Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Category:Copyright violations…

… requires admins' attention. It currently contains over 300 files, the oldest of which have been unprocessed two or three weeks. Quick1984 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Reduced by two-third. Sorting out Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by The Media Expert would help. Yann (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Amazing Commons haven't faced legal action already. Any other platform taking more than 72 hours to respond would have faced fines Trade (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

To respond to what? If the WMF gets a DMCA notice, then they have to respond and they do. They don't have to respond to anything else. As long as it's third parties that are uploading the files, the DMCA is a pretty complete shield, beyond a willful blindness that is way beyond anything Commons is doing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion requests File Zhuravlev.jpg

User Yann (talk · contribs) groundlessly accused me of trolling Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhuravlev.jpg. I think this is a violation of the rule COM:AGF. I previously contacted him on the discussion page to find out his motivations for keeping the file. You ignored my message. And he ignored my survey. I had no choice but to initiate the official deletion procedure. In addition, the user summed up the first result without evaluating the arguments. We still don't know why the year of creation is listed as 1940. We don't know the publication date. Although in the second nomination he refers to a criterion that requires a specific publication date to be established. He also believes that the lack of an author's name indicates the work is anonymous, which is contrary to Russian law (see: ). Thus, he makes conclusions without any real knowledge of the law, which may lead to copyright infringement. — Redboston 11:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, This user repeatedly asks about the this deletion, but as far as I can tell, they didn't even read the license. So unless Redboston provides more information which makes this license invalid, e.g. an author, this is just trolling. Yann (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I've read the license and know Russian copyright law quite well. You can verify this by checking the number of times I've been nominated files for deletion . And most of those files have been deleted. But reading the license is not enough; you also need to understand what is written there and relate it to the circumstances. And you can't explain why you think it's possible to apply this license to the file. Although before the nomination, I asked about it first on the file's discussion page, then on the user's discussion page, and waited quite a long time for a response. But I didn't receive one. — Redboston 07:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

With this position, we are currently not completely sure that the file complies with the stated license. — Redboston 08:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Please also note that it is not my responsibility to provide author information ("So unless Redboston provides more information which makes this license invalid, e.g. an author...", see COM:PRP, № 4). It is the uploader's responsibility to provide sufficient information to prove that the file is indeed in the public domain (see COM:EVID). And if Yann decides to keep the file, he should check this information and make sure it's accurate. But I don't understand how he checked the license. And for my attempt to find out his reasons, his motivation, he now blames me. — Redboston 08:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I support Yann and counter-propose that Redboston be blocked for spewing nonsense at administrators. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

We still don't know why the year of creation is listed as 1940, we can narrow it down though, as, per the file description, his uniform badges indicate that he had the rank of "полковник" at the time when the photograph was taken. The ruwiki article doesn't directly mention when he was promoted to полковник but it mentions his rank three times in connection with a specific date. Going by that, he got the rank on 25 July 1942 at the latest. The next highest rank to полковник is "генерал-майор". He was promoted to that rank on 22 February 1944. With this we can at least with certainty say that the photo was taken before 1944. Nakonana (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Would you accept "probably between 25 July 1942 and 22 February 1944"? Surely there were official records which could have helped narrow it down further.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh we actually can narrow it down further by looking at the uniform: the Soviet Union didn't use shoulder badges as rank insignia for a while and reintroduced them in January 1943. Instead they used the collar badges visible in the photo. Even more interesting is the fact that there were two changes between 1935 and 1943 for how the collar badges of a полковник looked like: from 1935 to 1940 a полковник had three vertical stripes on the collar (just like we can see in the photo, or in this overview: File:Red Army Rank insignias 1935-1940.jpg), after that and until the reintroduction of shoulder badges, a полковник had four vertical stripes (+ a sign for the type of unit they belong to) (see ru:Воинские звания и знаки различия РККА 1940—1943#Знаки различия командного и начальствующего составов Красной Армии и ВМФ СССР на начало 1941 года). So, this is a pre-Great Patriotic War uniform with 1935–1940 rank insignia. Nakonana (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And maybe even further: Soviet military personnel, upon rank promotion, had to have a standardized portrait photograph of them taken for use in their military identity card. That's probably what this photograph is. Nakonana (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

According to this 1939 photograph, he held the rank of major (one rank below colonel). So the photograph was taken in 1939 or 1940. Now we need to find out when this photograph was published. — Redboston 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This kind of picture is not taken for fun, but to be published on official documents. Thanks a lot to Nakonana for the detailed research. Redboston: That's what you should have done before contesting the DR. Yann (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Which article of Russian law indicates that the use of a photograph in a document constitutes publication? If this is so, then where is your evidence (not a hypothesis!) that this is actually a photograph from a document? And I remind you once again that proving the photograph's license status is the responsibility of the uploader. I am not obligated to do this work for other participants. When you saved this photo, you shared that burden with the uploader. — Redboston 05:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redboston: Superiors the world over review official documents regularly as part of performance reviews. Official photos attached to those documents are published to those superiors as parts of those reviews, and to subordinates and peers for recognition purposes. In the cases of high-ranking military people, such photos are also published by press information offices of the militaries they serve, and in Russia by state organs. {{PD-Russia-1996}} applies. If it wasn't published, how did https://voynablog.ru/2013/06/17/tri-nedeli-polkovnika-zhuravlyova/ and https://rodina-history.ru/2025/03/05/tri-nedeli-polkovnika-zhuravlyova.html get it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

