Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
August 1
[edit]August 2
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use --FML 
hi 12:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use --FML hi 12:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Paddy
August 3
[edit]August 4
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images are copyrighted. --Leipnizkeks 06:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The Image:Logo-nasa-800px.png I agree but Image:NASA logo bw.png I don't know... It's very low resolution, I think it is public domain. --FML
hi 08:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) - No, it isn't. You don't achieve a new copyright for setting a picture on low resolution, black/white color and higher contrast. --Leipnizkeks 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Logos are considered fair use, see: Wikipedia:Logos --Munchkinguy 03:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- They are considered fair use for Wikipedia, however this is Commons. Uploading it at WP wouldn't be an issue, however here - it isn't a "free" image. --Mrmiscellanious 03:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
deleted: Image:NASA logo bw.png the other one needs to take out of several article. --Paddy 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted the second one as well, Thuresson 11:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
August 5
[edit]
August 6
[edit]August 7
[edit]Not every photo on a U.S. government website is public domain, because not every photo on U.S. government websites is actually produced by the U.S. government; especially unlikely are images that have German writing on them. There is no specific source given for the image, but in fact it is very easy to guess from the name that it came from http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/zeppelin/LTA8G10.htm which actually specifically credits "DJAirships.net" which apparently is Daniel J. Grossman of [2] (see his email) and the photo is in fact on this page of his. So, it's a 1930s German postcard, and copyrighted unless someone can prove the author of the copyright died more than 70 years ago, which seems unlikely given the time frame.--Pharos 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is a fairy tale. This picture was published around 1935 under KUG copyrightlaw. Its copyright vanished 1955. There was no contact with the modern german copyright law (or even EU-law). Try to start a lawsuit against DJairships and US-Goverment. Have fun.
- Well, it was tagged as a U.S. government photom which was clearly false and that's why I put it here. I don't know about the application of KUG copyright law but looking into modern German copyright law I see the copyright period for photograph lasts for only 50 years after publication, and so I've taken off the deletion notice and replaced the Template:PD-USGov tag with the Template:PD-Germany tag. Pending any contradicting info, I consider this matter to be resolved, and I withdraw my nomination to delete.--Pharos 07:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is not correct: german law make a distinction between "trivial photos" (Lichtbilder, which are free 50 years after publication) und "artistic photos" (Lichtbildwerke, which become PD 70 years after the photographer has died) - see de:Bildrechte for details. The distinction is very blurry, but in recent times, most photos seem to be considered "artistic" per default. As I don't think that this image can be considered trivial, it is quite possible that it is still copyrighted. If the image was published anonymously, the copyright expires 70 years after publication - but before assuming this, a serious attempt to find the author should have been made.
- Regarding the copyright law in general: AFAIK, the modern german copyright laws apply even if the images where made during the Nazi rule or in the Weimar Republic. -- Duesentrieb 13:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly cannot claim competence to distinguish between simple photos and art photos under German copyright law, if such a distinction is rationally possible at all; I'll trust that to your best judgement. What constitues anonymous publication- is it simply not having the photographer's name printed on the postcard? We can presumably inquire about whether credit is given on the postcard and the date of publication from Daniel J. Grossman, the owner of the original web source of www.airships.net.--Pharos 05:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
See now the comprehensive article on anonymous works in de:Anonyme Werke (Urheberrecht). It is necessary that the photographer never has been identified or that he never has put his name on a copy (according to the old version of German Copyright Law which is still in use for pictures made before July 1, 1995 if they were protected according the old version longer than now). --134.130.68.65 23:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC) = --Historiograf 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
August 8
[edit]August 9
[edit]August 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Template:PromPerú and all images tagged with it
The template specifically states that usage of images from their site are for Wikimedia only, which is a non-free license. I don't see how we can have these images on Commons. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unfree licence. -- Infrogmation 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)- Delete Unless clarified as a free licence—has anyone tried to contact the website owner for more information? —JeremyA 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. Uploader asked only for use on Wikipedia, and that's what was granted. Cnyborg 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. I think the user that asked for the original permission is es:Usuario:Manuel González Olaechea y Franco... --Dodo 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS. He has been asked to solve this situation but he has answered (as you can see here if you can read Spanish) that nothing can be done because of the recent changes in the Peruvian government (sic). --Dodo 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. Sadly it's true. I asked him for a way to solve this. He replied saying that the political situation in his country(Perú) is not the best and it's better to wait. Therefore, there are no posibilities to get a suitable license as far as I can see. --Alhen .::··¨ 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. --Ecelan 12:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteSanbec ✉ 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Nilfanion 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
August 11
[edit]August 12
[edit]Variation of Image:Chicago top down view.png uploaded during the featured image process, didn't really turn out well. --SPUI 07:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO you should first talk with both uploaders. Also it seems that you don't notify them of the deletion request. --Avatar 09:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
August 13
[edit]Okay, this is really wierd. The GFDL (see Commons:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License) says
- Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
User:Chamaeleon read the GFDL as part of the Spoken Wikipedia project, but alas, the spoken version is a "verbatim copy" and can't be changed.
