief and representative of Monthly town magazine "Machi Koriyama:街こおりやま" (1975-2017) 
    ［https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I000011208366］

2. Relationship between late poet Mitani Koichi and Ito Kazu

  A retired from Fukushima Minpo (editorial director of local newspaper, Fukusima Prefecture) at the age of 53, before the retirement age. He 
  joined to the monthly town magazine "Machi Koriyama". (editor-in-chief and representative C), which was founded by C in 1975, at the same 
  time as the magazine was founded, and worked with C for 30 years until his death in 2005.  For 12 years from 1993 to 2005, he wrote essays 
  "Tensei-jingo " and "Take-sasasa" on town magazines, and supported C until the final draft, issue No.147, just before his death.

3. About poets and copyright 　 In Japan, poets' works generally have little monetary value, and even if a collection of poems is published, it cannot be sold, and

  maintaining copyright often entails expenses, so written copyright inheritance is rarely practiced. Incidentally, A published all of his 
  collections of poems from the first to the ninth during his lifetime at his own expense, without selling them, and gave them away free of 
  charge to acquaintances and friends. A and B have no children, and during their 30 years of public and private relationship, they 
  habitually called C "our daughter". The only person exercising copyright of A is C, an 82-year-old woman as the following facts show.

4. Poetry monument and two cherry blossoms

  The monument tells the story of a farmer who lived in the same village as File-i.  He learned that File-i, which he saw every day, was a 
  descendant of File-h, and believing that there must be many other descendants, he spent his life searching for the descendants of the 
  weeping cherry tree stand alone, identifying 420 trees with large trunks. This monument of File-a is engraved with a poem by A praising the 
  farmer. 
        File-h: "三春滝桜・Miharu-Takisakura ",1000 years old
        File-i: "地蔵桜・Jizou-Sakura",400 years old
  In 2005, A passed away, and in their grief, B and C came together to raise funds and donate to erect the monument in order to pass on A's 
  honor and the farmer’s beautiful ambition to future generations.

５.　Including this monument, C has dedicated her life to protecting A's copyrights, enhancing his achievements and increasing the value of

    his poetry as follows.      

① Erection of Poetry Monument "地蔵桜縁起" in 2005

        File-a: "地蔵桜縁起" Poetry Monument, photo by Rubicon1215
        File-b: "Names of Donors for the Poetry Monument", small stone on the left of File-a
   In the list of donors inscribed in File-b, B is inscribed second from the right and C is inscribed
   fourth. The remaining 14 persons are 2 acquaintances of Rubicon1215, and the remaining 12 are 
   acquaintances of C.  This shows that the monument was built under the approval of the 
   copyright holder B and was built under C’s leadership of her high contribution to fundraising.
   The copyright for the monument is believed to be jointly executed by B and C.

② Publishing Mitani Koichi's essay collection "Tensei-Jingo and Take-sasasa", in 2006

   To mark the first anniversary of A's death in 2005, C published A’s essay collection at her own expense as non-sale items.  Here, C is 
   independently executing the copyright.
        File-c: Cover of Mitani Koichi's essay collection "Tensei-jingo" and "Take-sasasa"
        File-d: Colophon of the essay collection
   On File-d, the colophon indicates [Publisher: Machi Koriyama and non-sale item] 

③ Editing and publishing "Complete Collection of Poems of Koichi Mitani", 2016

        File-e: "Complete Collection of Poems of Koichi Mitani"
        File-f: "Publication Editorial Committee" 
        File-g: 193 "Publication Callers"
   In 2009, four years after B's death, C received a publishing request from the publisher Colesack 
   [4] and the poet Jotaro Wakamatsu [5] who is one of 
   the eminent poets in Fukushima Prefecture.  However, C declined the request because most of A's poetry collections were self-published and 
   there was no hope of sales after publication, which would have resulted in huge expenses. After receiving repeated requests C agreed to 
   publish it. They formed a "publication editorial committee" consisting of the poets and C. The costs of publishing were covered by asking 
   collaborators, known as "Publication Callers" to donate money and in return receive 10 copies of the book (list price 5,000 yen) each.
   The 193 "Publication Callers" of File-g are acquaintances of C who were connected through "Machi Koriyama" and poets mainly in Fukushima 
   Prefecture. The people in the green frame are  acquaintances of Rubicon1215 as well as that of C. The secretariat of the "Publication 
   Editorial Committee" was located in C's office, Machi Koriyama, with C acting as secretary-general and providing the materials necessary 
   for editing and publication. File-g clearly shows that C made dedicated efforts to overcome the financial issues that were the biggest 
   obstacle to publication  by recruiting Callers and effectively exercised her copyright.

