Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
March 1
[edit]The image is actually tagged {{cc-by-nd-2.0}} at Flickr not {{cc-by-2.0}} as tagged here. This is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. --[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy
Delete as an obvious unfree license. Also, you might wanna fix your signature. ;) Yonatanh 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the author of this picture -- Hedwig in Washington 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete most probably a copyvio. --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio - see this one, for example. --Dodo 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
useless scan, probably a copyvio, cause seems like an off. doc. Speeddelete? -- Hedwig in Washington 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Unknown as of 1 March 2007; not edited for 7 days
Obviously not PD-old, no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the USA. See also Image:Chicago Video art face fountain 2.jpg. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Yonatanh 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, but if you delete this, then check out the whole Category:Video art: the same logic should apply. In which cae, it might be useful to place a warning on the category page saying that only this or that kind of pic will be allowed. – Tintazul talk 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Image:Escupidor.JPG & Image:Millennium-park-wall-squirt-in-chicago-ill-usa.jpg represent the same work of art. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not understand the reason for deletion, what does "no freedom of panorama" mean exactly? Thanks. Regards--Sergio 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama is a legal concept existing in some countries which allow you to take a photograph of a copyrighted building/artwork standing on public space (which is the case here) without infringing the architect/artist's copyright. Unfortunately, this concept does not apply for sculptures in the USA. Thus, Image:Chicago Video art face fountain 1.jpg and the other pictures representing the same work of art are copyvios. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Therefore, I understand that Image:Escupidor.JPG needs to be deleted as well (sad news, I am the author and liked that picture a lot....but such is life). Regards!--Sergio 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
All deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted cartoon characters, no free licensing possible --89.56.212.12 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete See above, and there is no permission of the creator of the poster either. (BTW: These are not comic or cartoon characters.) --80.129.91.187 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: derivative work
GFDL isn’t a correct licence here, PD on de.wp but also no reason for this licence --Polarlys 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The stamp seems to be from 1873 so it seems like it's old enough to be in the PD and I suppose GFDL is the license given to the scan\photo of the stamp (this license might not be valid if measured up to creativity standards in some countries such as the US but it doesn't mean it isn't valid). If the uploader scanned the stamp himself, if he changes it to GFDL-self I see no reason for deletion. Yonatanh 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's not from 1873, but from 1973 (look at the bottom border of the stamp). --88.134.140.64 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It’s from 1973. Stamps from the 19th century don’t look that way and this stamp was done in remembrance of Hansen’s work (identification of Mycobacterium leprae in 1873). Scanning an artwork in the public domain, „releasing“ it under GFDL is copyfraud. --Polarlys 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you're probably right so the artwork isn't in the public domain so the copyfraud argument is irrelevant anyway. Releasing the scan of a public domain work probably wouldn't be considered copyfraud IMHO as even though somebody could probably use it without acknowledging its GFDL status as a 2D depiction of a public domain work of art in the US, in many other countries the GFDL status would hold and either way it's a close call so I don't think it'd be considered copyfraud. Yonatanh 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- This stamp is from 1973. No Scandinavian stamps looked even remotely like this 100 years ago. The image is copyrighted and the rights belong to the Norwegian Mail. Unless we have permission from those: delete. Valentinian (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photographs showing Cadillac Ranch
[edit]First, please forgive my bad English, as my mother tongue is French.
This request concerns :
- Image:2006-08-22 - United States - Texas - Amarillo - Cadillac Ranch - Graffiti.jpg
- Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch1 2005-05-29.jpg
- Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch2 2005-05-29.jpg
- Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch3 2005-05-29.jpg
- Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch4 2005-05-29.jpg
- Image:route66 126.jpg
- Image:route66 127.jpg
- Image:route66 128.jpg
Cadillac Ranch is a sculpture that was created in 1974 by three artists who were a part of the group Ant farm. These pictures, therefore, violate Ant Farm's copyright.
On its official website, Ant Farm claims that it has pursued legal protection of its copyright in numerous cases in which photos of Cadillac Ranch were used in advertising: it means that commercial use is not free, which is not compatible with Commons' policy. /84•5/1.03.2007/02:22 UTC/
All deleted: derivative work, no freedom of panorama. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should a German Gov./Military Office give there data away as pd? They don't license under GNU-GFDL -- Hedwig in Washington 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
File is currently pending permission via OTRS [1]. If copyright holder agrees to terms file will be kept. If copyright holder does not agree it will be deleted. --|EPO| 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
old, unused category, new climate chart cats are already added --Hedwig in Washington 17:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: content was: '{{speedydelete|old, unused category, new climate chart cats are already added}}}' (and the only contributor was User:Hedwig in Washington)
empty category --Hedwig in Washington 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The page was blanked by uploader which could mean that he wants to delete the image -- Meno25 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't find the original but it seems to be a logo of some sort that was made in 1971 which would make it a copyvio, that is, if it isn't PD-ineligible as it's a fairly simple design. Yonatanh 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Not in use. Assume uploader wants it deleted.--MichaelMaggs 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The deleteion was originally from january but has not listed here. The artist Robert Delaunay died 1941 so the picture is Copyvio. --Rlbberlin 09:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Licensing section uses {{PD-old}} but there is no information about the person who made this image. How can we be sure that the photographer died before 1937, which should allow the condition of "with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years"?
Image seems to be used, now, on only 5 Wikimedias projects: WP-FR, WP-JA, WP-PT, WP-ES and WP-BG
Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Dantadd✉ 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - The picture should have been taken between 1910-1920, but the author could have died in 1970...
deleted, --Polarlys 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
not within the project’s scope --Polarlys 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I already applied to delete it herebefore I noticed its from the commons. -- DarkScipio IP:172.183.39.192 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Commons:Project_scope says The Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Commons:Deletion_guidelines says The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. The picture is used on it.wikipedia and was used on de.wikipedia until DarkScipio removed it. I don't see a reason why this picture should be deleted. Therefore keep. --84.141.2.174 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- To illustrate miniskirt other images are more applicable. --Polarlys 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree too--Rottweiler 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a crop of the image, but that is pointless in a deletion debate. Regardless, this is a keeper in my book. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, the file could use a rename to something like "Miniskirt at Dodger Stadium (date goes here).jpg." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep --217.224.116.209 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. --Petronas 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No encyclopedic value and a violation of "Compromising or embarrassing images of non-public people taken without their * knowledge are often problematic." Regards, Ben Aveling 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- So Keep --Rottweiler 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. --GeorgHH 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg --Cat Chi? 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Renominating. Is based only on Wikipedia's images - i.e. actually unsourced. And contains multiple errors (see [2]). None of them were fixed since the previous nomination and widely spread with this image over some 50 interwikis, good PD version is available --Cmapm 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer a vector (svg) version to a pixel (png) version. --UV 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- We have sourced and free (public domain) PNG available. Which may be converted to SVG by/for someone who prefers it. The question is: why should we keep highly erroneous (it contains more than 20 errors) and unsourced image, no matter whether it's png, svg, jpg, whatever? Cmapm 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also would prefer the .svg to the .png. It's clearer and conforms with the other .svg maps and diagrams of the pages on which this would be placed. The language errors are a major issue, asthetic disputes much less so (a thick border?), but for its purposes a simple notice of its inaccuracies on the description page could not hurt. Would the original uploader be able to update the .svg to correct his errors? I'm sure, based on the quality of that emulation, that the artist is profiecient enough to know to save files with layer information. a l τ o n .ıl 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should prefer .svg to .png too. I notified the uploader of the possible deletion, but they don't take part in the discussion and therefore aren't interested in correcting their errors. There is already a notice on the description page, that the image is erroneous and a link to place where errors are listed. But people who upload the image to other interwikis don't always include description in English there. And if they include, usually they don't translate it to the interwiki's language. But even if the description is included and translated, not all people look into image description page.
- The main my point is that erroneous image is spreading over interwikis, and I can't tolerate the situation, where more and more folks have the reason to say: "those stupid Soviets were not able to write even four words correctly in my language". Cmapm 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so based on the information posted at the image page, the file was done in Inkscape. I am using this program now and there is no way we could type in the various characters and accent marks without leaving stuff out. I still need to see if the order of the text is at least correct, then I will try and fix up the text to the best to my ability. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The main my point is that erroneous image is spreading over interwikis, and I can't tolerate the situation, where more and more folks have the reason to say: "those stupid Soviets were not able to write even four words correctly in my language". Cmapm 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you can explain the errors I'm quite sure that I can modify the file and fix them. --F l a n k e r 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS: the vantage of the vector format (SVG) is not only that is a format not subdued to the resolution, but also that is highly and easily editable.
- For language errors, there is a table showing correct inscriptions. If you believe, that explicit exact list of language errors should be more helpful, I can try to compile it.
- Other necessary fixes follow from the comparison with the sourced .png version: sickle should be with cogs, grains of ears should be without black strokes, globe border should be as thin as meridian/parallel lines; colours should be like on the .png version, especially needs to be fixed: colour of ribbons, colour of the hammer/sickle, of the sun and of the ears. Cmapm 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mhm! A lot of work, eh? OK, I've managed to fix the sickle, now preceding to modify the ribbon. As I said is a lot of work, (I've redone from scratch the ribbon) so I've need a couple of day to do all the corrections. Thanks for the suggestions, is perfect to copy/paste all the inscriptions. Cheers, F l a n k e r 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed the inscriptions (I hope!). Please tell me if they are correct now. Redone also the sickle, the ribbon, the sun, the earth (border thickness and meridians, that now are connected), modified the colors, removed the spikes from the wheat and done some minor improvements. And now the arms are nearer. What do remains to do? F l a n k e r 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good Flanker, good job. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed the inscriptions (I hope!). Please tell me if they are correct now. Redone also the sickle, the ribbon, the sun, the earth (border thickness and meridians, that now are connected), modified the colors, removed the spikes from the wheat and done some minor improvements. And now the arms are nearer. What do remains to do? F l a n k e r 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Watching the similar images in the same category give me some other details: I must disconnect the meridians of the globe. Than the shadows on the lower part of the ribbon are asymmetric. And, at last, in the original images the wheat can be seen through the ribbon. --F l a n k e r 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Done It is good enuogh to be saved from deletion? --F l a n k e r 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)- Keep I believe so. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This version looks much better. Strange how memory can deceive you; I remembered the landmass as outlined in black. Apparently that's not the case. Valentinian (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Update. I've tried to compare the ribbons with the list at [3]. Would you mind rechecking the Armenian text? The last letter looks like a Latin "f" and according to the FOTW page, the Armenian version doesn't use the exclamation mark. The rest of the ribbons look ok to me, but I haven't tried to verify the rest of the Armenian text, since I'm very unfamiliar with the lowercase forms in this alphabet. Is it correct that the Armenian text isn't all uppercase forms? Please also double check the Belarusian version. The text on the description page spells "proletarians" as "Пралетарыі", but the upper-case version is shows two identical letters at the end of this word. Zach, do you know enough about Belarusian ortography to check this one? Valentinian (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we compare with the version here the Armenian text should be upper-case forms. There is also a typo in the Romanian / "Moldovan" text. The word "УНИЦИ‑ВЭ" is misspelled (the second "И"). Valentinian (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Update. I've tried to compare the ribbons with the list at [3]. Would you mind rechecking the Armenian text? The last letter looks like a Latin "f" and according to the FOTW page, the Armenian version doesn't use the exclamation mark. The rest of the ribbons look ok to me, but I haven't tried to verify the rest of the Armenian text, since I'm very unfamiliar with the lowercase forms in this alphabet. Is it correct that the Armenian text isn't all uppercase forms? Please also double check the Belarusian version. The text on the description page spells "proletarians" as "Пралетарыі", but the upper-case version is shows two identical letters at the end of this word. Zach, do you know enough about Belarusian ortography to check this one? Valentinian (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've checked the JPG version of the seal, and yes, the Armenian don't have the exlamation mark, so I'm going to delete it and make all the text uppercase. For the Byelorussian text the world is ПРАЛЕТАРЫІ (the uppercase і is an I, you can compare the page you have just linked). --F l a n k e r 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (PS: correcting also the Moldavian! I have copied and pasted the text in the table of the original PNG image.)
- Done and thanks for the suggestions, --F l a n k e r 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the blown up image of the BSSR arms I have, the text that is on the image now is correct. It looks like two I's, but it looks perfect now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it's good enough. —Nightstallion (?) 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cmapm, what do you thinking about? --F l a n k e r 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I think this is a great work, thank you! And at the same time it's a pity, that the original uploader was so disrespectful to the insignia of my country. Cmapm 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cmapm, what do you thinking about? --F l a n k e r 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Looks very close to the original now. Cmapm 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! --F l a n k e r 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kept, this is a work of art now. nice collaborative effort there :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted (unused), pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is useful, I began to use it on cs.wikipedia in my custom edit toolbar. --Aktron 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this one is not good, you can delete it. --Aktron 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is useful, I began to use it on cs.wikipedia in my custom edit toolbar. --Aktron 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Me too. --Japo 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Kept, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have found at [4] that in order to use the images of the banknotes, we must obtain permission from the Bank of Canada, the authority that issues the notes, before we can use their likenesses. Granted, the website that hosts the images of the currency, the Bank of Canada, does have a copyright status of "Copyright © 1995 - 2007, Bank of Canada. Permission is granted to reproduce or cite portions herein, if attribution is given to the Bank of Canada." However, based on the additional reading I have done, I do not believe we can use the banknotes under the policies set by the Bank, and eventually, we cannot host them ourselves since we cannot host educational use only images anymore. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete They have too many restrictions, not only the permission part but also the reproduction. IMHO, this is the most important point (but IANAL). PatríciaR msg 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Canadian organizational copyright lasts for 50 years since publication. Delete all images if still copyrighted. We should carefully think of a tag for older Canadian banknotes warning that counterfeiting is a very serious non-copyright crime.--Jusjih 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I just find that all Canadian tire money images under this category are obvious copyvios.--Jusjih 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the images are 50 years old (so pretty much nothing with HM Queen Elizabeth II except in her early reign), then we can save those, but there are many we just taken from the Bank of Canada, so we need to delete those. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept the category while older notes can be added here. Meanwhile, I am adding Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/Images of Canadian coins less than 50 years old while newer coins would also be copyrighted.--Jusjih 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
March 2
[edit]Vector version is available --De.Nobelium 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted Julo 19
- 14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
bad name Vassil 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, please use {{Badname}} --Davepape 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
is self PD? --Shizhao 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Very blurry image, unsuable, delete. -- Siebrand 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Get that shit off here. 24.192.164.65 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree to delete, please be civil. Cchan199206 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --norro 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is currently a featured picture at the English Wikipedia but its copyright status is unclear. The concerns are explained at w:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/American_Buffalo_Gold_Coin (starting at trialsanderrors' first comment). KFP 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I emailed them for clarification. ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! --KFP 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- To copy the pertinent quote from the email exchange with the counsel from the Mint: "We provide attorneys and other persons asking for this kind of information with whatever factual information on the design we have reasonably available, and the requester discusses those facts with her or her legal adviser and comes to a legal conclusion based on the facts we provided." In other words, the ultimate evaluation whether the usage might be copyright infringement is up to the user, the Mint does not provide this kind of information. If someone wants to pursue this further, the phone number is listed in the en.wiki thread above. My opinion is that there are no indicators that unexpired copyright claims exist. The listed engraver for the 2006 edition is the same as the one for the 1916 coin. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! --KFP 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep also per my comments here. --Dschwen 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Near identical replica of a PD work (PD old from 1916) is still PD. No indication of a copyright renewal or any other indication of a copyright. -- Cat chi? 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Gies-Adler
[edit]relisted from October 5 in order to get some more input. --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion request applies to:
- Image:Fette Henne.svg
- Image:Bonn Bundeshaus old Plenary Chamber.jpg
- Image:Bonn Wasserwerk Plenarsaal.jpg
- Image:Bundesadler1992.jpg
- Image:Bundesadler2004.JPG
It seems to me that according to this decision by the BGH (German supreme court), Ludwig Gies' eagle is protected by copyright. --Phrood 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I found threee more.
- --Rtc 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
__________________
Well, the decision actually permits the depiction of the Gies-Eagle extracts of the decision:
- "Das Berufungsgericht hat einen urheberrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruch der Klägerin verneint."
The court of appeals has negated the proprietary claim of omission of the suitor.
- "Auch wenn das Urheberrechtsgesetz die beanstandete Verwendung des Gies-Adlers nicht gestatte, sei sie doch durch das Grundrecht der Pressefreiheit gerechtfertigt."
The basic law of the Freedom of the press justifies the use of the Gies-Adler, even if the copyright law does not allow the said use of the Gies Eagle.
- "Der aufgrund seiner exponierten Plazierung im (früheren) Bundestagsgebäude in der Bevölkerung überaus bekannte Gies-Adler sei für die meisten politisch interessierten Menschen mit dem Wappentier der Bundesrepublik identisch. Ihnen sei nicht bekannt, daß es sich lediglich um ein dem Wappen angenähertes Kunstwerk eines privaten Schöpfers handele. Der Gies-Adler sei somit zu einem Symbol für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland geworden und müsse auch in der Form einer unfreien Bearbeitung verwendet werden dürfen, um den Staat symbolisch darzustellen. Die Beklagte könne auch nicht auf eine andere Darstellung des Bundesadlers – etwa auf eine Adler-Darstellung, wie sie sich auf Geldmünzen befinde – verwiesen werden. Die Abwägung zu Lasten der Nutzungsberechtigten sei im übrigen gerechtfertigt, weil der Künstler durch seine Zustimmung dazu beigetragen und es bewußt in Kauf genommen habe, daß die Bevölkerung sein Werk mit dem Wappentier gleichstellen werde."
Because of its infamous placement in the Bundestag the Gies-Adler is recognized as identical to the Federal Eagle by most politically interested people. Most people are unconcerned that the Gies-Eagle is an artwork made by a private artist similar to the Federal Eagle. Therefore the Gies-Adler has become a symbol for the Federal Republic of Germany and may be used also in this form, to represent the state in a symbolic way. The accused can further not be obliged to use a different depiction of the Federal Eagle - for example the depictions on the coinage - The decision on account of the suitor is incidentally justified since the artist (Ludwig Gies) contributed with his personal consent to the fact that the population would equate his Eagle-Design with the Federal Eagle and consciously accepted it.
Further the "Panoramafreiheit" and the right of quote (Zitatrecht) applies.