Admins: don't delete this file unless a copy has been put at w:Image:GFDL (English).ogg, where it can definitely be kept. dbenbenn | talk 17:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- keep: the GFDL is itself not GFDL (strangely enough), and it is non-free by the definition used on the commons (derivatives are not allowed). But having the GFDL on site is a requirement if we want to publish under that license, for instance we host the full text at the german wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License. I belive a spoken version is important for blind people etc, and may even be a requirement with respect to the accessibility laws in place in the US. So I belive that the GFDL, in any form, is acceptable on the commons, as one of the rare exceptions we have to make, so things do not become absurd. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If we host the text, we can certainly host the sound.--Pharos 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's a special case. Of course the gfdl can't be gfdl (otherwise I could change it to read "all your gfdl are belong to me"). it needs to be clearly marked as such, and protected. Zeimusu 15:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the GFDL requires that when you publish a modification you use a different title. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason for the GFDL itself to not be GFDL. I suppose the Free Software Foundation simply doesn't want the text of the GFDL to be free. Possibly the FSF wants to discourage people from writing their own copyright licenses. dbenbenn | talk 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
August 14
[edit]August 15
[edit]This image is the same as [4].And this site says [5].So we cannot use this image.--Searobin 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- The image is PD under Japanese Copyright Law, so the question here is whether or not the museum can actually impose such a rule. They could charge people for access to the images, but when they've made a PD image available, then as far as I can see there is no valid restriction. Cnyborg 23:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- We have the same problem with Image:Ogata Korin, Wind God2.jpg and Image:Pine Trees.jpg. I'm not a japonese. For me this image is PD. They say this image is not PD , i say this image is PD. It's a very old painting a recent two dimensional reproduction. What we do ? I'm agree to delate it if we are sure that we have no right to use it. I'm oppose to delete it if we don't no. petrus 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that the site says : [6] because lots of 3 dimensional objects can be found on it and this images are not PD. petrus 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- We have the same problem with Image:Ogata Korin, Wind God2.jpg and Image:Pine Trees.jpg. I'm not a japonese. For me this image is PD. They say this image is not PD , i say this image is PD. It's a very old painting a recent two dimensional reproduction. What we do ? I'm agree to delate it if we are sure that we have no right to use it. I'm oppose to delete it if we don't no. petrus 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- It is difficult for me to write in English,but I try. Now I have just been going to request the reply from Tokyo National Museum whether these images can use or not. Would you wait a little longer?Searobin 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The reply came from the Tokyo National Museum. It is a thing that use is not permitted based on ownership that these pictures have not permitted trial based on copyright according to it. In addition, the whole sentence (Japanese) of e-mail was carried here.Thank you.Searobin 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- What is the definition of a work in the Japanese copyright law ? Could a reproduction of a two dimensional work become a new copyrighted work ? Petrus 23:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- The reply became slow. I am asking the Tokyo National Museum again. I want to use this image, too. But, this image is not perfect, because this image is only the half of a folding screen. If we use this image, I want to make this image perfect. So, I want to confirm once again whether it is OK. I know that ownership will not occur in a duplicate thing to the judicial precedent of Japan, and I think that copyright may not exist in this image, too. So I have sent e-mail to the Tokyo National Museum . Searobin 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- E-mail came to me from them. It had written on the mail as follows: Supposing they need deletion, they themselves correspond. Although waited for a while, they are not writing. Therefore, now I withdraw this request.Thank you a lot.Searobin 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
August 16
[edit]
August 17
[edit]August 18
[edit]August 19
[edit]no evidence for PD, probably copyvio --Leipnizkeks 11:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I took the image from the French wikipedia, taking this comment at face value:
- Cette image fait partie du domaine public, soit par ce que son auteur a renoncé à ses droits (copyright), soit parce que ses droits ont expiré. Elle est donc librement diffusable et/ou modifiable, mais ne peut faire l'objet de nouveaux droits d'auteurs