④ Regarding the creation of the new Wikipedia entry "三谷晃一（詩人）“ ,2024

   In order for Rubicon1215 to create a new Wikipedia page titled "三谷晃一 (詩人)", C has given Rubicon1215 permission to use all of A's 
   material under C's copyright.  C has participated in the editing of a new Wikipedia page with Rubicon1215.

６. Summary

 C's accomplishments are not limited to those mentioned above, but I think you can see that she has  
 lived a life in which she has shown her admiration for poets through her actions and elevated them to worthy figures in history.
 Since C stopped publishing the town magazine in 2017, she has been actively cooperating with the revitalization of the town until today at 
 the age of 82, and is an extremely capable person who is still contributing to the development of Koriyama City.
         [6] *governmental approval of 
                          NPO . “Koriyama Agricultural School” Kazu Ito as representative. 
         [7]  *one of NPO’s activities 
         [8]　＊Young farmers celebrate birthday 

　　　　　　　　　　　　　 of Kazu Ito.

 A's copyright is inherited and managed by C.  C was deeply involved in the construction of the monument and had executed the copyright. To 
 our regrets C cannot use the Web or the Internet.  Even if proof cannot be provided by documents or emails, I believe that C's actual 
 inheritance and exercise of copyright can be proven by C's name engraved on the stone monument and the multiple documents shown in the 
 attached files.  In light of the above, the posting of the image "地蔵桜縁起" 詩碑.jpg on Wikipedia does not infringe copyright.
 Please understand that C has supported A throughout her life, and has protected the poet's copyright, honor and enhanced his achievements 
 for a total of 50 long years, 30 years before A's death and 20 years since his death until the present, and please restore from Commons 
 deletion.  C's signature will be attached to the business card as proof of C's approval.
        File-j: Business card with C's signature
                                                                                             Sincerely,
                                                                                             Rubicon1215
                                                                                             --Rubicon1215 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is not clear why you think C has the right to freely license the works. She may have published the works, with or without permission of the author, but that does not give her the right to freely license them as required here. Even if she does have the right, you are not her and you cannot act for her. The only way this can be restored is if C herself sends a free license using VRT including evidence that she has the right to freely license the work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Agaton Orosa House1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buildings in the Philippines. However, online sources state that it dates to the 1870s, and is one of the old ancestral houses of w:en:Taal, Batangas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this photo is taken by president khuri office to use it in public websites https://www.aub.edu.lb/President/Pages/about-the-president.aspx

--Abdallah413 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Source site says, "Written permission is needed to copy or disseminate all or part of the materials on the AUB website." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a drawing of an image taken from a body cam. The image was deleted because it is "Derivative work of copyrighted footage". I believe derivative work is for photographs of copyrighted art. I don't believe copyright laws prohibit artists from painting what they see. I am also not sure whether there is full copyright protection for automated bodycam images. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as deleting admin. It was a clear cut case of COM:DW. You could layer the non-free photograph over the painting and it would be reasonable to suspect the artist literally painted over the photo. I checked the VRT ticket, and it's only for the painting, not for the underlying photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also he.wiki thread where Geagea confirms that it's a DW. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 148, VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». See COM:CRT/Mexico#Freedom of panorama for more information.

What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law?

- schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama

Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day.

That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrilo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums.

Wikimedia Commons has several images by Orozco (not uploaded by me) that are portable prints on paper in such techniques as lithography, etching, aquatint, and drypoint. I reckon there must be good reasons for those works to remain in Wikimedia, since those images have not been deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: According to DeviantArt, the host of the image, it is under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits sharing if attribution is provided, which it was. 79.186.173.84 19:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Next time provide a proper source when uploading, not just deviantart. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to copy and paste the same argument for a group of images, you should just consolidate the request into one request so it wastes less of our time and yours. COM:Mexico says 1928 had a copyright term of 30 years from publication of artistic works. 1948 specifically says "All terms became life plus 20 years.[1948 Art.8] Registration no longer required for works first published Jan 14, 1948 or later; six-month grace period to register old works to regain copyright" Now your argument hinges on these being published before Jan. 14, 1948 which we cannot assume AND that Orozco failed to register his old works in time to regain copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Inti Rosso 21-Feb-2025[reply]

This photo belongs to me and I’m free to publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Маша Рева (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]