--David Liuzzo 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
We do not apply the Zitatrecht here (that would correspond to something like fair use). Panoramafreiheit only applies to pictures taken from public streets or places. If I understand correctly, the BGH confirms the copyright status of the Gies-Adler and also confirms the suitor's right to sue copyright violations:
- "Keinen rechtlichen Bedenken begegnet zunächst die Annahme des Berufungsgerichts, die Klägerin sei aufgrund des abgeschlossenen Wahrnehmungsvertrages berechtigt, im Falle einer Verletzung des den Erben des Künstlers Ludwig Gies zustehenden Urheberrechts auch Abwehransprüche geltend zu machen."
However, in this case the depiction of the Gies-Adler was freie Benutzung because the Focus used a copy of it that was sufficiently different from the original:
- "Der für eine freie Benutzung erforderliche Abstand zu dem benutzten Werk kann – selbst bei deutlichen Übernahmen – dadurch gegeben sein, daß das neue Werk zu den entlehnten eigenschöpferischen Zügen des älteren Werkes einen deutlichen inneren Abstand hält und deswegen seinem Wesen nach als selbständig anzusehen ist."
It does not seem clear to me how this decision can be extended to other uses of the work. --Phrood 07:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The cited court decision relates to the use of a caricature/parody of the Gies Eagle by Focus, Germany's second largest news magazine. The images are no parody, so the court decision simply does not apply. The court decision also mentions that Panoramafreihet does not apply (the Eagle is inside the Bundestag).
Zitatrecht is fair dealing/fair use, which is not allowed on Commons. Well, the later is not completly true; I think we could Keep Bonn Wasserwerk Plenarsaal.jpg and Image:Bonn Bundeshaus old Plenary Chamber.jpg and - with a different name - Bundesadler1992.jpg as these images show enough other details. -- ３２４７ (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean that we could consider the work as "Beiwerk" on those pictures? --Phrood 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I had been thinking about citations. But it might qualify as Beiwerk, too. (It seems that no written exception to copyright in Germany's copyright law fits exactly; you probably have to interpret them in the light of the Grundgesetz here because the photos are interior views of the German Bundestag.) -- ３２４７ (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
please also read this where publishing pictures of another artwork inside the Reichstag were prohibited. -- Gorgo 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- 'delete all pictures incl. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bonn_Bundeshaus_old_Plenary_Chamber.jpg. Panoramafreiheit soes'nt apply nor does it Beiwerk. The Fette Henne is on all photos main subject which one cannot think away --Historiograf 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Bonn_Bundeshaus_old_Plenary_Chamber.jpg is a photograph permanently exhibited on the "Weg der Demokratie" and was taken from a public road. That qualifies as Panoramafreiheit, doesn't it? But I agree with you and disagree with User:3247 regarding the other images, the eagle is not Beiwerk and we do not accept citations. --Phrood 23:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, Panoramafreiheit does not result in that sort of "privilege escalation". If you are allowed to quote something, you can also put the quoting work on public display in the streets. But that still does not give you the permission to take the quoted work out of context and claim Panoramafreiheit. However, it is an indication that you are allowed to display the image without explicit permission from the Eagle's artist.
- It does not make sense to accept Beiwerk but no citations. I think we need a permission and an excuse. The permission comes from the law and determins whether we can accept an image; it does not matter where this permission came from. The excuse is for our policy, which determins wheter we want to accept an image. The excuse is not in legal categories (like "Beiwerk" or citations) but it is an assertation that the image is still "free enough".
- That said, Commons does not allow images, which, as a whole, can only be shown as of a quote. Being a separate media archive, Wikimedia Commons can't rely on legal exceptions that require context (no permission) and the image lacks essential freedoms if it can only be used in a certain context (no excuse).
- That's different with images that merly contain quotes: The image already provides enough context to invoke fair use/dealing (permission) and you can do a lot of things with the image that do not infringe the copyright of the small part that is quoted (excuse).
- It's often the case with photographs that they have some part for which there's no explicit permission. But it's still ok if they are shown in context. -- ３２４７ (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Frivolous request. Mindelen 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted the two images that only showed the eagle. It appears that the eagle is a copyrighted artwork and its use is restricted by a sort of fair use clause. But I feel unsure about deleting the other photos. It would be like censoring out McDonalds logos on McDonalds buildings. I suggest Keep the remaining pictures. Of course one cannot "think away" the Bundesadler on those pictures (quoting Historiograf), but it should be noted that the decision by the BGH concerns independant use of the Eagle in a newspaper, not a picture of the Bundestag. / Fred Chess 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The gies adler is by no means mere beiwerk on these pictures. --Rtc 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Bundesadler 4 was created by Sir Norman Foster and in the Image:Germany Bundestag east door with Bundesadler 4.jpg the eagle is to be seen from outside of the Reichstag. It is fixed there and not presented for only a short time. --Arnoldius 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The result of the debate is keep, deleting these would - as Fred Chess points out - be like removing the McDonalds logo from McDonalds buildings, something which is not going to happen. Lcarsdata 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened, because the argument is incorrect. The McDonalds logo is, contrary to the Gies adler, 1. not restricted by copyright (only by trademark law), 2. even if it were, it is still permanently placed outside of the building, so subject to panorama freedom. 3. even if it were not, on a photo that displays "McDonalds logos on McDonalds buildings", the logo is not contral to the picture as the gies adler is here, and one can "think away" it in this sense. --Rtc 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, there is no reason to reopen the discussion. To start with the initial argument of the deletion request: The mentioned decision of the German Supreme Court (BGH) is qouted incorrectly by pointing out parts of the case summary sheet (Tatbestand) —esp. points of the party that lost the suitcase— but not the Court's opinion (Entscheidungsgründe). At the end of the day this decision only deals with the right of a newspaper to publish a burlesque of the Gies-Adler as this is a work of art itself (caricature).
RE: Image:Germany Bundestag east door with Bundesadler 4.jpg; Image:Germany Bundestag Bundesadler 4.jpg + ~5:
The general practice of the Court applying the German Copyright Act (UrhG) is that it is legal to take pictures of exhibited and exponent public artwork and in a second step the pictures taken may be copyright-protected artworks themselves, Zitatrecht & Beiwerk rules do not apply. As we see for the visitor pictures taken by User:Arnoldius even this last point is okay as he put them into the public domain. --Calvin Ballantine 11:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The court has clearly stated that the Gies-Adler is protected by copyright ("Die urheberrechtliche Werkqualität des in Rede stehenden Kunstwerks steht außer Zweifel.") Panoramafreiheit does not apply because none of the works are displayed on "public ways, streets or places". --Phrood 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, and no one disputes this point, but in a second step you should go deeper. The claims under scrutiny there —and the whole decision at last— are not relevant for the present Wikimedia discussion. --Calvin Ballantine 08:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: As Phrood points out the Gies-Adler is copyrighted and Panoramafreiheit does not apply, and as the images are clearly being used to depict the Gies-Adler, this is by no means Beiwerk. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are so right, and as Phrood points out the parliament building is definitely not a public place, esp. not since they enabled broad public access ;-) Nolo contendere... --Calvin Ballantine 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
aswell: Image:Kafkafelicebauer1917.jpg
no proof that the photographer is dead for more than 70 years and image is not older than 100 years -- Frumpy 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
and????????
Oppose Simple logic will solve this, I guess... The picture shows Franz Kafka in 1917, which is 90 years ago. Granted, the exact date the picture was taken is hard to verify, but since Kafka died in 1924 it would, at the very least, be 83 years old. The chances of the photographer being alive as of 2007 is, of course, extremely small. -- [[User:FoaT}} 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not deleted. /odder 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Albanian money
[edit]- Image:100 Franka Albania (1926).jpg
- Image:25-Lek-Albanien.jpg
- Image:200Lek(1992).jpg
- Image:1Lek.jpg
- Image:100Lek.jpg
- Image:ALB002.JPG
- Image:ALB003.JPG
- Image:Albania 2006 circulating coins.jpg
- Image:Zog frang ar coin back.jpg
- Image:Zog frang ar coin front.jpg
- Category:Money of Albania
- Category:Coins of Albania
- Category:Bills of Albania
- Image:Zog frang ar coin front.jpg
- Image:25Leke(1964).jpg
- Image:100Leke(1996).jpg
- Image:200Lek-Qemali.jpg
Albanian money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 22:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the money older than 70 years, what does Albanian law say about that? Anyway, deleted all recent money. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- wrong conclusion, see above
- wrong conclusion, see above
I hope with my posts, now the situation is clear also for Cool Cat and Bryan. Sorry, because of my bad English--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- unproofed wrong statement, the facts are shown with quotation from the albanian law. --Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:100 Franka Albania (1926).jpg before 1992 no copyright law in Albania! (see the text of the new albanian law from 2005, that knows only one older Law about this problem, this of 1992!)
- Image:Albania 2006 circulating coins.jpg (The same juridical situation as with bills, see beyond.)
- Image:Zog frang ar coin back.jpg (before 1992 no copyright law in Albania!see the text of the new albanian law, that refers about this fact!)--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Zog frang ar coin front.jpg (before 1992 no copyright law in Albania!see the text of the new albanian law, that refers about this fact!)--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:25Leke(1964).jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
ç) mjetet e pagesës
...
Link: [5]--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:100Leke(1996).jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
ç) mjetet e pagesës
...
--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Link: [6]
- Image:200Lek-Qemali.jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
ç) mjetet e pagesës
...
Link: [7]--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Decius. --Chochopk 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: Next time an administrator makes a wrong decision based on lack of information, please first provide the information and then start screaming at them instead of the other way round. Anybody with Albanian knowledge, please create {{PD-Albania-exempt}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Brazilian money
[edit]- Image:37 5.JPG
- Image:BRA009.JPG
- Image:BRA017.JPG
- Image:BRA018.JPG
- Image:BRA019.JPG
- Image:BRA020.JPG
- Image:BRA036.JPG
- Image:BRA037.JPG
- Image:BRA038.JPG
- Image:BRA039.JPG
- Image:BRA040.JPG
- Image:BRA041.JPG
- Image:BRA042.JPG
- Image:BRA048.JPG
- Image:BRA049.JPG
- Image:BRA051.JPG
- Image:BRA052.JPG
- Image:Brazil 2006 circulating coins.jpg
- Image:Brazil coins.jpg
- Image:Moeda-400-reis-ioan-v.jpg
- Image:R$0,05 frente.jpg
- Image:R$0,05 fundo.jpg
- Image:R$0,10 frente.jpg
- Image:R$0,10 fundo.jpg
- Image:R$0,10.jpg
- Image:R$0,25 frente.jpg
- Image:R$0,25 fundo.jpg
- Image:R$0,50 frente.jpg
- Image:R$0,50 fundo.jpg
- Image:R$1,00 - moeda.jpg
- Image:Anísio cédula.jpg
- Image:Brazilian Real banknotes.jpg
- Image:Cemcruzeiros-pedroII.JPG
- Image:Cemmilcruzeiros-beijaflor.JPG
- Image:Cincomilcruzados-portinari.JPG
- Image:Cinqüentacruz-drummond.jpg
- Image:Dezcruzados-rui.JPG
- Image:Dezcruzeiros-getulio.JPG
- Image:Dezmilcruzeiros-vital.JPG
- Image:Doiscruzeiros-caxias.JPG
- Image:Duzentoscruzeiros-republica.JPG
- Image:Milcruzados-massis.jpg
- Image:Milcruzeiros-rondon.JPG
- Image:Quinhentoscruz-ruschi.JPG
- Image:Quinhentoscruzados-villalobos.JPG
- Image:Quinhentosmilcruzeiros-mario.JPG
- Image:Real11.jpg
- Image:Umcruzeiro-marques.JPG
- Image:Umcruzeiro-rep.JPG
- Image:Real11.jpg
- Image:BrazilP247a-100Reais-(1994)-donatedsrb f.jpg
- Image:Cedulas Cruzado Novo.jpg
- Image:50 reais reverso.png
- Image:50 reais anverso.png
- Image:X reis 1816.jpg
- Category:Coins of Brazil
- Category:Bills of Brazil
- The copyright of money on Brazil is a quite imprecise (IANAL but I can't find anything related to copyright on this).
- The {{PD-BrazilGov}} used on some images does not apply to this situation.
- The Image:37 5.JPG, Image:X reis 1816.jpg, Image:Cemcruzeiros-pedroII.JPG, Image:Dezcruzeiros-getulio.JPG, Image:Doiscruzeiros-caxias.JPG, Image:Umcruzeiro-marques.JPG images may be a valid {{PD-Brazil-media}} ones, but..... Lugusto • ҉ 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with André Koehne (here), the images of the Brazilian money are in public domain, therefore they are defined by law. Without the law, the money would not have value. (sorry for English). Lugusto, veja o que o André falou e explique melhor do que eu (:S) por aqui. -- Mateus Hidalgo 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate if you could try to explain what you said in a different way as I wasn't really able to understand it. Yonatanh 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment This subject is now in discussion at the Village pump of Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada/geral#VDA em cédulas e quejandas). I post back to here if it result in anything useful to this deletion debate. Lugusto • ҉ 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The coin itself which is what is copyrighted in those pictures doesn't seem to fall under "audiovisual and photographic works" although it may be in the public domain if the author has been for 70 years (assuming that's the limit brazilian law imposes) so even the pictures in #3 should be deleted. Yonatanh 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment up today no one on Portuguese Wikipedia has found any valuable information for this and the last reply is from yesterday. The possibility of all of these images gets deleted is large due to the lack of information. Lugusto • ※ 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hallo. Please look this new Image:Real12.jpg, it is better? If yes, please delete the old version Image:Real11.jpg -- Magellan @_/" 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The country's laws regarding images of money are not the problem here, what is the problem is the fact that photographs of the money are derivatives of copyrighted work making the photographs unfree. Yonatanh 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have written over "Specimen", does this not reach at all? Thus it would have to be sufficient. (?) -- Magellan @_/" 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read it here. {PD-BrazilGov} is perhaps not so bad. --Magellan @_/" 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know this site but I don't understand how it helps. The {{PD-BrazilGov}} says official symbols (coat of arms and flags from brazilian cities and states, only it). Lugusto • ※ 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The {{PD-BrazilGov}} is ok, we have no other Templates. My Portuguese language is = 0, sorry but if here nothing stands about bank notes and her use (see Wikimedia), what then? --Magellan @_/" 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No information about copyright status means delete. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Bryan, maybe an inquiry on in Portuguese? Then we know it more exactly. --Magellan @_/" 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Banco Central do Brasil isn't the copyright holder. Anyway, this page denys all commercial and derivative works usages from images and texts on their website. I think the Casa da Moeda do Brasil is the owner, but I'm very very doubt if it releases these images with no copyrights or under a free content license. And unfortunately the ptwikipedians haven choosed to talk about another subjects and missed this one. I'm closing this deletion debate as all images containing a Brazilian money that don't have at least 70 years of original release needs to be deleted. If anyone finds any new information, simply request a restore for the really free images and/or start a deletion debate for the kept images. Lugusto • ※ 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Bryan / Lugusto. The Banco Central do Brasil is the copyright holder. The Casa da Moeda do Brasil is the printer and mint for notes and coins, but don´t have any copyright because the money is made as a rendering service asked by Banco Central do Brasil.
The Banco Central do Brasil web site says that is allowed the total or parcial reproduction if the source is reported and with no gain intencion. Is also permited inserts of links on other sites (like Winkipedia) but is not allowed use the mark of Banco Central do Brasil. More Informations about that is at site of BCB - [8] (Link in portuguese)
With this information, The Winkipedia / Winkimedia can use Image of any coins and notes issued on Brazil. --- Ola Bryan e Lugusto. O Banco Central do Brasil é o proprietário dos direitos autorais. A Casa da Moeda do Brasil é o impressor / cunhador de notas e moedas, mas não possui nenhum direito autoral pelo fato de ser uma prestação de serviço pedida pelo Banco Central do Brasil.
A página da internet do Banco Central do Brasil diz que é permitida a reprodução total ou parcial de qualquer conteúdo do sítio, desde que com indicação das fontes e sem fins lucrativos. Também permite insersão de links em outros sites(como Winkipedia) mas não permite o uso da logomarca do Banco Central do Brasil. Mais informações no site do BCB - [9] (Link em portuguese)
Baseado nesta informação, a Winkipédia e a Winkimídia pode usar imagens de qualquer moeda e cédula emitida no Brasil.
Leandro Brito 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attempt, but all media files on Wikimedia Commons needs to allow derivative works and commercial redistribution. Please see the Commons:Licensing page. Obrigado por sua tentativa, mas todas as mídias disponíveis no Commons necessitam de poderem receber derivações ou uso comercial. Veja mais sobre isso na Commons:Licenciamento. Lugusto • ※ 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Canadian money
[edit]- Image:CAD1 Back.png
- Image:CAD1 Front.png
- Image:CAD10 Back.png
- Image:CAD10 Front.png
- Image:CAD100 Back.png
- Image:CAD100 Front.png
- Image:CAD1000 Back.png
- Image:CAD1000 Front.png
- Image:CAD2 Back.png
- Image:CAD2 Front.png
- Image:CAD20 Back.png
- Image:CAD20 Front.png
- Image:CAD25 English Back.png
- Image:CAD25 English Front.png
- Image:CAD5 Back.png
- Image:CAD5 Front.png
- Image:CAD50 Back.png
- Image:CAD50 Front.png
- Image:CAD500 English Back.png
- Image:CAD500 English Front.png
- Image:Canada-observe.jpg
- Image:Canada-reverse.jpg
- Image:Canadian bills.jpg
- Image:Canadiandollar devilshead.gif
"The Bank of Canada is the registered copyright owner of all design elements of Canadian bank notes [...] [T]he Bank's written permission for the reproduction of bank note images must be obtained before the image is reproduced." [10]-- Editor at Large • talk 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Canadian money is clearly copyrighted and not licensed with a free license.