- It was uploaded there by fr:Utilisateur:Sebmoi. Unfortunately, his last edit is more than a year ago, so contacting him may be hard. Gpvos 14:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- All photos need a source who can verify the copyright if this is requested. Without one, this photo should be deleted. Thuresson 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-priere.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-repas-super-team.jpg These images look like self-taken images, all labeled as PD. It seems he (or she) was really there. --Denniss 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- The latter two indeed do, but fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg is a bit vague. Could be scanned or photographed from some bit of publicity. On the other hand, it could just be because of some lossy JPEG postprocessing. Gpvos 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- fr:Image:Frere-roger-de-taize.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-priere.jpg, fr:Image:Taize-repas-super-team.jpg These images look like self-taken images, all labeled as PD. It seems he (or she) was really there. --Denniss 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- All photos need a source who can verify the copyright if this is requested. Without one, this photo should be deleted. Thuresson 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The claim that this photo is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0-de is not at all convincing. The source was given only very roughly by the uploader as http://www.tiermotive.de/ . I was successful and found the original photo there (and changed the source link accordingly). There is no indication of any license with the photo. However in Impressum] it is said that contents of this website are copyrighted. It is allowed to use the photos privatly or for non-commercial teaching purposes. So uploading it in commons seems to be copyvio.
This images is only an example from the uploads of User:Jonathan Hornung. Probably most of the photos he uploaded have the same license problems. --Franz Xaver 01:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, wanted to check his uploads myself. -guety 01:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please, wait with deletion until end of August. According to his talk page on de.wikipedia, Jonathan Hornung is on holiday until Aug 27th. He should have a possiblity to give a statement. --Franz Xaver 14:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
August 20
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Creative Commons "some rights reserved" logo. It is tagged as {{Cc-by-2.5}}, but that appears to be just wishful thinking. Creativecommons.org specifies
- Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The "noted" link indicates that the "some rights" logo is licensed only
- "on the condition that licensee use the mark solely to point to a Creative Commons license or Commons deed on the Creative Commons server or otherwise uses it to describe the Creative Commons license that applies to a particular work; and provided that, to the extent the licensee is using the mark in an online environment, licensee does not alter or remove the hyperlink embedded in such logo as made available on Creative Commons webpage. Creative Commons retains full, unfettered, and sole discretion to revoke this trademark license for any reason whatsoever or for no specified reason."
That is pretty non-free.
I forsee people voting "keep" on this image. I think it's important for the content on the Commons to be as free as possible; we shouldn't have non-free content unless there's a very good reason. In this case, it should be easy enough to replace the logo in copyright tags with some free user-made logo. Graphic artists, get to work!
(Note that the same issue applies to other Creative Commons logos here. I've only listed this one as a test case.) dbenbenn | talk 18:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- You have a point there. I believe the best solution would be if somebody would contribute an alternative logo that WikiCommons can use instead. Thuresson 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have made some logo's. See User:WebBoy/Creative Commons. WebBoy 12:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I changed all instances of Image:Somerights.png and Image:Somerights20.png that I could find to Image:CC SomeRightsReserved.png. For technical reasons, the image should be kept but with a notice that its use has been deprecated. Thuresson 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The time spent making an ugly red notice totally baffles me =____=". It breaks many user pages (including mine) on English Wikipedia as it depends on a template that cannot be changed (without admin priveleges anyway). This is the internet - why not just simply copy that image over here??? That's what I just did, by the way. So you get the best of both worlds - a free version of the creative commons image, without breaking everybody elses' pages. --Mintchocicecream 17:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, WebBoy! Other Creative Commons images that are non-free include
and 
-> 
and 
-> 
and 
-> 
and 
-> 
and 
-> ?