These are just assumptions. Wikimedia Commons rules clearly state that evidence is required. What we have to do is not find a plausible hypothesis as to why photography might be free, but rather prove it. And it's not me who should do this. This should be done by those who uploaded the file and those who advocate for its keeping. "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is (not maybe!) in the public domain or is properly licensed..." Nakonana suggested that it could have been a photo from an ID card (Удостоверение личности начальствующего состава Красной Армии). But why do you think that changing a military rank requires changing the photo or the ID card? As far as I know, when changing a military rank, they simply make a note. That's all. For example see , , etc. So if you think that the photo was published by press information offices why someone can't provide information about this publication? I can tell you where the author of the article could have get the photo (although I am not obliged to prove this). Military personnel have personal files (for example, in a military unit or in the Ministry of Defense). Placing a photograph to a personal files does not constitute publication (see atricle 1268 of the Civil code of Russia). This use of the photograph is a limited and service (not for public). After finishing military service, this photo was received to some archive or museum. I did not find this photo on official web catalog website which contains all the museum exhibits from Russian museums . There is information about the hero on website pamyat-naroda.ru . There we can read that documents about him are in the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defence (TsAMO, Центральный архив Министерства обороны Российской Федерации, ЦАМО). The author of this article is a researcher at a military museum. As part of his research, he may have accessed the archive and got the documents. The author of page https://voynablog.ru/2013/06/17/tri-nedeli-polkovnika-zhuravlyova/ simply stole the text and photos from the previous article. Now let's think about it: could Zhuravlev have taken this photo to send to his wife? Can you prove it isn't? — Redboston 16:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• then where is your evidence (not a hypothesis!) that this is actually a photograph from a document?

It's just the most likliest scenario because back in 1939–1940 photocameras were not readily available to the average person. A lot of people had never or hardly ever a photo taken of them due to the lack of availability (and probably due to the price of taking a photo). And if they had a photo taken then it was most likely for an ID document or it was a family portrait.

• Now let's think about it: could Zhuravlev have taken this photo to send to his wife? Can you prove it isn't?

Why would he need to send it to his wife? The photo was taken in peace times and he was working as a teacher in a military academy. I would assume he was living with his wife at the time and that his wife saw him every day when he came home from the academy. The Great Patriotic War didn't start until 1941. But he wouldn't be wearing 1935–1940 rank insignia for a photo in 1941.

• I can tell you where the author of the article could have get the photo
• As part of his research, he may have accessed the archive and got the documents.

The source is stated in the article — the photo is an exhibit of the Volgograd Panorama Museum: "В экспозиции волгоградского музея-панорамы выставлена фотография полковника Константина Андреевича Журавлёва и его награда - орден Отечественной войны I степени." The museum and its permanent exhibition opened in 1985.

• when changing a military rank, they simply make a note. That's all. For example see [10], [11]

The second link doesn't have a photo to see whether there's a mismatch between the noted down rank and the rank insignia on the uniform. And as for the first link, the photo is too blurry for my small phone screen to figure out the rank insignia on the uniform.

In modern times at least in the personal file (личное дело) the photo has to be replaced upon rank promotion: "При присвоении очередного специального звания фотокарточка заменяется." And given that Kazakhstan has similar rules, I assume that it was adopted from Soviet times. Nakonana (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the museum's collection contains this one photo. There are 1 and 2 photoes in the museum (and the order). At link 11 we see two records for different ranks (младший лейтенант; лейтенант). And although the photo is torn out, we see only one seal that is placed on the photo. That is, there was only one photo and it wasnt changed. Let's also read point 2 of the rules for using the ID (, ): «Удостоверение личности выдаётся оеннослужащему отдельной частью (учреждением) за подписью её командира (начальника) и действительно на всё время состояния военнослужащего в списках части (учреждения), указанной в удостоверении» (there is no need to change your ID when you change your rank). Now about your links. Firstly, they're not about military personnel. Secondly, this order became invalid in 2021 . The difference between military IDs and Ministry of Justice IDs is that the 1st can use as a passport, while the 2nd is a service ID (see w:ru:Документы, удостоверяющие личность в Российской Федерации or ). And a few more laws. "Удостоверение выдается военнослужащим из состава офицеров, прапорщиков и мичманов в индивидуальном порядке под роспись в документе по учету бланков удостоверения на период пребывания военнослужащего на военной службе" . "Удостоверение личности является бессрочным и действительно на время нахождения военнослужащего на военной службе" (In addition, the ID has forms for indicating new military ranks) . — Redboston 21:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I didn’t notice that you wrote about a personal file, not about identity document. — Redboston 21:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Does "personal file" here mean "personnel file"? Or am I misunderstanding, and you are saying the file is someone's private property? - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes: personnel file, personal file, personal record, employee's record, service record. Something like this. — Redboston 05:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Reminder to all that COM:PCP refers to "significant doubt" (emphasis mine). No, the uploader is not required to provide "proof" for the copyright status of each file, though of course they are considered responsible to get it right, and a track record of often getting it wrong will get them in trouble. (As far as I can think, I've never provided "proof" that my photography is my own, nor can I readily imagine how I would prove such a thing.) If doubts are raised, then the question becomes whether those doubts are "significant", and it's part of the admins' role to decide that question. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to prove your authorship because the Berne Convention of 1886 established the presumption of authorship (article 15). — Redboston 22:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Rename my file

A few days ago I uploaded this file as part of the WikiPandu activity organized by Wikisource Indonesia but when I created an article on idwikisource it resulted in an error caused by the file name not being appropriate therefore I asked for help from the Commons administrator to change the file title to this file. Regards 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 06:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Badak Jawa: Hi, and welcome. You may use our RenameLink gadget or {{Rename}} to request a rename.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. The file has been provided with a template by @Cgjkldn, but currently, there has been no action taken by the Commons administrators to change the name. Therefore, I am following up on this page. Regarding the gadget you are referring to, I do not yet meet the requirements to be a filemover 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 14:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Aafi 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Badak Jawa: You don't have to be a filemover to use the gadget to add {{Rename}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Already done - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)