Turkish money
[edit]Turkish money is copyrighted Yonatanh 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of a "free license" is given. -- Cat chi? 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Completely replaced by Image:Wikisource-logo.svg and no official logo of anything anymore. Schaengel89 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
only use currently is on a user page on the italian wikipedia and this use will probably be eliminated very soon as it's political campaigning on user pages. The picture itself is unlikely to be used on any wikimedia foundation project so unless someone sees an article or something of the sort it can be used on it should be deleted. Just as an aside, this picture is probably against Italian law (this by itself of course isn't a reason for deletion). -- Yonatanh 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete moreover it represents an offensive and an abusive content --F l a n k e r 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ----ßøuñçêY2K 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep:do not remove,this picture is not against Italian law--Lupo rosso 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really care whether it's deleted or not but either way being against Italian law isn't a valid reason for deletion. Yonatan talk 10:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep:--Piper90 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Emanuele Saiu 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- Sannita 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Pietrodn · talk with me 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--Olando 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep keep keep keep 1000 times keeep --dario vet (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to explain why you're voting keep or remove, just adding a vote doesn't matter as the closing admins takes into consideration the different arguments. Yonatan talk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this image can be used only for political campaign in user pages --Jaqen 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: outside project skope, no possible usage except in political campaign / A.J. 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of focus image. Unusable -- Siebrand 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --norro 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Poland_Lublin_castle.jpg --Wojsyl 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- odlinkuj zdjęcie (zamień odwołania na zdjęcie oryginalne) i skasujemy wersję *2. Inna rzecz, że to trochę obciach z Twojej strony usuwać z opisu autora modyfikacji, ale co tam. // tsca [re] 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, juz nie pamietam, ale wydaje mi sie, ze te wersje, ktora jest teraz poprawialem ja, ale moze sie myle. W kazdym razie dzieki bo wiem ze poprawiales ktoras wersje, bo ta pierwsza byla juz zupelnie fatalna, robiona pozyczonym kompaktem. Wojsyl 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - so someone could make even better retouch. A.J. 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- ??? They are identical. Wojsyl 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Poland Lublin castle.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Armenia
[edit]- Category:Coins of Armenia
- Category:Money of Armenia
- Image:10 Dram ARM 1994.png
- Image:20 Luma ARM 1994.png
- Image:50 Luma ARM 1994.png
- Image:3 Dram ARM 1994.png
- Image:5 Dram ARM 1994.png
- Image:10 Dram ARM 2004.png
- Image:20 Dram ARM 2003.png
- Image:50 Dram ARM 2003.png
- Image:100 Dram ARM 2003.png
- Image:200 Dram ARM 2003.png
- Image:500 Dram ARM 2003.png
- Coins of Armenia
Money of Armenia is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-AM-exempt}} --Chochopk 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
-- Cat chi? 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
- Keep Searchme 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep see the armenian law
- Besides I do not understand why it is okay, that user Cat can make an apodictic statement like Money of Montenegro is copyrighted probably without any knowledge of the special situation. I think a better way would be to ask before hectically setting dozens deletion requests for money pics. 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)--Decius
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Closed: Keep / A.J. 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Better SVG image: Image:Satu Nou.svg --Alex:D 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{Superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Better SVG image: Image:Dumbravita.svg --Alex:D 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{Superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
License GFDL cannot be verified -- Siebrand 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
GFDL license cannot be verified -- Siebrand 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not certain it's a US gov public domain image, see copyright notice on image --Garion96 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Permission-email from Leif Stridvall has ben sent to Wikipedia twice. I don't know why it hasn't been registred. May because this permission text is in Swedish... however i got no reply at all. This covers all imeas uploaded by me ending .LEST - Leif Stridvall.
epibase 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APotentilla_nitida1LEST.jpg&diff=5155361&oldid=4904525 --GeorgHH 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APotentilla_nitida2LEST.jpg&diff=5155366&oldid=4904507 --GeorgHH 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I will send the permission email from the copywright holder to Wikipedia again. epibase 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAnthericum_liliago1LEST.jpg&diff=5155357&oldid=4904498 --GeorgHH 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (OTRS ticket number added by uploader) --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (OTRS ticket number added by uploader) --ALE! ¿…? 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Blurry and dark image, delete -- Siebrand 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Azerbaijan
[edit]Money of Azerbaijan is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-AZ-exempt}} --Chochopk 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
-- Cat chi? 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
- Keep Searchme 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep RossBaku --88.106.121.233 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The coins and banknotes from Azerbaijan are not the subject of copyright. There is loss in translation of term "денежный знак" (Russian) as "banknote" (English), the "monetary symbol" (or something similar) is more appropriate. This is commonly loss in translation for Category:PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags. Alex Spade 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sahmeditor 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have sent the permission email from Bernard Loison to permissions@wikimedia.org again. Covers all images uploaded by me ending .MTFL epibase 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is ticket 2007030310008021. I see that the OTRS staff replied with a request for clarifying the license of the images - and it has remained unanswered. // tsca [re] 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could someone check this please so we can get rid of this and the following requests? --ALE! ¿…? 07:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ticket 2007030310008021 was marked as 'closed succesfully' by Jareth on 20 March 2007. It was a forwarded email containing the question "I write articles about cacti for the Wikipedia and came across your wonderful images. Could I get permission to use some of them for future articles?". The reply contained the text "It's okay by me, but do not forget to cite my website address and my name please." by the copyright holder. I am inclined to deny this as a permission. Specifications of source material and a proper free license are missing. Siebrand 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted and all the similar cases below --ALE! ¿…? 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
GFDL license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
GFDL license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Austria-Hungary
[edit]- Image:BanknoteA-H.jpg
Image:AHK 1000 1902 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHK 50 1902 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHK 50 1902 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Austria-Hungarykept --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Austria-Hungarykept --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:AHK 1 1916 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 1 1916 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 20 1913 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 100 1912 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 100 1912 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 20 1907 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 20 1907 reverse.jpg
Image:AHK 20 1900 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHK 20 1900 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHK 10 1900 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHK 10 1900 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:AHK 50 1914 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 50 1914 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 10 1904 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 10 1915 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 10 1915 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 100 1910 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 100 1910 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 10000 1918 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 10000 1918 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 2 1914 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 2 1914 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 2 1917 obverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 2 1917 reverse.jpg
- Image:AHK 200 1918 reverse.jpg
Image:AHG 5 1881 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 5 1881 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 10 1880 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 10 1880 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 100 1880 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 100 1880 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 50 1884 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 50 1884 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1000 1880 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1000 1880 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Austria-Hungary, Gulden/forintkept --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1 1882 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1 1882 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1 1888 obverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AHG 1 1888 reverse.jpg{{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Money of Austria-Hungary is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
Do not transclude license templates to discussions.
-- Cat chi? 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
- Keep older than 70 yrs Searchme 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Who is (or was) copyright holder? A.J. 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Minting A-H (and Imperial) coins was privilege of a mint (in Vienna and/or Krems, I think) and in at least one case (Marie-Therese tollars, still very popular during 20th century in Ethiopia) this privilege officially lasted until early 1930's (it was ignored since early 20th century by Ethiopia and then Italy). The banknotes were issued by private National Bank of Austria-Hungary. I do not think that artists in this region could claim copyright on banknotes/coins/state symbols/flags/etc (at least that was case in Czechoslovakia who inherited most of legislative from A-H). Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Btw, deletion of banknotes and coins feels a getting more popish than a pope, IMO).
- Not at all. New polish banknotes are copyrighted by National Bank of Poland. A.J. 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- all images older than 100 years were tagged as PD-old by me. Please decide on the rest now. --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- As this money was used only until 1918, it seems to me that it is safe to keep all images. --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will change all licenses to {{PD-old}}. --ALE! ¿…? 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Montenegro
[edit]- Image:100 perpers.jpg
- Image:5Perper(Montenegro).jpg
- Image:Perun obverse.jpg
- Image:Perun reverse.jpg
- Image:20Perper(Montenegro).jpg
- Image:10Perper(Weltkrieg).jpg
Category:Coins of Montenegrokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Montenegrokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Montenegrokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Money of Montenegro is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
-- Cat chi? 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
- Keep older than 70yrs Searchme 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Money of the old montenegrin state (1878-1918) can not be under copyright, because it has not exist any copyright law in Montenegro during this period --Decius 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Besides I do not understand why it is okay, that user Cat can make an apodictic statement like Money of Montenegro is copyrighted probably without any knowledge of the special situation. I think a better way would be to ask before hectically setting dozens deletion requests for money pics. --Decius 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep thats PD-old. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Austria
[edit]- Image:Austria 1 scellino (2).JPG
- Image:Austria 5 scellini.JPG
- Image:Austria 10 scellini.JPG
Image:1P049-1919-1 Krone.jpgkept --ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:Austria-Hungarian krone (heads).gif
- Image:Austria-Hungarian krone (tails).gif
- Image:Austria-Coin-1947-1g-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-Coin-1947-1g-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-Coin-1947-50g-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-Coin-1947-50g-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-Coin-1972-2g-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-Coin-1972-2g-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1992-20S-Kärnten-RS.jpg
Image:Austria-coin-1930-1g-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1930-1g-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:Austria-coin-1954-20g-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1954-20g-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1973-10S-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1980-10S-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1980-10S-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1991-5S-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1997-20S-850JStephansdom-VS.jpg
Image:Austria-coin-1925-0,5S-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1925-0,5S-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1895-10h-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1895-10h-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1895-20h-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1895-20h-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1901-1K-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1901-1K-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1913-1K-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1913-1K-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1915-10h-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1916-10h-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1916-10h-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1936-2g-RS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:Austria-coin-1936-2g-VS.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:Austria-coin-1957-1S-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1957-1S-VS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1995-20S-1000JKrems-RS.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1989-20S-Tirol-VS.jpg
Image:Münze Erzherzog Sigismund.jpgkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Austriakept ---ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Austriakept ---ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Austriakept ---ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:JPY-ATS 1989-1999.pngkept ---ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:ATS-USD 1989-1999.pngkept ---ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:AUT002.JPG
Image:AUT003.JPGkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AUT004.JPGkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:AUT007.JPG
- Image:AUT009.JPG
Image:AUT020.JPGkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AUT029.JPGkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:Austria-coin-1980-20S-RepublikOesterreich.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1982-20S-JosefHaydn.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1992-20S-FranzGrillparzer.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1993-20S-200JDiözeseLinz.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1993-20S-Niederoesterreich.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1993-20S-Salzburg.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1993-20S-Vorarlberg.jpg
- Image:Austria-coin-1996-20S-AntonBruckner.jpg
- Image:Schill1.jpg
- Image:Österreich 1000 Schilling 1976 und 1000 Einheiten Probe.jpg
Money of Austria is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Some qualifies {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
Do not transclude license templates to discussions.
-- Cat chi? 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
- Keep older than 70yrs Searchme 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to get copyright paranoid. -Nard 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why my graphes has been requested for deletion. Exchange Rate is copyrighted? I think this is a indiscriminate deletion request. --Monaneko 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep abbildungen von österreichischen münzen unterliegen NICHT dem copyright, der löschantrag entbehrt jeglicher rechtlicher grundlage !!! --Oke 19:38, 02. July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Whom does the Austrian law give money design copyright to? Individual or organization? Works for hires are usually copyrighted by organizations.--Jusjih 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The talk page of wikipedia:de:Österreichischer Schilling quotes an answer from the National Bank of Austria (in German) stating that there are no legal objections against publishing images of Austrian Schilling notes or coins. The deletion request is based on a false assertion and totally unjustified. Jossi 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept; no major copyright issues here. (→O - RLY?) 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Dominican money
[edit]Dominican money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept; {{PD-old}}. (→O - RLY?) 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Argentinan money
[edit]Image:50 Peso Moneda Nacional A-B 1950.jpgkept --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Image:5 Peso Moneda Nacional A-B 1903.jpgkept --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)- Image:Pesosargentinos.jpg
- Image:Peso ley, 05.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_5_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_5_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_10_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_10_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_50_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_50_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_100_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_100_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_500_Peso_Ley_a.jpg
- Image:Argentina_500_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_5000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_5000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_10000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_10000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_50000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_50000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_100000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_100000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_500000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_500000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1000000_Peso_Ley_A.jpg
- Image:Argentina_1000000_Peso_Ley_B.jpg
Argentinan money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Some of the money above is older than 70 years old and should be safely in the public domain. One question to Cool Cat: Can you provide a source where it states that Argentine money is copyrighted? I could not find something like that. --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will try to read the Argentine copyright law this week, to see whether there is something about public works. But at least for some works {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} could work. --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I could not find anything on public / governmental works. So I think the same rules apply like in general. I will tag some images accordingly. Probably the rest has to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
if the other money scans are kept (see below), these should also be kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Australia
[edit]- Image:Australia 5 cents.JPG
- Image:Australia 20 cents.JPG
- Image:1966 australian 50 cent piece circular.jpg
- Image:Australian pre decimal coins penny shilling.jpg
- Image:Aus coins queen elizabeth 1966.jpg
Category:Banknotes of Australiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Australiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Australiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:JPY-AUD 1989-.pngkept --ALE! ¿…? 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Image:AUD-USD 1989-.pngkept --ALE! ¿…? 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:Australia 2006 circulating coins.jpg
Money of Australia is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the coins (except the $1, $2 in Image:Australia 2006 circulating coins.jpg which could be cropped out). It is only copyrighted if the designs were made after 1 May 1969. [11] The 1c, 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, and the pennys, shillings etc. date to before this. also, nos. 9) and 10) are graphs, why are they nominated? --Astrokey44 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep older than 1969 Searchme 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deletion request by a gone wild bot (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMoney_of_Australia&diff=4929968&oldid=3270781 ), which was now blocked by me for three days. --ALE! ¿…? 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to get copyright paranoid. -Nard 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Chile money
[edit]- Image:CHL001.JPG
- Image:CHL002.JPG
- Image:CHL003.JPG
Image:CHL008.JPGkept, coin is {{PD-old}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:CHL009.JPG
- Image:CHL010.JPG
- Image:CHL011.JPG
- Image:CHL012.JPG
- Image:CHL014.JPG
- Image:CHL016.JPG
Category:Money of Chilekept --ALE! ¿…? 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Chilekept --ALE! ¿…? 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Chilekept --ALE! ¿…? 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Chilean bills - pesoskept --ALE! ¿…? 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Chile money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Reproduction of coins and banknotes in circulation without Central Bank of Chile consent is prohibited --Yakoo 23:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Colombian money
[edit]- Image:1000 Peso Schein Kolumbien Hinten.jpg
- Image:1000 Peso Schein Kolumbien Vorne.jpg
- Image:10000 Anverso.jpg
- Image:10000 Reverso.jpg
- Image:20000 Anverso.jpg
- Image:20000 Reverso.jpg
- Image:Policarpa Salavarrieta 2 pesos Oro.jpg
- Image:2000-PesosUnd500Pesos-CC-Attribution.jpg
- Image:COL002.JPG
- Image:COL003.JPG
- Image:COL005.JPG
- Image:COL006.JPG
- Image:COL007.JPG
- Image:COL009.JPG
- Image:COL010.JPG
- Image:COL011.JPG
- Image:COL012.JPG
- Image:Cop caras 20 50 100 200 500.jpg
- Image:Cop sellos 20 50 100 200 500.jpg
- Image:Policarpa moneda.JPG
- Image:COP20.PNG
- Image:COP50.PNG
- Image:COP100.PNG
- Image:COP200.PNG
- Image:COP500.PNG
- Image:COP1000_frente.jpg
- Image:COP1000_reverso.jpg
- Image:COP2000_frente.jpg
- Image:COP2000_reverso.jpg
- Image:COP5000_frente.jpg
- Image:5000_reverso.jpg
- Image:COP5000_frente.jpg
- Image:10000 Anverso.jpg
- Image:10000 Reverso.jpg
- Image:20000 Anverso.jpg
- Image:20000 Reverso.jpg
- Image:COP50000 frente.jpg
- Image:COP50000 reverso.jpg
Category:Money of Colombiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Colombiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Colombiakept --ALE! ¿…? 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Colombian money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — per aboveF3rn4nd0 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- On Wikimedia Commons our top priority is copyrights which comes even before Commons:Project scope. Just because the state bought them doesn't mean images aren't copyrighted. Certain government images such as coat of arms are copyrighted depending on local law. -- Cat chi? 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, what question must a user ask him/herself first when participating Wikimedia Commons:
- What can I do to eliminate non-copyright free images?
- What can I do to produce more copyright free images?
- And your answer is 1? --Chochopk 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact both are necessary. -- Cat chi? 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, what question must a user ask him/herself first when participating Wikimedia Commons:
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Jamaica
[edit]- Image:JAM001.JPG
- Image:JAM002.JPG
- Image:JAM003.JPG
- Image:JAM004.JPG
- Image:JAM005.JPG
- Image:JAM006.JPG
- Image:JAM007.JPG
- Image:JAM008.JPG
- Image:JAM009.JPG
- Image:JAM010.JPG
- Image:JAM013.JPG
Category:Coins of Jamaicakept --ALE! ¿…? 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Jamaicakept --ALE! ¿…? 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Money of Jamaica is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — I agree with Zntrip. None of this is copyrighted anymore than are the images of coins from other countries (images which are all freely displayed on the internet, unlike notes). I wonder if the nominator just happened to come across some bit of info somewhere that the coat of arms or the design of "money" (without the distinction being made between paper money and coins) is copyrighted and just decided that all these images must therefore be copyright violations. A glance at the nominator's user page also shows that he/she has never even been to the place and obviously not the country's central bank.72.27.29.152 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. -Nard 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Iraq
[edit]- Image:Unknown origin coin3.JPG
- Image:Iraq 5 dinars Awers.JPG
- Image:Iraq 5 dinars Rewers.JPG
- Image:Iraq 50 dinars Awers.JPG
- Image:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG
- Image:Saddam bill.jpg
- Image:Iraq dinar front.jpg
Category:Bills of Iraqkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Iraqkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Money of Iraqkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Money of Iraq is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). To do with Iraq money specifically, this is old money that has images of Saddam Hussein on it, is it even legal tender any more? I certainly do not believe it is being printed any more! Mathmo 11:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Iran
[edit]Money of Iran is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, the complainant did not indicate any specific law or regulation that says that pictures of money from that country are copyrighted. If the complainant cannot provide details then we can only assume that he is misinformed. Easyplex 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Israeli money
[edit]- Image:100 old Shekel bill.jpg
- Image:Einstein paper money.jpg
- Image:Israeli Lira 1968.jpg
- Image:0.5 NIS coin.jpg
- Image:1 Israeli Lira coin.jpg
- Image:1 NIS coin.jpg
- Image:1 old Agora coin.jpg
- Image:1 old Shekel coin.jpg
- Image:10 Agorot coin.jpg
- Image:10 NIS coin.jpg
- Image:10 old Agorot coin.jpg
- Image:10 old Shekel coin.jpg
- Image:100 old Shekel coin.jpg
- Image:25 old Agorot coin.jpg
- Image:5 Agorot coin.jpg
- Image:5 NIS coin.jpg
- Image:5 old Agorot coin.jpg
- Image:5 old Shekel coin.jpg
- Image:50 old Shekel coin.jpg
- Image:Almog IL3 Israco.jpg
- Image:Israele 1 agorot.JPG
- Image:Israele 10 agorot.JPG
- Image:Nis 1 sheqel.png
- Image:Nis 10 agorot.png
- Image:Nis 5 sheqel.png
- Image:Nis 50 agorot.png
Category:Money of Israelkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Israelkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Israelkept --ALE! ¿…? 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Israeli money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Isle of Man
[edit]Money of Isle of Man is copyrighted. -- Cat chi? 17:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actualy that engraveing of QE II is protected by copyright.Geni 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moroccan money
[edit]- Image:Local ban notes-reus-tanger 0003.jpg
- Image:Local ban notes-reus-tanger 0004.jpg
- Image:Morocco 50 dirhams.jpg
- Image:Maroc-10francs.jpg
Category:Money of Moroccokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Bills of Moroccokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Moroccokept --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Money of Morocco is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all - as per the above. -- FayssalF 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Money of Mozambique
[edit]Money of Mozambique is copyrighted -- Cat chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Uruguayan money
[edit]Image:URY001.JPGkept, PD-old --ALE! ¿…? 07:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)- Image:URY002.JPG
- Image:URY003.JPG
- Image:URY004.JPG
- Image:URY005.JPG
- Image:URY006.JPG
- Image:URY007.JPG
- Image:URY008.JPG
- Image:URY009.JPG
- Image:URY011.JPG
- Image:URY012.JPG
- Image:URY013.JPG
- Image:URY014.JPG
- Image:URY015.JPG
- Image:URY016.JPG
- Image:URY017.JPG
- Image:URY018.JPG
- Image:URY019.JPG
- Image:URY020.JPG
- Image:URY021.JPG
- Image:URY022.JPG
- Image:URY023.JPG
- Image:URY024.JPG
- Image:URY025.JPG
- Image:URY026.JPG
- Image:URY027.JPG
- Image:URY028.JPG
- Image:URY029.JPG
- Image:URY030.JPG
- Image:URY031.JPG
- Image:URY032.JPG
- Image:URY033.JPG
- Image:URY034.JPG
- Image:URY035.JPG
- Image:URY036.JPG
- Image:URY038.JPG
- Image:URY039.JPG
- Image:URY040.JPG
Category:Money of Uruguaykept --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Category:Coins of Uruguaykept --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)- Image:1000juana.jpg
Uruguayan money is copyrighted --Cat Chi? 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.
- Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
March 3
[edit]The description says that the image is copyrighted but it is tagged with a free license -- Meno25 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The description says that the image is copyrighted but it is tagged with a free license -- Meno25 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Redundant GIF version created from Image:Taza de café.png. Now orphaned. --Dcoetzee 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted Julo 10
- 11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
double:Image:Pe-2.jpg --Dryke 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This can be speedy deleted as a duplicate. I have added the {{Duplicate}} template as I cannot check usage due to toolserver problems ATM. Lcarsdata 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Probable copyvio: this image is tagged PD-Art but it is actually a 3D object (hydria) photo which has been adapted. I don't believe PD-Art can apply. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment author of this 3-D object is probably died, and it was probably much more than 70 years ago... Question: who and when made this 2-D photo? Julo 10:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The matter is: no information. The source doesn't mention it. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently a GIF version created from existing PNG Image:Crystal_128_forward.png. Orphaned. --Dcoetzee 05:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
False license. I found the (unspecified) source, at http://www.pm.al.gov.br/intra/organograma.htm , but there is no copyright notice and I seriously doubt the Brazilian police release their charts under the GFDL. pd-self tag clearly erroneous. Dcoetzee 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) --Dcoetzee 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Probable false license. I found the original source at http://www.ac.gov.br/pmac/Organograma.htm and there's no sign of a license statement, nor are works of the Brazilian police public domain as far as I know. --Dcoetzee 06:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably false license. Closest image I can find to the source is http://www.pm.ro.gov.br/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&file=index&do=showpic&pid=29&orderby=dateD, which is of the same subject from a slightly different angle. No sign of a license statement and I don't think Brazilian police images are in the public domain. --Dcoetzee 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion requested by the uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. He argues that this shows an unknown moss which is impossible to determine. And yes, this seems to be correct. --Franz Xaver 12:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't think that is a good reason for deletion. And btw, GFDL is irrevocable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Against policy; not edited for 1 days
Another deletion requested by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: unknown moss which is impossible to determine. --Franz Xaver 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Against policy; not edited for 1 days
Out of project scope and could easily be reproduced using CSS and other (already existing) symbols. -- Lcarsdata 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --norro 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Netherlands Money
[edit]Bills from the Netherlands:
No evidence has been presented that De Nederlandsche Bank or the engravers have released the bills under GFDL.
- Image:10 gulden f.jpg
- Image:10 gulden b.jpg
- Image:25 gulden f.jpg
- Image:25 gulden b.jpg
- Image:100 gulden f.jpg
- Image:100 gulden b.jpg
- Image:250 gulden f.jpg
- Image:250 gulden b.jpg
Thuresson 11:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mailed De Nederlandse Bank. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
All deleted: After email conversation with De Nederlandse Bank: De Nederlandsche Bank NV is auteursrechthebbende op de door haar uitgegeven bankbiljetten. Zij handhaaft haar auteursrecht op bankbiljetten aan de hand van de "Voorwaarden voor het afbeelden van Nederlandse bankbiljetten" (Staatscourant 1995, 164). [...] In zijn algemeenheid vervalt het auteursrecht van rechtspersonen door verloop van 70 jaar te rekenen vanaf het eerste jaar waarin de openbaarmaking van het werk heeft plaatsgehad. This means that all Gulden biljetten are copyrighted until 70 years after publications. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine. --Franz Xaver 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and bad quality of photo. Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and bad quality of photo. Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and bad quality of photo. Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and bad quality of photo. Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and no permission of use (no license). Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and no permission of use (no license). Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and no permission of use (no license). Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another deletion request by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: Unknown moss which is impossible to determine and no permission of use (no license). Fabelfroh 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
CC-By-NC-ND - Noncommercial and nonderivative. I don't know whether the license on Flickr was changed some time. Phrood 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It was. Before early October 2006 it was licensed CC-BY, after which the license was changed to CC-BY-NC-SA until mid February 2007, when it was again changed to the current CC-BY-NC-ND. --Para 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just a question - where can you see the log of what licenses images on flickr have been licensed under? Yonatanh 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have been spidering the license status of all Flickr sourced images on Commons for about half a year now, once a week. To see the history and status for any Flickr image here that isn't too recent, use the "What links here" feature and look for pages in my userspace. --Para 18:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by David.Monniaux: copyvio and author maintains -nd
This seems to be a collage made up of unfree images. --Jkelly 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
while the performance is claimed to be licensed under the EFF license, the composer died 1957 which means the copyright for the composition may not have expired. Furthermore, the original page from which this item was sourced no longer contains the item. Please delete the audio file. --65.57.245.11 11:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright law in Finland protects works of arts for life + 70 years. (Copyright law §43). Thuresson 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Finnish copyright law might or might not be appropriate here as the servers are probably physically in the United States of America, but surely the question is not whether the copyright to the score has expired but whether the performance is correctly licensed. If the orchestra owns the copyright to the performance. Do they have the right to perform and distribute recordings? Perhaps someone versed in copyright law could tell us if the distinction I am trying to make is valid. Kwhitefoot 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Server location is not relevant: Commons policy states, we should comply BOTH with US and country of origin law. A.J. 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
while the performance is claimed to be licensed under the EFF license, the composer died 1945 which means the copyright for the composition may not have expired. Furthermore, the original page from which this item was sourced no longer contains the item. Please delete the audio file. --65.57.245.11 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 09:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
copyvio. http://www.plattegronden.nl/heemstede/index.html does not look like a free site. Its homepage says Copyright © --Teun Spaans 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - they're not the same map. Lcarsdata 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - "Source: Map of Heemstede is free for all Heemstede residents on paper, and is free in electronic form via the Heemstede town website http://www.heemstede.nl (click on plattegrond) and from http://www.plattegronden.nl/heemstede/index.html"
- It appears it's from one of these three sources and no assertion of permission or "freeness" is given. Yonatanh 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Nearly a duplicate of Image:Copyleft.svg (both uploaded by same user), virtually unused. Other version looks better due to thickness of 'C'. -- Lcarsdata 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, on all counts, and I apologise. I do have a disorder that affects my memory, and I don't currently remember anything about either image (or how to use a wiki, so if I'm doing something wrong now, I apologise again and hope you understand) - but I should have checked. (I should have checked my emails more often, too!) Melian 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The source given by the uploader is incorrect - it is not a Nuvola icon, and is not PD-self. It's from everaldo.com. Very nearly an exact duplicate of Image:Crystal clock.png, which is in a more appropriate format. --Dcoetzee 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image is currently being replaced with image:Crystal clock.png and will be deleted afterwards. --ALE! ¿…? 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite a duplicate of Image:Nuvola apps date.png, but placing transparent images on a solid background should be done with markup, not separate images. The license is also wrong (LGPL, not GPL). --Dcoetzee 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The image is being replaced with png by using the CommonsDelinker and will afterwards be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
kept because it is used in IT Wikipedia and due to transparency issues can not be replaced --ALE! ¿…? 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Irish money
[edit]No evidence has been presented that the Central Bank of Ireland or the engravers have released the bills under GFDL.
- Image:1 pound f.jpg
- Image:1 pound b.jpg
- Image:5 pound f.jpg
- Image:5 pound b.jpg
- Image:10 pound f.jpg
- Image:10 pound b.jpg
Thuresson 11:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
From the Irish copyright law[12]:
Chapter 24 Copyright: Legal Tender Copyright in Irish 200.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part and legal tender notes, subject to subsection (2), the copyright in legal tender notes issued, euro notes, whether before or after the commencement of this section, by the consolidated bank notes and in Irish Central Bank of Ireland (in this section referred to as ‘‘the Bank’’) and euro coins. or issued before such commencement by the Currency Commission, shall be perpetual and vests in the Bank. (2) This Part is without prejudice to the copyright of the European Central Bank in legal tender notes denominated in the euro unit. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, the copyright in consolidated bank notes issued before the commencement of this section by the Bank or by the Currency Commission shall be perpetual and vests in the Bank. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, the copyright in coins issued under the Coinage Act, 1926, gold coins issued under the Currency Act, 1927, coins issued under the Coinage Act, 1950, and coins issued under the Decimal Currency Acts, 1969 to 1990, and the copyright in the artistic work defining the design of any such coin shall be perpetual and vests in the Minister for Finance. (5) (a) This Part is without prejudice to the copyright of the European Community in the common face of coins denominated in euro or in cent, and in the artistic work defining the design of any such face, or to the assignment of that copyright by the Commission of the European Communities on behalf of the European Community. 116 [2000.] Copyright and Related Rights Act, [No. 28.] 2000. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, the copy- Pt.II S.200 right in the national face of coins issued under section 11 of the Economic and Monetary Union Act, 1998, and the copyright in the artistic work defining the design of any such face shall be perpetual and vests in the Minister for Finance. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part, the copyright in all coins issued under Part III of the Economic and Monetary Union Act, 1998, and the copyright in the artistic work defining the design of any such coin shall be perpetual and vests in the Minister for Finance. (6) In the application of section 37(3) to any legal tender note or consolidated bank note or any coin to which this section applies, references in that subsection to the work as a whole or to any substantial part thereof shall be construed as references to the note or coin as a whole or to any part thereof. (7) Chapter 6 of this Part shall not apply in relation to the copyrights referred to in this section. (8) Coins to which this section applies and the artistic work defining the design of any such coin shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 172 of the Act of 1927, not to be designs. (9) This section applies to coins issued under the Coinage Act, 1926, gold coins issued under the Currency Act, 1927, coins issued under the Coinage Act, 1950, coins issued under the Decimal Currency Acts, 1969 to 1990, and coins issued under the Economic and Monetary Union Act, 1998.
I don't even understand a single sentence from it :) Maybe somebody can extract the relevant parts in simple English? :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The European Central Bank has certain copyrights in legal tender notes denominated in the euro unit. The Irish Central Bank of Ireland has certain copyrights in Irish currency, and so does the Irish Minister for Finance. There is nothing in that about Public Domain. — Jeff G. 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It basically says that Irish money is under perpetual copyright, even money issued before this law became effective. Lupo 07:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
An APOD image that was mistagged as PD-NASA. Actual source [13] says "images are released into the public domain for private use or for use in the promotion of the IPHAS survey". I believe the author is mis-using the term "public domain", as many people do, and actually means something like a non-commercial license (note that at the top of the page he is offering to sell prints of his images). --Davepape 04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
—
Hey esta imagen de la constelacion es muy buena, no deberian de borrarla, ya que si fue de el dominio publico, pues ya deberia de quedarse en "Commons" ; ese es mi comentario...
- image is a true PD, see http://astro.ic.ac.uk/Research/Halpha/North/gallery.shtml. Clh288 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
March 4
[edit]character is protected and can't put on free license without agreement of creator -- Oxam Hartog 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have the original work. If you think this can do any trouble, you may delete it. Image:Mézières-Leeloo.jpg is also in that case. Philippe Kurlapski 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete property and copyright is separate; owning the property rights of a drawing does not automatically mean owning the copyrights (on the contrary, usually the proprietor is not the copyright holder) --Rtc 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No other projects have their own featured pictures category, if I wanted to know about featured pictures on the polish wikipedia then I would go there. --Lcarsdata 10:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, how about {{Gmedal}}, do you want it to be deleted too? Other projects can have their categories too... Keep A.J. 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep // the pictures aren't duplicated on PL, they're on Commons. tsca [re] 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and kill this troll! --WarX 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Ridiculous guy.... Masur 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In FP contest on pl:Wiki images have to be on Commons. A.J. 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - sorry I was wrong. Lcarsdata 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Everyone can be wrong, close the voting if so :) --WarX 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was a unanimous Keep, which includes the nominator's vote. Yonatanh 16:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The image seems to be possibly unfree to me. Please check website and check out if the image is really in public domain. -- Shyam (T/C) 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I advise you to check OTRS: permission to use this image - and all other material from PETA. --Lhademmor 10:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The permission says “Our materials are not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely.” Kjetil r 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not doneper OTRS permission. Yonatan talk 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Who decides this? --Lcarsdata 10:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Decisions are/have been made here: Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers Enricopedia ⇄ 12:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have decided to make such category. Don't think it is in any way harmfull or agains the rules.--Vaya 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's quite handy. I see no reason to delete this category. Husky 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have decided to make such category. Don't think it is in any way harmfull or agains the rules.--Vaya 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It seems valuable and within the rules. The name could be better since the name does not indicate this relates to Flickr images and the category could therefore be easily misinterpreted. Johntex 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A vector version of this file is available --De.Nobelium 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD --Polarlys 14:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for pd given, PD old is wrong --Polarlys 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD-old --Polarlys 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD-old, possibly by Heinrich Hoffmann († 1957) --Polarlys 14:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for pd-old, possibly photography by Heinrich Hoffmann († 1957) --Polarlys 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No source or author, not old enough for PD. PD-GermanGov doesn't apply, because that only covers laws, decrees etc. 88.134.140.64 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- How old would it have to be for PD and how old do we think this picture actually is? (it must be at least 62 years old but possibly as old as 74 years, right?). --140.180.133.77 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Germany/the EU images become public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer. --88.134.140.64 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right, so it's not clear that this picture isn't old enough for PD. It might actually be old enough. The problem is, then, that we lack a source. --140.180.133.77 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Germany/the EU images become public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer. --88.134.140.64 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This photo is not in the public domain. §72 only applies to "Lichtbilder" (simple photographs), not to "Lichtbildwerke" (which almost all photos are). 88.134.140.64 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No author, no permission. --Polarlys 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD-old --Polarlys 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD, Greim got his „Schwerter“ for his „Ritterkreuz“ in 1944, see picture --Polarlys 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD, picture from 1940 or later --Polarlys 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for „GFDL“, image from >1940 --Polarlys 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
see the image's history: "unsourced image replaced". image must be deleted at all -- Frumpy 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Nsd}} for such images. Kjetil r 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work --Husky talk to me 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I thought of that after I uploaded it, probably should have put it up myself. Quadzilla99 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a derivative. Kjetil r 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no licence given, obviuously copyvio from [14] Mazbln 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio from web page with copyright notice. --MichaelMaggs 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: singular, see User_talk:Thomas_Springer Thomas Springer 17:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as it is not useful to have redirects in case of categories. --AFBorchert 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photos of works by Marian Iwańciów
[edit]- Image:Mari1.JPG
- Image:Mari7.JPG
- Image:Mari4.JPG
- Image:Mari6.JPG
- Image:Mari8.JPG
- Image:Mari9.JPG
- Image:Mari2.JPG
- Image:Mari3.JPG
- Image:Mari5.JPG
- Image:Larixpolonica.jpg
- Image:Puszcza1.jpg
- Image:Puszcza2.jpg
- Image:Przedburza.jpg
- Image:Olesko.jpg
- Image:Poczajow1.jpg
- Image:Poczajow2.jpg
- Image:Poczajow3.jpg
- Image:Podkamien1.jpg
- Image:Podkamien2.jpg
- Image:Podkamien5.jpg
- Image:Podkamien3.jpg
- Image:Podkamien4.jpg
- Image:Galhouse3.jpg
- Image:Ruthenianchurch.jpg
- Image:Wisent1.jpg
- Image:Wisent2.jpg
- Image:Big-game hunting.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch1.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch2.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch3.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch7.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch8.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch5.jpg
- Image:Horsesketch6.jpg
- Image:Szkic1.jpg
- Image:Szkic2.jpg
- Image:Szkic3.jpg
- Image:Szkic4.jpg
- Image:Kon2.jpg
- Image:Kon3.jpg
- Image:Kon4.jpg
- Image:Kon5.jpg
- Image:Kon6.jpg
- Image:Kon7.jpg
- Image:Kon8.jpg
- Image:Kon9.jpg
- Image:Kon10.jpg
- Image:Horsan1.jpg
- Image:Horsan2.jpg
- Image:Szkic5.jpg
- Image:Szkic6.jpg
- Image:Studyofhorse7.jpg
- Image:Horsestudy8.jpg
- Image:Malnow.JPG
- Image:Szkic7.jpg
- Image:Szkic8.jpg
- Image:Wilno.jpg
I ask you for a permanent deletion of these files from the Commons repository. I have not been granted the permission to release these pictures into the public domain by the person who owns these works of art. I have not been granted the permission to release them under the 'cc-by-2.5' licence, either. Therefore, I violated the copyrights held by the owner of these works of art while uploading the photos to the Commons. Besides, on the other hand, the painter died in 1971 so the works by him are not in the public domain yet. Uploading photographs or scans of works by this artist is, therefore, prohibited. I was granted permission by the owner of these works of art to take the photos for my personal use only (for my personal album). I would appreciate if you deleted the files immediately. Thank you. --Riva72 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The following message was moved by me, Riva72, while 'one-page' relocations: --Riva72 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Today it has been moved to its proper place. --Riva72 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
All images tagged by Riva72:
This user lies about copyvios of his uploads - he (or someone from his family) has ability for releasing those images on cc-by-sa. He is in conflict on pl.wiki and tries to do the same thing with articles written by him! --WarX 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Warx: I am not a liar. Consider the fact that I do not want to delete the article on the painter but the article on the castle in Podhorce (Zamek w Podhorcach) and this, my "dear" Warx, is quite a different story! --Riva72 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) - P.S. Notice that I nominated THE ARTICLE for the deletion-discussion and not THE ARTICLES as you say. I want to remind you that it is called 'Zamek w Podhorcach' (The castle in Podhorce). --Riva72 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- To Warx: How can you be so sure? Have you ever seen these works of art? Have you ever assisted me while talking to the owner? Have you ever assisted me while taking the photos? Your malicious slander is only an incompetent remark. I move your "information" to the bottom as your peculiar POV. For sure someone has the ability of which you are talking but, so far, nobody was granted the rights to carry these abilities into effect. My upload action was the violation of the owner rights. I, therefore, abused the owner's trust and kindness for which I am sorry.. P.S. The discussion on the castle in Podhorce has just been closed. --Riva72 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The lack of civility does not assist anyone in this discussion - I do not wish to see this continue in this way --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herby: I do not suffer from the lack of civility.. I am far from hostility.. Actually, it was me who received unpleasant messages from the user Warx. His message to me (which was written in Polish on March 2, 2007 and which is available at my discussion page) was full of menace, accusations of cheating the Wikipedia Commons administrators with false reasons concerning the deletion request and even contained a serious threat.. I hope you understand. --Riva72 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion this discussion is to deal with my deletion request and I hope for a prompt resolution of this problem. Have a nice evening! --Riva72 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Revert by Herby: Herby, thank you for your message at my discussion page ([15]). I have reverted your change. I believe my answers are needed.. I will leave the process to take its course but if I notice the reason for my words in the case I will not hesitate to raise them. Thank you for understanding. --Riva72 11:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A note in the copyvios case:
I am the nephew of the daughter of the artist. She is the person who owns all the works of art which I photographed and uploaded to the commons. She is married. These works (and their copyrights) belong, therefore, to her, her husband and their direct descendants. --Riva72 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. According to the Polish law, if she's alive, she is the only heir. Definitely her husband is not a heir (unless the painter gave it to him in a testament, or she made a gift to her husband). But I'd say: delete all of them - what do we need them for? Wikipedia is not an art album. Pibwl 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- WarX, I don't understand your reasons for opposing this request. Are you saying Riva72 is the actual holder of the copyright? As for me, I see no reason to doubt Riva72's good faith. I will delete these pictures if no further information is given. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seoul Subway Maps
[edit]These 3 images parallel SMRT's maps. Their sources are this(Korean) and this(English). They are copyrighted by Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation(SMRT), so should be deleted. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 11:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- True, I just wanted to say the same. But since it is a obvios copyright violation, it can be deleted with a speedy deletion. I changed that. -- iGEL (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Already deleted. Kjetil r 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License tags of russian websites