_(Christoph_Schneider,_2004).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(Christoph_Schneider,_2004).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Christoph_Schneider,_2004).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2005-08-15T13:52:00.000Z-Image:Hasegawa_Tohaku,_Pine_Trees.jpg){kind=link}
-2005-09-09T22:25:00.000Z-Image:Hasegawa_Tohaku,_Pine_Trees.jpg){kind=link}
I suggest the easiest thing to do for these is to simply upload your new "CC SA.png" over cc-sa.png, "CC BY.png" over cc-by.png, etc, then delete the old non-free versions. Also, I think the colors are a bit garish. Could we just make them black and white? dbenbenn | talk 14:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I did that with
. The non-free 2004 revision of that image needs to be deleted. Shall I go ahead with the others? dbenbenn | talk 03:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The new images are not language-independent. -- 3247 12:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- We still also have to purge the character sequence "c-r-e-a-t-i-v-e-space-c-o-m-m-o-n-s" because that string ist trademarked, too. (The same is also true for any other character sequence that is a trademark, servicemark, the name of a natural person, the name of a en:legal entity (including countries and municipialities), etc.) -- 3247 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Purge from where? Note that although the media files hosted here can't involve fair use, the text we write has all the usual fair use rights. So I'm certainly allowed to refer to the Creative Commons by name, just as I'm allowed to mention that I don't drink Coca-Cola. dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- The question is not whether we have fair use rights but whether we can create free content if we use them. The character sequence "Creative Commons" can't be used freely because it is trademarked. (Of course, this is not a problem for the GFDL because that license only pertains to copyright.)
- It does not make sense to disallow trademarked images but to allow trademarked text strings, images which contain names, coat of arms, insignia (which are not trademarks but still protected as identifiers) or nazi symbols (the use of which can be a criminal offence)
- It's easy to work around that, too: If the images are stored on the server as parts, they are not trademarked because they parts are not recognizable but they can be re-assembled with HTML/CSS (which is text, so only the trademark-agnostic GFDL applies). -- 3247 11:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Purge from where? Note that although the media files hosted here can't involve fair use, the text we write has all the usual fair use rights. So I'm certainly allowed to refer to the Creative Commons by name, just as I'm allowed to mention that I don't drink Coca-Cola. dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This is more than strange. Of course I strongly advise to stay with the official cc-logos and I'm against the use of selfmade logos. There are good reasons for using some pictures - like copyrighted Wikimedia pictures - or license logos. The logos and licenses of the cc are created with re-recognition in mind. Everyone who ever got in touch with this, see with one solely view of one of the logos, what the license says. At last: should we delete the GFDL from all projects, because it isn't released under a free license? --Avatar 01:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about this: I've made Template:Freelicense (copied above) on the model of Template:Copyright by Wikimedia for all of the material related to free licenses. It is necessary to have this stuff to distribute material under free licenses, even if the logos and texts are not themselves free.--Pharos 01:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to use "this file" to illustrate free-license content, there is a freely licensed alternative. No need for yet another template. Thuresson 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- "It is necessary to have this stuff to distribute material under free licenses". No, it isn't. The only non-free content we're required to have is the GFDL. Anyway, note that the Creative Commons requires that if you display their logo, you "use the mark to point to the Creative Commons homepage, http://creativecommons.org, and only to the Creative Commons homepage." We don't do that: when we display Somerights20.png, it is a link to Image:Somerights20.png, not creativecommons.org. dbenbenn | talk 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It may not be legally necessary but it's practically quite important to use the standard, recognized logos. We explicitly link to the Creative Commons page in every instance, rather than hiding the link in the image, which I think exceeds the requirements. I seriously doubt that the Creative Commons organization objects to this.--Pharos 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a tricky situation. At first look, the practical argument is compelling. The images were made specifically for use in licensing templates like ours, and that's what we use them for. Even if there are minor technicalities with the way we use the images, I'm sure CC would be willing to grant us a special license to use them in exactly this fashion. After all, we're on very good terms.
However, keep in mind than an image on the Commons is instantly available to all other Wikimedia projects. This, too, can be beneficial if they use them only for the illustration of licenses as required. However, see this revision of the English Wikipedia article on Creative Commons as an example that this is not the case. The licenses are used to illustrate articles as well, and for Wikimedia projects without fair use allowances, this may violate their policies. Worse, they have no way (other than reverting) of stopping the images from being used. The situation is not as problematic with the Wikimedia logos, whose use within Wikimedia is uncontroversial.
Again, perhaps a technicality -- how likely is it that Creative Commons would go after us for using their logo in our articles? However, the expectation that Wikimedia Commons provides free content should not be disappointed without good reason. There is also the risk of a slippery slope: Do we make an exception because CC is within our ideological sphere? If so, what other logos could fall under similar conditions?