[edit]This template refers to the statement in [16], which only grants the right to copy the affected images. There seems to be no permission for everybody and any purpose to make derivative works and use the material commercially. Therefore, this is not a free licence template. —xyzzyn 12:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RussiaUralTransparent.png - this tag has got same Licensing Scheme with {{Rost.ru}} и {{CBR.ru}}. Alex Spade 15:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The permission seems to be only for media and doesn't include derivative works. Samulili 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The permission covers Internet sites. By the way, Internet sites are not media according to the Russian legislation. Colchicum 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- For Commons, Internet and media is not enough. That leaves out book, for example. Samulili 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here is the statement: All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website. From this it is clear that all materials of the site may be reproduced on Internet sites. There I see no prohibitions you are talking about. Besides, this is functionally equivalent to US .gov domain, and if the template is deleted, this would leave many top-importance Russia-related articles without pictures at all. Colchicum 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, what about non-derived pictures from this website? If I understand you correctly, on my talk page in en-Wiki you claimed that this would entail deletion of all the pictures from Kremlin.ru [17] Colchicum 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- If somebody nominate {{Kremlin.ru}} for deletion in en-wiki, he (she) must also nominate all free-use and fair-use -
they are deprecatingthese tags are not allowed derivative works. Alex Spade 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)- Fair use is non-free by definition; that’s an exception to the usual requirements, endemic to enwiki and some others and subject to fairly strict rules. If fair use is claimed, the copyright holder’s opinion (which is the subject of this debate) is simply irrelevant. I don’t know what you mean by ‘free-use’. —xyzzyn 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Repeat. I told, if somebody did same del.req. at en-wiki, not at commons. Free-use is ex-w:en:Template:Free_use, now w:en:Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. Is there permission for derivative works? No. Another example (for en-wiki) - w:en:Template:mozilla. It's obviously depecating the derivative and commercial works. The deletion of Kremlin.ru can be disscused at Commons. But same del.req. can be disscused at en-wiki only with interrelationship with free-use and fair-use. Alex Spade 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Mozilla tag is a fair use tag. The other one isn’t a stand-alone licence tag (in my opinion, although I’m sure somebody is using it that way); it must be accompanied by additional information showing why the tagged content is free. Anyway, enwiki has enough policies to treat these templates one by one (and that’s much more legible, too). —xyzzyn 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't understand me. I will try another way - Why you also want to delete this license tag from en-wiki? Why it cann't be some variant of fair use? Alex Spade 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- It can be some variant of fair use, but I don’t see the point. There are enough already; there are four images there tagged with {{kremlin.ru}}, of which three are orphaned and the other one is replaceable in the article where it is used. I don’t see anything special about this tag. —xyzzyn 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- If Kremlim.ru will be deleted from commons, there will be more such images - ru-user just reloaded them to en-wiki. Alex Spade 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- There aren’t so many of these images here and I expect that if they must be used under fair use, by far not all of them will be usable. Anyway, if you want to remodel that template as a fair use tag, go ahead, but it would be simply a source tag. —xyzzyn 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was the uploader of the images on en.wikipedia using that tag, except for the judo photo. While they were supposed to be on the Commons, I was bit by the lazy bug and decided to use them as en.wikipedia instead. I mainly got the pictures so we have free photos of leaders, but if the template is deleted here, I will go ahead and delete the photos I uploaded on EN. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- There aren’t so many of these images here and I expect that if they must be used under fair use, by far not all of them will be usable. Anyway, if you want to remodel that template as a fair use tag, go ahead, but it would be simply a source tag. —xyzzyn 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- If Kremlim.ru will be deleted from commons, there will be more such images - ru-user just reloaded them to en-wiki. Alex Spade 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It can be some variant of fair use, but I don’t see the point. There are enough already; there are four images there tagged with {{kremlin.ru}}, of which three are orphaned and the other one is replaceable in the article where it is used. I don’t see anything special about this tag. —xyzzyn 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Repeat. I told, if somebody did same del.req. at en-wiki, not at commons. Free-use is ex-w:en:Template:Free_use, now w:en:Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. Is there permission for derivative works? No. Another example (for en-wiki) - w:en:Template:mozilla. It's obviously depecating the derivative and commercial works. The deletion of Kremlin.ru can be disscused at Commons. But same del.req. can be disscused at en-wiki only with interrelationship with free-use and fair-use. Alex Spade 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use is non-free by definition; that’s an exception to the usual requirements, endemic to enwiki and some others and subject to fairly strict rules. If fair use is claimed, the copyright holder’s opinion (which is the subject of this debate) is simply irrelevant. I don’t know what you mean by ‘free-use’. —xyzzyn 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- If somebody nominate {{Kremlin.ru}} for deletion in en-wiki, he (she) must also nominate all free-use and fair-use -
- Copyright law works thusly: when somebody creates a work which has components of artistic originality, that person (or entity), being the copyright holder automatically gets the exclusive right to display/perform/copy/modify/sell the work. The copyright holder may choose to grant others some of these rights, but until that is the case, copyright law guarantees that those rights belong exclusively to the copyright holder. This means that the copyright holder has no need to prohibit anything, as others do not have any a priori rights to the work (except where fair use applies, but such exceptions aren’t relevant on Commons).
- In this case, the copyright holder grants websites and other media the right to display and copy the work, but these rights are insufficient for free (as in ‘freedom’) content. For such content, we expect that, at least in principle, anybody may display, copy, modify and sell the work for any purpose. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. Particularly the argument that websites are granted some permission is weak, since our content is expected to be reused outside of the WWW.
- The analogy to United States government works is false, since those works are in the public domain due to US copyright law, which does not extend to works of entities other than the US government. In fact, by far not everything on .gov websites is in the public domain.
- Finally, the importance of the affected images is largely immaterial. On enwiki, you can claim fair use where appropriate, but other than that, we cannot use kremlin.ru images without further permission, because they are non-free. —xyzzyn 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know how copyright is supposed to work. Still, copyright is an invention without a future. But if you want to leave Wikipedia without pictures, go ahead. Best libertarian regards, Colchicum 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I’m as much as anybody in favour of abolishing the Berne convention and all national copyright laws, but that’s just my private opinion and on these projects, compliance with copyright laws is a policy. —xyzzyn 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know how copyright is supposed to work. Still, copyright is an invention without a future. But if you want to leave Wikipedia without pictures, go ahead. Best libertarian regards, Colchicum 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, what about non-derived pictures from this website? If I understand you correctly, on my talk page in en-Wiki you claimed that this would entail deletion of all the pictures from Kremlin.ru [17] Colchicum 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The exact text of their notice:
- All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website.
- It explicitly states that any use it is allowed and the only condition is to attribute it. Claiming that the notice somehow restrict the commercial use or derivative work is simply ridiculous Alex Bakharev 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As above, permission has to be granted. The right to make derivative works is non-existent until granted by the copyright holder. (I’m not sure how much commercial use is allowed by the notice, but it doesn’t seem to be for any purpose.) —xyzzyn 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The permission is obviously granted by the copyright holder. Just read the notice again Alex Bakharev 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have read it often enough. There is no mention of derivative works, only implied mention of commercial use and an explicit permission for copying which by itself is insufficient. —xyzzyn 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The permission is obviously granted by the copyright holder. Just read the notice again Alex Bakharev 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As above, permission has to be granted. The right to make derivative works is non-existent until granted by the copyright holder. (I’m not sure how much commercial use is allowed by the notice, but it doesn’t seem to be for any purpose.) —xyzzyn 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex. Permission is given unrestricted which implied derivative work. In fact, any reuse at any web-site for news, articles or just gallery is already derivative work. This is plain silly. Please keep m:Copyright paranoia under control. --Irpen 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Only permission to reproduce is given, and it’s not even unrestricted. Also, please read w:derivative work. Copying, scaling or cropping an image or adjusting its colours for printing does not introduce new copyrightable elements. —xyzzyn 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Permission is unrestricted only with regad to amount of material and time of publication. Samulili 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex & Irpen. Don't juggle with words just to confirm own opinion. - Julo 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above Kmorozov 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. For sure it allows derivative works, because it allows to reproduce not only the whole picture, but also any part of the pictures, so we can combine them in a new derivative work and it is allowed. MaxiMaxiMax 07:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ‘combine’ bit isn’t in the permission. Also, this is still too limited, allowing by far not all derivative works. For example, [18] vs. [19]. —xyzzyn 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- For example, let the first image is PD, what is about article 15, which is deprecating the distortion (variant of derivative work) of initial idea of first author. Thus Russian law deprecates any deriavative works (deriavative works are possible, but not all variants) - we can make changes, but not any changes. Further, should we delete {{PD-Russia}} too? Alex Spade 15:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Article 15 is a direct translation of article 6bis of the Berne Convention. Equivalent passages can be found in the copyright laws of other parties to the treaty, such as U.S.C. 17 §106A. It is important to note that the author’s right to object to distortion is qualified by the phrase ‘prejudicial to [the author’s] honor or reputation’. That’s a fairly small limitation and a part of it is already permitted in [20]. Article 15 does not apply to works excluded from protection under article 8 and, as far as I understand the law, it also does not apply to works whose protection has expired; in particular, {{PD-Russia}} appears to be right. While U.S.C. 17 provides a means to remove the protection of its §106A, there seems to be no equivalent means in the Russian law, but this is immaterial, since waiving this protection does not seem to be a requirement for the work to be free (libre), according to the spirit of [21]. Thus Russian copyright does not make it impossible to release works under a free licence—but, to get back to the matter at hand, the copyright holder must still grant the rights required to make a work free before we can use it on Commons. —xyzzyn 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For example, let the first image is PD, what is about article 15, which is deprecating the distortion (variant of derivative work) of initial idea of first author. Thus Russian law deprecates any deriavative works (deriavative works are possible, but not all variants) - we can make changes, but not any changes. Further, should we delete {{PD-Russia}} too? Alex Spade 15:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- And? Any use of Russian flag and COA is deprecated - they are not absolutely free. Or do you want to delete them and all other state symbols too (not only Russian, but some others countries)?
- The Russian flag and COA are PD, as far as I know; I’m not sure about those of other countries. If there are flags which are not free, they should not be on Commons and should only be used where fair use and compliant with policy. —xyzzyn 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are not PD, they are uncopyrighted (these are not equal). There are some statutory prohibitions in using of them: for example, desecration (one of kind of derivative works) is prosecuted by criminal code. There is similar anostatutory prohibition for USA flag alsow:United States Flag Code. Also in many countries some variants of derivative works for PD-art-images are deprecated. Most variants of derivative works is possible, but all-all-all variants is not. Do you want deleted them also? Alex Spade 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless these restrictions are related to the copyright status, I don’t care. Neither does policy, as far as I can tell. (This includes trademark laws, requirements to salute when scrolling down and other such things.) The second part of your question has too many variables. —xyzzyn 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are not PD, they are uncopyrighted (these are not equal). There are some statutory prohibitions in using of them: for example, desecration (one of kind of derivative works) is prosecuted by criminal code. There is similar anostatutory prohibition for USA flag alsow:United States Flag Code. Also in many countries some variants of derivative works for PD-art-images are deprecated. Most variants of derivative works is possible, but all-all-all variants is not. Do you want deleted them also? Alex Spade 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Russian flag and COA are PD, as far as I know; I’m not sure about those of other countries. If there are flags which are not free, they should not be on Commons and should only be used where fair use and compliant with policy. —xyzzyn 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ‘combine’ bit isn’t in the permission. Also, this is still too limited, allowing by far not all derivative works. For example, [18] vs. [19]. —xyzzyn 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Alex, Irpen & MaxiMaxiMax. --Panther 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Obersachse 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Could somebody contact kremlin.ru (or organize flash-mod) with request for clarification of term of use instead of interpreting their words on Commons? As for me reproduction doesn't mean unrestricted creation of derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep nevertheless. Commons have got many other more potentially dangerous images. Alex Spade 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think persons interested in deletion must get clear proof of deprecating of derivative works or commercial use from kremlin.ru-site-administation.Alex Spade 17:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, those interested in keeping should demonstrate that those things are permitted. —xyzzyn 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which ones? —xyzzyn 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{Vector-images.com}}, images of soviet cosmonauts and space technique, which was taken from NASA and sub-NASA websites - most of them doesn't belong to NASA originally, images of soviet people from NARA, anonymous (?) work from USSR which were published before 1 Jan. 1954, but which authors can potentialy be alive after 1 Jan. 1954 and etc. Alex Spade 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I’ve only had a cursory look at the template, but from the talk page, it looks like that website has released the raster COAs under CC–BY. What still needs to be done is to check whether any of the COAs are themselves copyrighted, but I am incompetent in heraldry and probably won’t do that. Regarding Soviet space programme images, those which aren’t PD or freely licensed shouldn’t be on Commons; since you already know (some of) them, start a deletion discussion. Likewise for other potential copyright infringements. —xyzzyn 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{Vector-images.com}}, images of soviet cosmonauts and space technique, which was taken from NASA and sub-NASA websites - most of them doesn't belong to NASA originally, images of soviet people from NARA, anonymous (?) work from USSR which were published before 1 Jan. 1954, but which authors can potentialy be alive after 1 Jan. 1954 and etc. Alex Spade 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The statement means nothing as it concerns only text materials. All images don't belong to kremlin.ru, they are listed here [22], so each source should be checked to tel the right licence for each image.--Vaya 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Dennis Myts 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I believe the information posted at [23] is clear enough for use. For those concerned about a printed CD or book use, there is a clause that says "or any other informational supprots with restriction," so we can use it in books, CD's and we can modify it, since the only restriction placed on the images is the credit of the original source. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking with xyzzy_n now on en.wikipedia to sort the issue out. I agree that we need to reform the template, but I am not sure how many pictures will be affected. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I repeat that this statement [24] concers ONLY text materials all images are copyrighted [25]--Vaya 11:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so we cannot use the photos from ITAR-TASS, but many photographs are done by the The Presidential Press and Information Office, which the "licensing" page mentions specifically. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Launched email to the Press and Information Office via the Kremlin website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so we cannot use the photos from ITAR-TASS, but many photographs are done by the The Presidential Press and Information Office, which the "licensing" page mentions specifically. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Zscout370 and others. Csman 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I suppose User:Zscout370 is right VanHelsing.16 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete'Delete' Photos do not belong to Kremlin.ru but belong to other indiviuals see here http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/articles/about_siteEng02.shtml. All copyrights reserved. Vlad fedorov
- Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Darz Mol 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The permission is obviously granted by the copyright holder.Biophys 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Putin don't worry about it.Sidik iz PTU 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the permission does not cover derivative works, and is unclear about commercial use. Kjetil r 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Neither my request[26] nor Zscout370’s request[27] for the Presidential Press and Information Office to clarify their terms have been answered.[28] —xyzzyn 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty much, they got the emails, but refused to respond for one reason or another. Could a Russian national try and contact the Kremlin about this issue? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it.--Vaya 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Any result? —xyzzyn 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No still no answer. I ll try to find another way to contact then.--Vaya 08:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Found any? I’m inclined to believe that we’ll never get an answer on the grounds that continued silence is a legally safe and minimally work-intensive strategy. —xyzzyn 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- No still no answer. I ll try to find another way to contact then.--Vaya 08:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Any result? —xyzzyn 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it.--Vaya 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty much, they got the emails, but refused to respond for one reason or another. Could a Russian national try and contact the Kremlin about this issue? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per MaxiMaxiMax. Anton Rakitskiy 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Phase 2
[edit]- Delete "All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites."[29] This clearly refers to unmodified journalistic use and reproduction clearly means not modifying. Please eradicate all these dubious licenses from commons. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question for Rtc, why did you decide to merge Template:CBR.ru and Template:Rost.ru with the request about the Kremlin.ru template? A lot of this discussion is about the Kremlin template and may not have anything to do with the other two. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think, he have read second paragraph of this topic. They have same Licensing Scheme. Alex Spade 08:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I clicked on the licenses, they pretty much all say "images are copyrighted, can be reproduced without limit in all media, only requirement is sourcing." My personal thoughts on this, and on a template I created at en, is that our copyright rules for the Commons seems to be too harsh for many of the copyrights in the former Soviet Union. Also, the lack of information and communication is hurting us, since all they ask for is credit and list the terms we need to abide by. As I mentioned before, I usually go by what it is printed; some others thing all has to be stated. Fair enough, though we still need to wait on Vaya's talks with the Kremlin. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. But we must be carefull in decision about deletion of images under these licenses, some of them have got also PD-RU-exempt license. Alex Spade 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Our rules exclude the bulk of copyrighted material in any country that has implemented the Berne Convention (or has equivalent legislation). Many authors—like, apparently, the one discussed here—simply don’t want to make their work free (libre). Strange but true. —xyzzyn 08:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We are going to be careful with the deletions, since there are many projects that use this license and many images that will be affected. Now, since you mention about that zyzzy_n, I now think we have some use for that 100 million USD Jimbo talked about last year. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I clicked on the licenses, they pretty much all say "images are copyrighted, can be reproduced without limit in all media, only requirement is sourcing." My personal thoughts on this, and on a template I created at en, is that our copyright rules for the Commons seems to be too harsh for many of the copyrights in the former Soviet Union. Also, the lack of information and communication is hurting us, since all they ask for is credit and list the terms we need to abide by. As I mentioned before, I usually go by what it is printed; some others thing all has to be stated. Fair enough, though we still need to wait on Vaya's talks with the Kremlin. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think, he have read second paragraph of this topic. They have same Licensing Scheme. Alex Spade 08:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Good license. Barabas 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question for Rtc, why did you decide to merge Template:CBR.ru and Template:Rost.ru with the request about the Kremlin.ru template? A lot of this discussion is about the Kremlin template and may not have anything to do with the other two. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on the applicability of {{PD-RU-exempt}}: as far as I understand articles 7 and 8 of this, right now,
- in Category:Kremlin.ru, only one item, Image:Standard of the President of the Russian Federation.jpg,
- Also 1, 2, 3 and 4. They are also PD-RU-exempt, somebody had just fogot to place additional template. Alex Spade 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I removed the template from these pages. Although the objects depicted or performed are not copyrighted, the photography or performance adds a copyrighted element so that the resulting work is copyrighted per article 7.3 of the Russian copyright law. (Besides, article 8 doesn’t even mention the anthem…) —xyzzyn 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anthem is one of state symbols (according to law of RF). The current license tags is slightly incorrect, these works doesn't PD, they are uncopyrighted - this is not exactly same then PD - similar, but not same. Why? According to comments for Russian copyright law, these exeption were made specially in order that Russian Federiation doesn't pay to authors (and performers) of state symbols in any case. This tags is more similar to {{PD-ineligible}} - for example - we can change chemical or math formula, but we cann't declare the new formula subject of copyright. Alex Spade 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cites, please. —xyzzyn 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Add to previous. The photography or performance can adds a copyrighted element only to PD works, but cann't to uncopyrighted works, only the new constructive element (for example portrait of order-bearer) can be copyrigted (but the truncated image with order is still uncopyrighted). 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anthem: "Государственный гимн Российской Федерации является официальным государственным символом Российской Федерации." (Федеральный конституционный закон «О государственном гимне Российской Федерации», cтатья 2).
- State symbols: "Объекты, носящие официальный или государственный характер, имеют одну общую особенность - они должны широко и беспрепятственно распространяться. Объем и характер их использования определяют не их создатели - разработчики, не лица, которые их утвердили или которым принадлежит право их воспроизведения и использования, а потребности общества. Вот почему они не могут охраняться авторским правом, которое предусматривает ограничения в пользовании произведением." (Постатейный комментарий к Закону РФ «Об авторском праве и смежных правах», комментарий к статье 8)
- Special copy of constitution: "...специально изготовленный единственный экземпляр официального текста Конституции России является официальным символом президентской власти." (Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 5 августа 1996 года № 1138)
- Alex Spade 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t agree with your interpretation of the commentary; I think it means that the symbols themselves are not copyrightable (which is what article 8 says verbatim) by those who designed the symbols, but the commentary says nothing about those who make works (photographs or musical performances) based on the symbols, and this is supported by the use of the same language in article 7.3 as in article 8 to say that derivative works of PD works (PD is as good a translation as any for ‘не являются объектами авторского права’) are copyrighted. The law and the commentary only say that whoever designed a symbol or wrote the anthem cannot stop you or anybody else from making a picture of the symbol or performing the anthem. —xyzzyn 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you want to say that after perfomance or photographing anthem of flag are lost their official status? Alex Spade 10:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No (but if you photograph a unique object, please don’t touch it in the process and turn off the flash…). The anthem, after being performed, is still the anthem, but the performance of the anthem isn’t the anthem itself; it is a different, derivative work. —xyzzyn 10:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, particular drawings of Russian Coat of Arms and flag are copyrighted too? --Boleslav1 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or, will inscription "Образец" or "Specimen" make the banknote copyrighted? Or, are the most of images of Russian orders and medals copyrighted as default, because there is only text description in their statuses? May be we must deleted {{PD-RU-exempt}} too?
- Relax, Alex and Boleslav1. The Russian flag is safe, since I donated it to the public domain. Ditto with the coat of arms. I did a crude drawing of the Hero of the Russian Federation medal, so not everything tagged with {{PD-RU-exempt}} will face the deletion hachet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. I have finished. If somebody want to delete some works with {{PD-RU-exempt}} tag (which is correctly or incorrectly placed), he(she) must start the new discusion. This discussion have got another object initially. Alex Spade 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The flag is quite primitive… I doubt that it’s copyrighted anywhere ({{PD-ineligible}}). The COA can be copyrighted (there’s more than one way to draw a dragon), but Zscout370’s SVG drawing is derived from [30], which is part of a law and therefore {{PD-RU-exempt}}, so the licence terms are entirely up to Zscout370 (thanks, by the way!). A Russian bank note is in the public domain and a simple scan probably does not introduce any creativity to make the scanned bank note copyrighted; a trivial superposition of ‘образец’ also probably doesn’t make the work copyrighted. (Alex, do you by chance know any Russian court decisions on the issue? I’m not at all certain that a reasoning à la Bridgeman v. Corel is applicable here.) In general, expect any work based on a public domain work but including some creative element—even if it is just the choice of lighting for a photograph—to be copyrighted. For example, if a medal itself (meaning the three-dimensional object you wear on May 1st, Victory Day etc.) is {{PD-RU-exempt}} and you photograph it or draw it, then your work is copyrighted and you can choose how you let others use it (but you can’t preclude others from photographing or making drawings of the same medal). —xyzzyn 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is no equivalent of Bridgeman v. Corel (or something other) in Russian law. The posible decision of Russian court is unpredictable - theoretically scan or other 2D-copy of 2D-PD-work can be copyrighted. But, if this copy had been made by US-citizen on the territory of USA, copy would be uncopyrighted in Russia too - in that case the US-law will be primary for Russian court according to article 5.3. Alex Spade 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The flag is quite primitive… I doubt that it’s copyrighted anywhere ({{PD-ineligible}}). The COA can be copyrighted (there’s more than one way to draw a dragon), but Zscout370’s SVG drawing is derived from [30], which is part of a law and therefore {{PD-RU-exempt}}, so the licence terms are entirely up to Zscout370 (thanks, by the way!). A Russian bank note is in the public domain and a simple scan probably does not introduce any creativity to make the scanned bank note copyrighted; a trivial superposition of ‘образец’ also probably doesn’t make the work copyrighted. (Alex, do you by chance know any Russian court decisions on the issue? I’m not at all certain that a reasoning à la Bridgeman v. Corel is applicable here.) In general, expect any work based on a public domain work but including some creative element—even if it is just the choice of lighting for a photograph—to be copyrighted. For example, if a medal itself (meaning the three-dimensional object you wear on May 1st, Victory Day etc.) is {{PD-RU-exempt}} and you photograph it or draw it, then your work is copyrighted and you can choose how you let others use it (but you can’t preclude others from photographing or making drawings of the same medal). —xyzzyn 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. I have finished. If somebody want to delete some works with {{PD-RU-exempt}} tag (which is correctly or incorrectly placed), he(she) must start the new discusion. This discussion have got another object initially. Alex Spade 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Relax, Alex and Boleslav1. The Russian flag is safe, since I donated it to the public domain. Ditto with the coat of arms. I did a crude drawing of the Hero of the Russian Federation medal, so not everything tagged with {{PD-RU-exempt}} will face the deletion hachet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t agree with your interpretation of the commentary; I think it means that the symbols themselves are not copyrightable (which is what article 8 says verbatim) by those who designed the symbols, but the commentary says nothing about those who make works (photographs or musical performances) based on the symbols, and this is supported by the use of the same language in article 7.3 as in article 8 to say that derivative works of PD works (PD is as good a translation as any for ‘не являются объектами авторского права’) are copyrighted. The law and the commentary only say that whoever designed a symbol or wrote the anthem cannot stop you or anybody else from making a picture of the symbol or performing the anthem. —xyzzyn 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cites, please. —xyzzyn 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anthem is one of state symbols (according to law of RF). The current license tags is slightly incorrect, these works doesn't PD, they are uncopyrighted - this is not exactly same then PD - similar, but not same. Why? According to comments for Russian copyright law, these exeption were made specially in order that Russian Federiation doesn't pay to authors (and performers) of state symbols in any case. This tags is more similar to {{PD-ineligible}} - for example - we can change chemical or math formula, but we cann't declare the new formula subject of copyright. Alex Spade 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- in Category:CBR.ru, all items and
- in Category:Rost.ru, probably (depending on the nature of the entity behind rost.ru) all items
- in Category:Kremlin.ru, only one item, Image:Standard of the President of the Russian Federation.jpg,
- are exempt and all are already tagged as such. Do we still need {{CBR.ru}} and {{Rost.ru}}? —xyzzyn 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We need in CBR and Rost - if these tags are suitable for Commons - there are many no-PD-images on these sites, which can be interesting for Wikipedia and etc.
- Entity behind rost.ru is Council and Direction of the National Projects of Russia, which are under control of President and Govement of the Russian Federation. These emblem are posted on every national projects document both from Council/Direction and from participants of projects. Alex Spade 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- About the Presidental Standard image that Alex pointed out, Image:Standard of the President of the Russian Federation.jpg, I have done an SVG version a while ago, Image:Standard of the President of the Russian Federation.svg, so you may delete the JPEG that I uploaded. As for the state anthem, I can replace the version from the Kremlin with a recording from the US Navy Band, which is public domain due to an email permission (filed at the Wikimedia office). The vocal recordings exist at gov.ru, so they just do not exist at the Kremlin only, if you want to save some effort. BTW, I uploaded most of the photos/media Alex singled out, so please talk to me so we can work something out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Jaro.p 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is necessary to leave it.--MZM-MSYK 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and de-copyright everything else. --Kuban kazak 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Ghirlandajo 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --The template seems essentially correct. Camptown 07:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- this is to be decided bylawyers, not by voters. Mikkalai 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from the discussion above the text of kremlin.ru/eng and several machine translations that I have consulted that the provided grants[31][32][33] do not provide for use in all contexts (books, etc)... the focus seems to be on newspapers, tv and other news sources. Furthermore, It is unclear if non-verbatim reproduction is permitted: the creation of derivatives is an exclusive right reserved by the creator and we would expect it to be explicitly relinquished. We have attempted to obtain clarification on these matters but the office of the president has not provided it. As such we can not accept these images at this time.
This is the same reasoning offered by xyzzy, Rtc, and Samulili. Many of the dissenting views, when considered in light of Common's licensing policy, do little to support permitting these images. For example: The fact that website use is considered 'media' and is thus allowed is not relevant because our requirements demand that the images be usable in all contexts such as campaign posters, books, and advertising (although sometimes non-copyright related restrictions stop advertising use).
I understand everyone's desire, especially those from the Russian Wikipedia, to include as much relevant information as possible in our Wikis... But our mission includes freedom, and we can't compromise that for a short term gain in content.
Deleted / Gmaxwell 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Trvial to replace using CSS. -- Lcarsdata 14:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivial to replace using CSS. -- Lcarsdata 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Uploader scanned this photo of Kyu Sakamoto from a book but claims to be the creator. Thuresson 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete See my discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KyuIku.JPG but Kyu in this photo obviously older than 4 years. This should be deleted unless any source prove it had published before 1956. --Kareha 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Uploader scanned this photo of Kyu Sakamoto from a book but claims to be the creator. Thuresson 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sakamoto Kyu (坂本九) was born in 1941, and in this image he looks like 1 or 2 years old. It means the original photo is taken before 1946, before when all photographs taken in Japan fall into {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. I updated its tags, now it should be kept.--Kareha 09:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep / A.J. 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It can't be PD because the painter died in 1941, so he isn't dead for more than 70 years. --88.134.140.64 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --GeorgHH 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
REASON(Bad background [gray], I'm waiting for the removal of this version for placing a new one with a white corrected background. Unless there's a way to upload a new version, without the need of complete removal) --RFreire1978 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- just upload it over the old version (file with the same name) --ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
biased, better image available (see discussion) --Tungsten 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Biased" is not a very good argument. This drawing appear to be useful. You refer to a consensus achieved at one of the Wikipedia projects. I don't see why that should be relevant to how Wikicommons is organized. Thuresson 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No reason to delete this on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 05:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an image originally uploaded on it.wikipedia; the uploader have uploaded copyviol images (at least, two images made from a professional photographer, pretending it to be under free license without showing an authorization), and probably this is a copyviol too. Original image on it.wikipedia is already deleted. - Laurentius 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not clear that "permission to quote" includes commercial and derivative use, or that the licensing information applies to the image, the copyright of which does not necessarily reside with the Bank of Canada --Jkelly 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- does license allow use this media for illstration on en-wiki? And in Commons?--Albedo-ukr 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that we don't know what license might apply to the image. We don't seem to know who the photographer is, when the image was first published, or under what license the Bank of Canada is publishing it. Jkelly 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (unclear license and permission) --ALE! ¿…? 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This looks like an image used with permission by the NIH. See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/emotions/checklist.html#Cebocap%20Placebos for credits --Jesse Viviano 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then it is usable, true? :) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/copyright.html states that Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Public domain information may be freely distributed and copied, but it is requested that in any subsequent use the National Library of Medicine (NLM) be given appropriate acknowledgement. Shall the image be relicensed under CC-BY or GFDL in order to be kept for usage? --Spiritia 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- It also stated this: "When using NLM Web sites, you may encounter documents, illustrations, photographs, or other information resources contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use (PDF) as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners." This implies that credited images are not in the public domain, but used with permission by the owners. Jesse Viviano 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. My understanding of these 3 images above is that they are marked "courtesy of" because the objects themselves are owned by Elaine and Arthur Shapiro (notable placebo effect researchers). It seems to imply that the objects themselves were donated/lent to the NIH for the History of Medicine Division project who then took the photographs. IronGargoyle 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The common elements of the backdrops also suggest that all the objects on the page (those without "courtesy of") were taken by the same photographer. IronGargoyle 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- i.e., a government photographer, per the similar grey backdrops for all images. IronGargoyle 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per my comment above. IronGargoyle 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per IronGargoyle's comments (avoiding copyright paranoia). PatríciaR msg 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept.--Jusjih 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
ISO warning sign
[edit]This symbol is not ineligible for copyright. From [34], the symbol was ‘developed by human factor experts, graphic artists, and radiation protection experts’; its design is not a process or fact. It is simple, but that’s not the same as trivial. For ISO’s position, please see en:Image talk:New radiation symbol ISO 21482.svg. —xyzzyn 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both--84.61.206.110 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see what would be copyrighted or trademarked in this symbol. If we start to follow such silly copyright claims, we will have to delete probably most of our symbols. Yann 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The composition of the trefoil, the wavy arrows, the skull and crossbones and the decapitated person running towards an arrow in a triangle. Unfortunately copyright protection requires only a bare minimum of originality. (And, yes, some other symbols are also wrongly tagged and possibly unsuitable.) —xyzzyn 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept. I do not see a copyright issue. -- Cat chi? 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Violation of Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. -- Lcarsdata 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I find it pretty ironic that it's being used on the same website so we might wanna bring it to their and meta's attention (where it's also being used). Yonatanh 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your notice, I would ask you Commons folks to give us some amount of time, suspending the normal course of deletion request. I'll refer it to the m:Communinications committee and Mats Halladin, and invite all people who are responsible for decision-making.
- I would note when we created this image, we had no official visual identity guideline, so it was purely created on a good faith, not violating any official policy.
- Just for your information, We'll appreciate a notice about this kind of deletion request related to the Wikimedia Foundation website to m:Wikimedia site feedback/main.
- Thank you for your patience. --Aphaia 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Styleguide is about the use of logos, not about their existence as files. When we change the styleguide and current logos become obsolete, are we going to delete them all? Zocky 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting this file would demonstrate Commons' failure to be a service project to Wikimedia, and probably necessitate the creation of a second service project. Or Commons having to rein its head in - David Gerard 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- How so? Yonatanh 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- As of yet there is no explicit comment from the Foundation. Since it is (still) used for the official letter, it was used and distributed under the name of the Foundation, and there is no strong opposition to keep it, personally I think (please note: it is my personal opinion as user:Aphaia) there is no urgent need to delete this image from our repository. --Aphaia 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- How so? Yonatanh 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
March 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The term "Childish art" doesn't exist as far as I know. — Jeff G. 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems likely to me that whoever set it up may have meant Naive Art which i have been unable to find in the category tree and is a legitimate style classification, although the items so far included seem somewhat random. Baby ifritah 11:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Naïve art to match English Wikipedia's w:Naïve art and to categorize the works of such artists, despite the exchange at w:User talk:Shadow1/Feb2007#Naïve art. — Jeff G. 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Mainly just to close this as it's the oldest DR we have and I the only one left from March 2007. I don't think Naïve art is what is in the category right now so I'm not going to rename. Feel free to list this on COM:CFD if further discussion is wanted. - Rocket000 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
nonsense. Text states: Baldness and meatballs cause baldness and dementia. See example: picture --Deadstar 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Samulili --ALE! ¿…? 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Page doesn't contain picture, hasn't been touched since July 2006. --Deadstar 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Misplaced FPC page. --Davepape 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Robert Delaunay died in 1941 so his works are not in the public domain yet --User:Jaqen
- (Completing deletion request).