I am not firmly decided either way. I think the idea of providing free logos without any restriction is cute and potentially beneficial to people who want to use Creative Commons licenses for purposes the Creative Commons project does not approve of (e.g. pornography). However, if we create such alternatives, they should be public domain, not GFDL. Licensing a logo under the incredibly complex and highly problematic GFDL, as is currently the case with Image:CC SA.png et al., is hardly an improvement. Or would you want to attach a copy of the GFDL to your Creative Commons licensed document?
The alternative is to make it absolutely clear in the license description that any use other than in copyright templates is not "free". The above template, with somewhat stronger language, could perhaps do the trick. However, I'm not sure whether this will be enforced.
Lastly, there's always the option of sofware solutions, but other than enabling hotlinking of images on the Commons and using this to refer to the license buttons, I don't see any which could be very quickly implemented.
Absent new arguments, my tentative vote is to replace the buttons with free logos, provided those are released into the public domain.--Eloquence 10:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note that WebBoy multilicensed his logos, GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5-nl. So it isn't necessary to "attach a copy of the GFDL to your Creative Commons licensed document". dbenbenn | talk 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not very knowledgable on copyright law, and hardly ever wander onto the WikiCommons. But I saw that a CC license had a deletion request on, and popped over. I would say, a better option is to just ask Creative Commons if they will give Wiki special permission to not have it link directly to their server. Using the original CC images means a consistency throughout the web, and easy recognisability. Is there anything wrong about the little Share Alike and By Attribution symbols that we have to replace them with a low res "free version"? What's the point in having a CC License symbol also licensed under the GFDL? isn't the CC licesne enough? I said before, I'm not knowledgable on copyright laws, so some of my points may not be totally valid. But I oppose the replacement of original images with "free" ones. - 83.151.204.235 23:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have no social skills, but I've politely contacted CC anyway. Let's see what they have to say. — Xiong熊talk* 05:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
August 21
[edit]
August 22
[edit]
August 23
[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
August 24
[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
August 25
[edit]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
X-Men, Batman and others
[edit]Photos of various issues of Superman, Batman and X-Men. Uploader claims copyright to these works and appear to mean that these are 3D objects, not 2D and hence can be uploaded to WikiCommons. This is still a hugely derivative work if I ever saw one and can not be licensed under a free license. Delete. Thuresson 08:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Vertigo08.jpg Image:Crossover01.jpg Image:Hagar horrível.jpg Image:Batman anual 01.jpg Image:Mangas-variados.jpg Image:Fabulososx-men1.jpg Image:X-men - DAHM.jpg
- Oppose. There is no copy since this is a original artwork and not a direct copy. At least on my country (Brazil) pictures of copyrighted products appears all the time on the media without the needance of the product's author be notified or paid. Sorry if this text sounds weird, I have just few notions of English language.Marc Sena 03:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- An english translation of the Brazilian copyright law from 1998 is available here. Chapter III Article 29 claims that: The express prior authorization of the author of any literary, artistic or scientific work shall be required for any kind of use, such as: I: complete or partial reproduction.... Thuresson
- Delete. The main subject of the images are the 2D cover images, but even if the 3D object angle should hold water, I think Thuresson is right. Brazilian media's alleged practice of ignoring copyright laws shouldn't be a guideline for Commons. Cnyborg 08:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- The Brazilian media doesnt ignore the copyright, because a original photo in 3D is not a "complete or partial reproduction", instead it is a original artwork itself. Photographed from some distance a comicbook is just another 3d object, like this one. The Commons had accepted a comicbook photo previously (see here) --Marc Sena 03:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comments. I would not delete the image Mangas-variados.jpg, because the 3D angle is very clear in it. Concerning the other images, it is true that they seem more like fac-simile, and the 3D idea one can find in Mangas-variados.jpg is absent in them. Please split the section in order people can vote to each image separately. Thanks, --Mschlindwein 02:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- All the images are surrounded for a contrast background with a color (white) different than the comic's color. They also have some degree of angle in comparison with the surface (tough little).Marc Sena 05:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Please note: fotographs of 3D objects are not simple reproductions, the photographer generally has rights to the results. But this does not mean that the creator of the object does not have rights to the resulting photograph too! I.e. pictures of copyrighted sculpures, fugures, etc are not free without the permission of the creator. Note that such images may be used (depending on context and local jurisdiction) under some form of the fair use clause by news media, etc - but fair use is not applicable on the commons (we are a media database, there is no editorial context), and is explicitely declared to be non-acceptable by the Commons:Licensing policy. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Quote from Commons:Licensing:
- "For a picture of artwork (also book covers and the like), it is similar:
- The creator of the original artwork has rights to the results.
- The photographer has rights to the image."
- Delete -- 3247 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
But, on this case, was the entreprise that made this object notified about the upload of this photo, or even Disney? Where information about this can be found?Marc Sena 03:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- This seems kind of ridiculous. Every consumer object was made by someone else. Why should Disney have any greater right to a photo of a Donald Duck figurine or Marvel to a photo of an X-Men comic book than Craftsman has to a photo of one of its hammers or Mazda has to a photo of one of its cars? They have a right to the use and licensing of the characters and the names but Wikimedia is not responsible for the misuse of photos on Commons. If I pull a character or logo out of a Commons photo and put it on my products, I'm the one who is guilty of violating the logo owner's rights, not Wikimedia for making it possible. --Tysto 16:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- "There are other images which violate copyright or registered designs" is not a valid excuse. Making hammers is typically not a creative jobs, so they are not protected by copyright (and not registerable as designs). Mazda cars might be protected as a registered designs (US: design patents). -- 3247 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The seven days are gone. Can I delete the tags? --Marc Sena 04:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sure keep. Who are the crazy to use these images (in 3D and low resolution) for sale? --FML hi 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear copyvio problems. They would be derivative no matter how you slice it, whether or not the slight angle and blurriness woudl give you some slight claims to "originality". --Fastfission 13:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a photo. The Marvel Comics is not a Photo Gallery. So, how could I have copied one of its works? The situation of the Donald Ducks's Photo wasn't explaned. Was the Disney Inc. informed about the picture? I could not see any "originality" on that. --Marc Sena 03:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- No support for these puppies. I looked about half of these photos. I'll duck the copyvio issue entirely and say they are all of poor technical quality, period. — Xiong熊talk* 06:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
August 26
[edit]
August 27
[edit]
August 28
[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cerroavila.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
29 August
[edit]
August 30
[edit]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no notice about the Agreement of publishment of the 2 woman. Because of the "right on the own image", this is committing (german: Es wurde nicht geschrieben, dass die Frauen mit der Veröffendlichung einverstanden waren. Aufgrund des Rechtes am eigenen Bild ist dies zwingend notwendig). --DaB 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Mostly pictures of people he knows well. I doubt very much, that the people are not aware of the fact, that he put them publicly on flicker. On the contrary I assume that they are very much aware of the fact that they are public on flickr under the CC-BY-SA license. He seems to share them there with all those people on the pictures. Speculation is not good in this case so mail him and ask. Everything else is a tedious discussion that leads to nothing, --Paddy 14:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Look at they, I think they probably argee to be photographed, do not delete. (sorry for bad english) --194.2.91.222 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe they agreed to be photographed, but I'm sure they didn't agree to their picture being published on a website and released for free use. --Fb78 20:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo has a license, verifiable source and is probably useful to a Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. There are privacy laws in the US, in Germany (and probably in many other countries) that do not allow the publication of pictures of non-celebrities. It could only be accepted it if they were bystanders when you are taking a picture of something else. It's Wikimedia who is publishing these pictures, so Wikimedia would be the target in a possible lawsuit, as would any newspaper or the like. --Fb78 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Broken link, the correct link of the source is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkrivanek/11155405/
- Well, it was a nice party and everyone was drunk. But anyway: I did not see there a declaration that the photographed women agree to a publication on "flickr.com", other websites such as wikimedia.org and then maybe following print media and so on.
- delete. -- Simplicius 21:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete because of the named reason (Recht am eigenen Bild), even when i am very sad when the pic is deleted --BLueFiSH ?! 00:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's two woman. Where is the bad? --FML hi 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see a possible use for Wikimedia projects. There are better photos to illustrate women, legs, red dresses or parties. --Martinroell 07:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep:Many of the people in this discussion believe that there is a comparable law in the US that demands permission of non-celebrities if you want to take a picture of them. That is wrong. That restriction was not made on purpose. It strenghtens the Freedom of press and democracy. See: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm or google. --Leopard 23:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per my arguments in the section above.//Fred Chess 08:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I informed the photographer about this discussion. --Avatar 19:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete (same as above) --ALE! 08:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