- Also, Delaunay was French & worked in Europe, so it wouldn't be PD-US. --Davepape 15:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty page, used to be a redirect --Deadstar 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep this redirect. Yann 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yonatanh: deleted in case someone wants to create a gallery in addition to a category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty page, used to be a redirect --Deadstar 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yonatanh: deleted in case someone wants to create a gallery in addition to a category
uploaded duplicate in error --Zaui 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Nilfanion: Dupe of Image:SpruceTreeHouseLong.jpg
Appears to be copyrighted press photo. Likely uploaded by sockpuppet of blocked user Zillaman, who was blocked for uploading copyrighted images of footballers, including Franz Beckenbauer, and falsely claiming them as self-created. User claims CC-by-sa and Flickr review tag placed, but no source, Flickr or otherwise, available. Ytoyoda 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - copyvio by Zillaman. Dantadd✉ 15:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a likely copyvio. Kjetil r 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
derivative work --Polarlys 09:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not understand what "derivative work" is supposed to say. I just copied the image from the german Wikipedia. A mistake? Tilmandralle 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Auf Deutsch: Wenn ich ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk, hier eine Photographie, abzeichne und verfremde, so entsteht nichts, woran ein Dritter eigene Urheberheberrechte festmachen kann und das ursprunglich urheberrechtlich geschützte Werk in irgendeiner Form unter einer freien Lizenz lizenzieren kann. Auf de.wikipedia.org wurde das Bild aus diesem Grund schon gelöscht. Grüße, --Polarlys 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alles klar. Das wusste ich nicht. Dann muss es wohl gelöscht werden..Schade um das Bild. Dann gibts von mir natürlich auch ein Löschen :-) Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Auf Deutsch: Wenn ich ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk, hier eine Photographie, abzeichne und verfremde, so entsteht nichts, woran ein Dritter eigene Urheberheberrechte festmachen kann und das ursprunglich urheberrechtlich geschützte Werk in irgendeiner Form unter einer freien Lizenz lizenzieren kann. Auf de.wikipedia.org wurde das Bild aus diesem Grund schon gelöscht. Grüße, --Polarlys 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. You can tag such images as {{Derivative}}s. Kjetil r 04:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
why should this map - made in 1926 - be in the public domain? -- Frumpy 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because the author, William R. Shepherd, died in 1934. William Avery 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have also checked the 1953 thru 1955 renewals at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ William Avery 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yann 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per copyright rationale. V60 VCTalk · VContribs 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per William Avery. --ajvol 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No picture on this page, just text. No edits since the first and only in November --Deadstar 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
source cannot be verified, most likely copyrighted image; described as "Copyright by wildundleise.de". — Jeff G. 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can not find this image. Where is it? --ALE! ¿…? 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination It was there yesterday (I found it in Category:Incomplete deletion requests); most likely another admin made it vanish from user view without user viewable logs. — Jeff G. 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The gift of a dedication does not include any rights to copy, distribute, publish, modify, exploit it commercially, use it for any purpose etc. Note that we won't get a free license for this one in any case (at least not if the author knows what he is doing), since a free license includes the permission to create derivative works, and that would equal here to the right to create arbitrary comics with herr bello. --Rtc 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lincense is not clear and the author was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source is useless for verifying the license. Quadzilla99 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Missing info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Lincense is not clear and the author death date was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No license. Deleted. Siebrand 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Neither source indicates that the photo is from the British government. --Jesse Viviano 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Source does not support claim that the photo is from the British government. --MichaelMaggs 05:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also included are Image:CDUposter200508.jpg and Image:MLPDposter200508.jpg
unfree image, panorama freedom not applicable for of election posters, they are not permanently installed. see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FPÖ.jpg -- BLueFiSH 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'm undecided on the photo in the title. Regardless of whether freedom of panorama covers election posters, freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't cover works of art. It could be argued though that the election poster is not the only thing depicted in this photograph and isn't its focal point. The two other ones should probably be deleted. Yonatanh 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as FOP does not cover 2D images such as posters. --MichaelMaggs 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
copyvio and probably trademark infringement, name of TV series -- Yonatanh 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this the logo? This Flickr image is tagged as "All rights reserved" at Flickr. Thuresson 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an original work inspired by the series. It may be infrigment of trademark, if used for commercial purposed by someone else. But I believe that logo are allowed in wikimedia commons, specially since the logo here is not really the original logo, and it only show the title of the show. Anyway, it does not violates copyright. Dunwich 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} --ALE! ¿…? 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
copper_aspirinate_prep1.jpg: specific to one article, no longer needed, replaced with text --Bfesser 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep might be useful to someon --ALE! ¿…? 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
copper_aspirinate_prep2.jpg: specific to one article, no longer needed, replaced with text --Bfesser 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep might be useful for someone --ALE! ¿…? 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
non verifiable source from fr.wiki. Licenses contradict themselves -- Dantadd✉ 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No source from fr.wiki --Edub 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ~Pyb: copyvio . ~Pyb 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not good to have category for a species, better to have some for genus. — Jeff G. 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
closed as the reason for deletion did not quite become clear --ALE! ¿…? 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Images from the City of Largo are not automatically PD, they're copyrighted to the State of Florida. Ms. Graves does not release them by this email, nor has the authority to do so. This picture is not PD. It's replaceable fairuse. --NYC JD 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw nom per PD-FLGov, which I was not aware of. NYC JD 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how this argument works. The photo is by the City of Largo, which is a separate legal entity from the State of Florida. The State would not own photographs that are commissioned and paid for by the city. I have asked the original uploader to forward the email to OTRS, however in the meantime, I believe that Heather Graves, as the Communications and Marketing Manager for the City of Largo, would certainly know the copyright status of the photographs she handles. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? — coelacan — 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoever owns the copyright, she is not releasing them by the terms of her email. She is merely stating that they are PD. I am completely prepared to believe that she doesn't know a lick of copyright law. NYC JD 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm prepared to believe that too, but one doesn't need to know copyright law to simply know the status of an image as public domain or not. The City of Largo may indeed make its official portraits public domain. We don't know. I'm prepared to believe that she does have that information on file. — coelacan — 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoever owns the copyright, she is not releasing them by the terms of her email. She is merely stating that they are PD. I am completely prepared to believe that she doesn't know a lick of copyright law. NYC JD 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that this mail is sufficient. Yann 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree, the email is sufficient. The fact that the City of Largo is located in Florida does not mean the State of Florida owns copyright to the City's photos, anymore than the State of Alaska owns copyright to my photos because I live in Alaska. --Yksin 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a work of the State of Florida, this image appears to be in the public domain per the explanation given at {{PD-FLGov}} ˉanetode╦╩ 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldnt this photo be taken down (not because it is an infringing work) because the gender marker has been changed to Susan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.118.150 (talk • contribs) at 22:06, May 18, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - if the copyright holder doesn't know a lick about copyright, which I think is the case and apparently others do to, then we can't assume they know a lick about the public domain. Saying, "This photograph was taken for the City of Largo and, as such, is in the public domain", is wrong, unless a citation of municipal law is provided to back that up. It is not a work of the State of Florida, it is a work of the City of Largo; they are different jurisdictions. This image should be deleted unless further correspondence (1) indicates that it is in fact in the public domain (2) uses the Commons:Email templates and (3) is more than the false assertion that, because the photograph is a work of the City of Largo, it is in the public domain. --Iamunknown 02:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Somehow I think that the Communications and Marketing Manager of the City of Largo just might know what she is talking about. Just maybe, you know, since it is her job and all. Note that the nomination itself states that City of Largo images are copyrighted by the State of Florida. So there are two possibilities: all rights were released by Ms. Graves acting in official capacity, or the image falls into the public domain per {{PD-FLGov}}. ˉanetode╦╩ 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the first possibility is very likely, as Communications and Marketing Manager is not automatically equivalent to someone in the capacity to license (or release all rights to) copyrighted material; the second might be, but I would like clarification. --Iamunknown 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll ask en:user:y for verification of the assertion made in his nomination. ˉanetode╦╩ 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- He thinks that "towns like Largo are creatures of state law and, unless we know otherwise, do not reserve copyrights in a manner different from that of the state," perhaps referring to the city as a en:creature of statute. I tend to agree that this supports Graves' assertion, even if she is not the license holder. The question here is whether any governmental body of the city of Largo even has the right to assert copyright. As I see it, the only way to get the end-all-be-all verification that you are looking for would be to contact Graves at 727-587-6740 ext.2104. ˉanetode╦╩ 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow... awesome... we have an article for this?? I love Wikipedia! Yeah, that's what I meant. NYC JD 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- He thinks that "towns like Largo are creatures of state law and, unless we know otherwise, do not reserve copyrights in a manner different from that of the state," perhaps referring to the city as a en:creature of statute. I tend to agree that this supports Graves' assertion, even if she is not the license holder. The question here is whether any governmental body of the city of Largo even has the right to assert copyright. As I see it, the only way to get the end-all-be-all verification that you are looking for would be to contact Graves at 727-587-6740 ext.2104. ˉanetode╦╩ 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll ask en:user:y for verification of the assertion made in his nomination. ˉanetode╦╩ 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the first possibility is very likely, as Communications and Marketing Manager is not automatically equivalent to someone in the capacity to license (or release all rights to) copyrighted material; the second might be, but I would like clarification. --Iamunknown 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Somehow I think that the Communications and Marketing Manager of the City of Largo just might know what she is talking about. Just maybe, you know, since it is her job and all. Note that the nomination itself states that City of Largo images are copyrighted by the State of Florida. So there are two possibilities: all rights were released by Ms. Graves acting in official capacity, or the image falls into the public domain per {{PD-FLGov}}. ˉanetode╦╩ 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. As noted by 76.21.118.150, the information as provided in the template {{PD-FLGov}}, which is applied to this image, makes it pretty clear that this image is in the public domain by Florida statute and Florida case law. Is an admin planning on closing this debate anytime soon? It's not been in progress for over three months. --yksin 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, the image is not a work of the State of Flordia, it is a work of the City of Largo. They are different. --Iamunknown 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator and hence kept per {{PD-FLGov}} -- Cat chi? 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No cat needed, see Chelus fimbriatus — Jeff G. 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, those were the words of B kimmel in "{{del|No cat needed, see [[Chelus fimbriatus]]}}" as posted at 14:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) in this diff. In any case, the following was posted to my user talk page:
- Irealy don't understand why you asked the delation of this category wich have enought documents to exist, it's a problem for me cause I can't make a link to this category from the french article fr:Matamata and I don't know how to categorize my map Image:Chelus fimbriatus distribution map.png --Kimdime69 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was just following through on the action of B kimmel. I have now posted in the talk page of every user involved with that category, or who has edited an image included in that category. My vote is below. — Jeff G. 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keepper all of the above at this time. — Jeff G. 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- Weak keep How can we categorize this animal without this category? --Kimdime69 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep for the reasons explained by Kimdime69. FR 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Our best compromise at this point is to allow creation of gallery or category as individuals prefer, and not to delete either. Not elegant, but hey, commons is a shoebox, not a diamond. Stan Shebs 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep according to Commons:Categories --Salix 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Your attempt of elimination of a species category of commons is out of place. The categories are essential in Commons and other Wikiprojects, like Wikipedias and Wikispecies. It is the only automatic system to group all the information about a species or a concrete topic: subcategories, articles, images, audio, etc. Is the reference to another wikipedias! If you want to do an article, congratulations. If you want to do a gallery that already does automatically the software, in agreement, is your lost work. But remember, please: the categories are necessary according to the needs of the wikiprojects, we would ask you to stop interfering. If you like doing articles, devote to them, but do not erase the work of the community.
- The article is a manual (and excellent) method to specific topics like subspecies, local varieties of a species, dimorphism, putting, nests, reproduction, pathologies, differentiation between species, and other specific topics that only a person can prepare. We need to do specific categories, and the articles for specific difficult topics of categorice. We dont need to do the work of the software... Please, we would be grateful to you for all that you stop interfering with the categories, because also, you affect the wikipedias in other languages, Wikispecies, etc., which connect with this category of Commons, that is the reference to all the specific material. If you erase the this information they will get lost.
- Please, understand it. And excuse my poor english.... And regards, :--Pristigaster 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The preceding was posted to my User talk page. I interpret it as a Keep. — Jeff G. 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This also concearns the categories: Category:Geochelone carbonaria, Category:Lepidochelys olivacea, Category:Terrapene carolina Category:Emys orbicularis, Category:Trachemys scripta elegans.
- The reason these categories should be deleted, is the common use species-related images (for example all Chelus fimbriatus-images) are always collected by making an article and a gallery, not by making a category. If it's not sure to wich species/ genus / family the pictured animal belongs, or if there is only one picture instead of many, it should indeed be placed in the appropiate category, no article is needed (yet). Of course all species-related articles should have a category (otherwise you would simply not be able to find them) but the species is not categorised. I've been through a lot of articles / categories, and categories of species-related pictures are a real exception. See for example Category:Triturus, why is T. cristatus the only species with a category while there's also an article?
- @Pristigaster: Nothing is erased, and if links are broke can't this be fixed? I think it is best to sort all images in the same way instead of allowing exceptions to exist because of possible erroneous links.
- @ Kimdime69: Groups of species like genuses or families etc are (or should be) always categorized. Please see Triturus cristatus, this is how 99% of the biological species is indexed, and it is in my honest opinion the best way to do it. Images about distribution, adult animals, stages of development, some taxonomy, interwikis, links to {wp|species} and articles, all sorted out by headlines in a single article. And it is properly linked to the family (category) Category:Salamandridae. Anyone looking for a species knows (or will find out soon enough) only scientific names are used on wikispecies, wikicommons and are redirected on wikipedia if there is a common name, categories are somewhat confusing. Greetings Bart B kimmel 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was one of the people that created many of those species articles you're talking about, and I personally prefer it; but it's clear from discussion at ToL and elsewhere that just as many people feel strongly the other way. I suggest that instead of trying to push this particular deletion, that you join us over at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and help design a consensus policy. Stan Shebs 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff: all the species categories are needed, the articles dont replace the categories. Please, use your time in more useful things, not to erase those that we are making other partners. Greetings, --Pristigaster 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above at this time. — Jeff G. 11:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, change of policy. I was not aware of that. It will be quite an operation to change all the species-pages, but I'll wait for consensus and will help convert the amfibians / reptiles if necessary. B kimmel 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Would an administrator please consider the discussion and determine, based on the discussion, whether the file should be deleted? Thanks! — Jeff G. 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I am still baffled by this supposed redundancy between categories and gallery pages. No matter how many times I read the ToL project, I continue to be baffled by such an argument. It's impossible to place interwiki links in unexisting categories, it's hard to find files using only the category tree if they are not categorized. Until there is a consensus about what should be done, no categories relating to the ToL should be deleted, imho. PatríciaR msg 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would an administrator please consider the discussion and determine, based on the discussion, whether the file should be deleted? Thanks! — Jeff G. 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
March 6
[edit]no reason for PD given --Polarlys 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Try learning to read. The copyright has expired, which is clearly stated. -- 80.139.20.210 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- „with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years“, the photography is from 1937, so it’s just 69 oder 70 years old, but we can’t assume that the photographer died that year (it’s quite unlikely). Maybe he was born around 1900, died in the age of 70, so the image was in the public domain in 2040. Just one possibility. --Polarlys 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the photo you can read "Foto Brosch". According to this page it seems like that the photographer was a man named "W. Brosch". And according to this page W. Brosch was a sports photographer from Gelsenkirchen (where football team Schalke is based) who died in the last year of WW2 - 1944. So his pictures become PD on January 1st 2015. --88.134.140.64 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research. So the copyright has not expired yet. --Polarlys 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 9 days
That's for a pers. foto collection, not for commons -- Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- Anthere is the chairman of the WikiMedia Foundation, I think having a pic of her smiling and frowning may well be encyclopedic... Commons has a lot of pictures of Jimbo as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe that we can have a certain number of personal pictures for active contributors. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep project scope says "...uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page)". That is. Commons is not a webhost, but you can always uplaod a couple of personal pics for your userpage. -- Drini 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is also the central repository for many Foundation-related media, and such press photos should definitely be in there. Husky talk to me 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Errrr, I will not be shocked if you delete it, but it is simply that I regularly have requests for photos, have very few freely-licenced ones, so at least this one was funny and free :-) But if problematic here, just tell me, I'll host it on meta :-))) Anthere
- (it is not often that one gets to attempt to correct Anthere :) ... so indulge me! ) Well... Meta is not typically the place to host images, nor is it your private webspace (see Meta:About) (grin!...) , the image belongs here on commons (see Commons:About). Further, I predict it will be kept. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I couldn't see a reason, why such a pic should be on Commons. Maybe it would be a good idea to write a little information in the description so everybody (like me) knows, who the person is. Hope Anthere doesn't take a personally. I should have checked the filename and the uploader better.
- Keep forget about the request. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for copyrighted free use claim William Avery 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No source (Google is not a source) and no author information. Impossible to verify copyright claim. Cavenbatalk to me 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for copyrighted free use claim William Avery 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
there is already Category:Oradea. Roamata, March 6, 2007, 22:44
Deleted by Julo: content was: '{{Delete|reason=there is already [[:Category:Oradea]]|subpage=Oradea, Romania|day=6|month=March|year=2007}}'
empty category Vaya 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for copyrighted free use claim William Avery 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
copyvio Teofilo 10:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No expectation that the author has been dead for 70 years. --MichaelMaggs 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
this category already exists as Category:Târgu Secuiesc Roamata 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-existent highway sign, Nova Scotia uses the Trans-Canada Sign --Cavenbatalk to me 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This sign has never been used by the government of Nova Scotia. The same goes for Highway 106 and 105. They use this sign (I did not create this) [35]. Cavenba 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-existent highway sign --Cavenba 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This sign has never been used by the government of Nova Scotia. The same goes for Highway 106 and 104. They use this sign (I did not create this) [36]. Cavenba 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I created the series in one go, not knowing about the non-existent signs. Others on the English Wikipedia are getting confused and replacing the sign after Cavenba removes them from the pages. Cmprince 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-existent Highway sign --Cavenbatalk to me 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This sign has never been used by the government of Nova Scotia. The same goes for Highway 104 and 105. They use this sign (I did not create this) [37]. Cavenbatalk to me 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Document is from Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie. French Government does not allow unlimited use of its creation: http://www.cr-basse-normandie.fr/mentions_legales.php --Captain Scarlet 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:W108 Bild04.jpg, deletion request for all pictures of this car by this user on de.wp, he declares not that he’s the author – different to all other uploads by him Polarlys 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
assumption to weak to delete --ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Djuna Barnes died in 1982, which is less than 70 years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstand the rules. It was published in the United States before January 1, 1923; doesn't that make it PD-US? Celithemis 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- PD is applicable for documents where the author died more than 70 years ago, not the age of the document. For this to apply, documents of approximately 100 years and more can comply. Captain Scarlet 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- (When I first noticed the image, it had the default {{PD-Art}} tag which only mentions the author's lifespan plus 70 years. This was changed to specify {{PD-US}} between the time I noticed it and the time I submitted it here.) I agree that if {{PD-US}} is applicable, it might indeed be okay, because of how US copyright applies to American works. However, it is my understanding that Barnes lived in France at the time this work was created, which might mean that French copyright law is involved as well (even if the work was also published in the United States), and if the work was still copyrighted in France in 1996 when the URAA was passed in the US, it is my understanding that it would also be covered by the extended US copyright. As this seems likely, I doubt the image is actually in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did pick the wrong tag when uploading and had to correct it.
- Barnes drew this for a U.S. magazine so its first publication was U.S. -- as far as I know, it was never published in France at all. It probably was drawn there, though. Celithemis 11:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the question, then, is whether French copyright is worded in such a way that it covers this work. The first paragraph of the semi-official translation suggests to me that the fact that it was created in France means it is covered by French copyright law. I'm therefore going to have to go with Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should be covered by French copyright law if it was never published in France. It is the publication place which matters. Yann 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- From Article L111-1: "The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which shall be enforceable against all persons." From Article L111-2: "A work shall be deemed to have been created, irrespective of any public disclosure…" —LX (talk, contribs) 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should be covered by French copyright law if it was never published in France. It is the publication place which matters. Yann 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the question, then, is whether French copyright is worded in such a way that it covers this work. The first paragraph of the semi-official translation suggests to me that the fact that it was created in France means it is covered by French copyright law. I'm therefore going to have to go with
- Keep Yann 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is an obvious keep. Commons rules do not require a picture to be in the public domain in every single country in the world in order for it to be uploaded here. Commons policy is that the picture must be in the public domain in the US, and in the country of origin (i.e., the country of first publication - see Article 5 of the Berne Convention). In this case, the country of origin is the US because the picture was first published in the US. Therefore, for Commons' purposes the picture is PD, regardless of its status in France. -- Arvind 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the bit above about the URAA. The image was taken out of the public domain in the US in 1996, because it was copyrighted in France at that time (because it was created there). Even if you interpret Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law as saying content must only be in the public domain in the US (an interpretation which I don't share), it isn't public domain there. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, that isn't my interpretation. As I see it, your reasoning would have been spot on if the work were first published in France as opposed to merely created there, but it isn't what happened in this case, and French law therefore has no relevance under Berne or TRIPS or the URAA (or, for that matter, commons policies) because in law it is not treated as the country of origin or source country. I'll try and make my reasoning clearer:
1. The URAA implements TRIPS, and restored copyright because TRIPS requires full compliance with the Berne Convention which the US wasn't doing.
2. Article 5 of the Berne Convention defines the "country of origin" as the country where the work was first published, not where it was created. In international copyright law, the place where a work was created is only very rarely relevant, whatever national regimes may say.
3. This work was first published in the US, therefore for the purposes of the Berne Convention (and, thus, of TRIPS and the URAA) the "country of origin" (a.k.a. the source country) is the US, not France. Take a look at the definition of "source country" in s. 104A(h)(8)(c) of Title 17 of the US Code (which was inserted by the URAA). Copyright isn't "restored" by the URAA because this doesn't fall under the URAA's definition of a "restored work" [104A(h)(6)].
4. Therefore, this work is eligible for PD both in US law and for commons purposes, because the country of origin of this photo is the US whether you look at it under Berne, TRIPS, the URAA or Commons policies.
If you still disagree, could you please explain in more detail which bit of this you disagree with and why, so I can clarify / support it as needed? -- Arvind 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)- According to the US Copyright Office's circular on URAA (#38b here), URAA restored copyrights only on works that met all four of these requirements:
- At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible country. An eligible country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), or is subject to a presidential proclamation that extends restored copyright protection to that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment to the works of U. S. nationals or domiciliaries;
- The work is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of the term of protection;
- The work is in the public domain in the United States because the work did not comply with formalities imposed at any time by the U. S. law,4 the work lacked subject matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, or the work lacked national eligibility in the United States; and
- If published, the work must have first been published in an eligible country and must not have been published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in that eligible country.
- This might fail criterion #1 depending on how exactly the term "domiciliary" is defined in this context; I don't think Barnes had yet taken up long-term residence in France at the time she drew this (she would return to the US before coming to Europe again to stay). It definitely fails #4, since it was first published in the U.S. It fails #3 because it was in the public domain in 1996 due to copyright expiration, not due to failure to comply with formalities. So URAA doesn't appear to apply here; it's PD under U.S. law, at least. — Celithemis 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. That's a convincing argument. It might still be worthwhile to comment on its status in France in the image description. (As I understand, it is still copyrighted there, even though this doesn't affect its status in the US per the above.) —LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- According to the US Copyright Office's circular on URAA (#38b here), URAA restored copyrights only on works that met all four of these requirements:
- No, that isn't my interpretation. As I see it, your reasoning would have been spot on if the work were first published in France as opposed to merely created there, but it isn't what happened in this case, and French law therefore has no relevance under Berne or TRIPS or the URAA (or, for that matter, commons policies) because in law it is not treated as the country of origin or source country. I'll try and make my reasoning clearer:
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The website's terms of service state 'You are free to do whatever you want with these photos except redistribute them.'. Redistribution is mandatory for all photos on Commons Husky talk to me 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Section 3 on [38]
- "Public Domain:
- These photos are labeled as follows:
- ...
- "Teaching Politics photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com" - Teaching Politics
- If we check the image source [39] we se that it is marked "Teaching Politics photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com".
- The "You are free to do whatever you want with these photos except redistribute them." only aplies for images from GeekPhilosopher photography studio which are all markes "Photo courtesy of GeekPhilosopher.com - your premier source for free stock photos." /Lokal_Profil 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original addition of the image to the English Wikipedia notes that the image comes through Geek Philosopher but originated from a page called Teaching Politics, at http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/. This page notes that all the images on it are believed to be public domain.
- It would be nice if we could get some conclusive proof of this. But in any case there is no point in paying any attention to Geek Philosopher, as it's not the source of the photo. --Saforrest 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is not very reassuring. We don't actually know the true origin of images from this site and the site's author is just "presuming" images are in PD. It's shaky. PatríciaR msg 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All images are strongly believed to be in the public domain. is not enough! --ALE! ¿…? 09:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
March 7
[edit]This image must not be used for commercial purpose. Dédélembrouille 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This image has now been relocated to Beta Negative Decay.svg Joelholdsworth 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yonatanh: Dupe of Image:Beta Negative Decay.svg
author didn't agree to use it commercially (publishing outside wikipedia for example. etc) 83.31.167.72 12:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: copyvio
This looks like someone's personal page - Name of the photo includes the word "Momma"... Hasn't been touched since Feb last year. I cannot find any reference to Gisela Slobodova or Gisela Rotter using Google (except this one here). I propose we delete picture as well as this page. Deadstar 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Pilecka: no gallery
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the article as it appears on the Spanish wikipedia about this subject (quick visual compare). I don't think we need a copy of it here, nor is this the place for it. One possibility is to remove all the text and keep the pictures in a gallery. Opinions? (PS I do not speak Spanish) Deadstar 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Already at es:Estereoscopía. --Dodo 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe that works by the State of California is public domain. This has been discussed at English Wikipedia (en:Template talk:PD-CAGov) and for the last year en:Template:PD-CAGov redirects to a no-license tag. See also en:Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works where it is claimed that photos by state employees can not be used commercially. Thuresson 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this image is in the public domain as per arguments laid out clearly in [40], and this image is a mugshot of a convicted felon, it is a matter of public record -- Dragonbeast 07:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. en:Template:PD-CAGov redirects to Template:No license since May 2006. Thuresson 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charles Manson.jpg
This is a photograph of a 3-D work of art, and therefore not PD as is stated in the upload tag. Valeren 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is NO work of art, in three-dimensional world, which exists purely in two dimensions. Witness the paintings of Van Gogh. But they are allowed as being "two dimensional" even though their three-dimensionality is important to their aesthetic. In the mean time, Valeren would delete a purely two-dimensional image wrapped around a three-dimensional object which is not discernible in the image. If that is allowed, then please delete every single image of Greek pottery in the Wikipedia. Haiduc 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You claim that this photo is public domain but has not explained why. Thuresson 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is a reproduction of a painting which is in the public domain because of its age. Haiduc 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Photos of painted ceramics or images painted on their three-dimensional are simply not in the public domain as defined by the "Corelcorp" and "Tang Electronic Corp" rulings. There are, however, many photos of Greek pottery on Wikimedia, which have been taken Wikipedians and voluntarily released into the PD (see the user Jastrow's fine collection as an example). For the sake of the copyright laws we should restrict ourselves to the use of these. --Valeren 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure that Jastrow's pictures are not the only ones in the Wikipedia. I do not know if you are arguing European or American law, and I am not qualified to debate matters of law with anyone. I simply cannot accept that a detail of a two-dimensional image which reveals no information about the shape and nature of the three-dimensional vase it is on can be covered by any ruling. If the corner of the picture which reveals 3-d info is a problem, I can crop it out. Haiduc 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is according to American law. Why don't you just ask the photographer if you Wikipedia can use the image? You uploaded it orginally, so you must know where it comes from. That would solve the copyright problem there and then. --Valeren 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. If not I will post the picture on the English Wikipedia which should resolve the international legal issues. Haiduc 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Communication from the museum:
Dear Mr. Xxxxx,
herewith we grant you permission free of charge to use the above mentioned image as requested.
Please use as credit line: "Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien"
That seems to be that. I will copy the credit into the appropriate places. Haiduc 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep But the licensing tag needs updating, from PD to authorised use. --Valeren 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Would you be so kind as to tell me how to do that? Haiduc 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which tag applies, but I removed the PD box and added the standard phrase: "Photograph courtesy of ... (used with permission)." --Valeren 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Haiduc 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who at the museum gave the permission? Read Commons:OTRS to deal with permissions in a professional way. Thuresson 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 22 April 2007; not edited for 8 days
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-commercial freedom of panorama in Japan. -- Yonatanh 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Please teach. --663highland 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- To explain a little - COM:FOP#Japan says that in Japan you can take photos of copyrighted architecture, but only for non-commercial purposes. Images on Commons must be okay for commercial use (see Commons:Licensing), so such photos are not allowed here. The important question is - what is the copyright status of the building? Who was the architect and when did he die? ({{PD-Japan}} indicates that the term in Japan is 50 years post-mortem.) --Davepape 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is the building as scenery photoed on the public road. Since signboards, such as a company name, are not reflected, either, I cannot understand where a problem is. If this photograph becomes a candidate for deletion, doesn't the photograph of many buildings which exist in Commons become a candidate for deletion? Incidentally the builder has died in 1937. (I am sorry for awkward English.)--663highland 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then I suggest adding the architect's info (name and birth/death dates) to the image pages - it sounds to me like your photos should be okay.
- As for the question of other building photos, it all depends on the copyright status of the building and the country it's in. In the U.S., for example, copyrighted buildings can be photographed (from a public place) for any purpose, including commercial. There probably are other building images on Commons that should be deleted; it's sometimes a hit-or-miss process as to which ones get found. --Davepape 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is the building as scenery photoed on the public road. Since signboards, such as a company name, are not reflected, either, I cannot understand where a problem is. If this photograph becomes a candidate for deletion, doesn't the photograph of many buildings which exist in Commons become a candidate for deletion? Incidentally the builder has died in 1937. (I am sorry for awkward English.)--663highland 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- To explain a little - COM:FOP#Japan says that in Japan you can take photos of copyrighted architecture, but only for non-commercial purposes. Images on Commons must be okay for commercial use (see Commons:Licensing), so such photos are not allowed here. The important question is - what is the copyright status of the building? Who was the architect and when did he die? ({{PD-Japan}} indicates that the term in Japan is 50 years post-mortem.) --Davepape 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am thankful to Mr.Davepape who proposed. However, warning is given to neither Image:Denver Art Museum Main Building.jpg nor Image:Milwaukeeartmuseum.jpg nor Image:IU Art Museum.jpg nor Image:KurokawaNagoyaCityArtMuseum.jpg, for example. Please teach why only these two photographs were taken up as a problem in a worldwide viewpoint.
- In Japan, I have not heard the example to which the photograph of the nonprofit purpose of the building photoed from the public road was restricted by a builder's copyright. --663highland 11:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- KeepThis building is planned by Sone and Nakajo Architect (曽禰中条建築事務所) and completed in 1918. Copyright term of works by a group in Japan is 50 years after it published, so this building is in PD-Japan now. PD-Japan applies almost all countries per the shorter term rule in Verne.
- I think above is enough to keep this image, but let me put few lines about freedom of panorama in Japan. There is non-commercial restriction in the article 46-4 of copyright law of Japan, but please note 46-4 is referring about only artistic works (美術の著作物). In the context, as first sentence of the article 46 says it is for "artistic works permanently located in such open places as mentioned in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article and architectural works,"(emphasized by me) 46-4 should not be applied to architectural works, thus, in my view, photographs of copyrighted but open-placed buildings can be used for commercial means.--Kareha 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per above discussion, since it appears: 1) the building is out of copyright in the first place; and 2) Japanese copyright law permits photographs of architectural works (but not artistic works) to be used for any purpose, so has a form of freedom of panorama. --Delirium 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Images kept. Thuresson 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of an airline. --MB-one 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The works of Luke Barabe
[edit]These images appears to be a derivative works of an artist's drawings of Mr. Schwarzenegger. There is no evidence that the artist has released his/her copyrights to the images into the public domain. --Iamunknown 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Reproduction of a work of art that's almost certainly copyrighted. --Delirium 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
image from 1922, we can’t prove that the author (who is not mentioned here) is dead for 70 years now Polarlys 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, pre-1923 work, author unknown. Yann 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? “Richard Réti (…) was an Austrian-Hungarian, later Czechoslovakian chess player” --Polarlys 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's the person pictured, {{Anonymous-EU}} refers to the photographer being anonymous. Yonatan talk 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(deletion request reopened by User:Fred Chess)
Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume that this photo from 1922 is public domain. Reti was not from the US. Photos from 1922 are not public domain as a general rule, except if the author has been dead for over 70 years, and this photo has no information of its original source -- Fred Chess 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yann was referring to {{Anonymous-EU}}, I'm a bit skeptical as to what constitutes anonymity for this legal claim. I'm not so sure that us not being able to find who took the picture in a random google search is enough to constitute anonymity and therefore the use of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Yonatan talk 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. "I can't find the author" is not the same as "the author could not be identified." Delete —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. "I can't find the author" is not the same as "the author could not be identified."
Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same as Image:Bolivia Beni.png 83.131.197.172 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This image is similar, but not the same. --GeorgHH 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is in use) --ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
March 8
[edit]Derivative work of H. R. Giger's Alien art en:Image:Hrgigeralien.jpg --Davepape 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should you want to delete a legaly derivate work? I capt it to english wikipedia with the legaly licence that I copyated... this segnalation is unclear flavio 08:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Derivative works. Under modern copyright law, unfortunately, anything derivative of a copyrighted work requires permission of the original work's author. --Davepape 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Dantadd: derivative work
Nominated for deletion since 5/APR/2006 (but not done correctly). -- Dantadd✉ 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Against policy; not edited for 0 days
This image is obviously of a DVD cover. E-mail contact is listed on the image description page. It is, however, inadequate. Indeed, judging by the translated comment from the "Toys n Joys Staff" that "We got it from the official site anyways," indicates that they may not be the copyright owner. Additionally, the translation into English indicates that a full description of the implications of licensing the image for free use was not provided. Namely, there is no indication that the user who contacted Toys n Joys indicated that the image would be licensed for commercial reuse and derivative works. Thus this image should be deleted. -- Iamunknown 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is solely a derivative work of anime DVD covers which are likely copyrighted and not freely licensed. Unless evidence suggests otherwise, they should be deleted. -- Iamunknown 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
press photo ≠ free image. 88.134.140.64 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Most likely taken from Internet. -- EugeneZelenko 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no source. Kjetil r 04:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This photo was taken by criminal inspector Jonny Jonsson and an unnamed member of the secret police in August 1973. I have asked the uploader for a source that can verify that the copyright owners allow anybody to use this photo for any purpose, but no source has been presented. The copyright tag present is irrelvant since the Swedish government can not own copyright in the first place. Thuresson 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It qualifies for the 'historic event' copywrite thing i believe. its a good image - try to avoid deletion at all costs24.222.119.85 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil r 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The image which superseded it, a higher resolution of itself, was already deleted as a copyvio, so this is too. Dcoetzee 04:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In addition to the copyrighted screenshot, which seems to be what the image is primarily being used for, I'm not sure that the person in the image, for which the likeness is still arguably recognizable, has consented to the free use indicated by the CC license. It is highly unlikely that there will be much use for this specific image with the copyright problems removed. Dancter 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 08:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt that this 65 KB picture was taken by the uploader -- Dantadd✉ 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Uploader was asked about it and insisted it was their work, but they have not uploaded anything else since indicating they produce professional quality original photos. User has uploaded a number of copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The log shows that 38 of the photos uploaded by this user have been deleted previously. This user creates work for administrators. Thuresson 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First, this user Dantadd is a known troublemaker in another wikipedia. The fact that you "really doubt" is your business, not mine. Then, somemone "doubts" on the authenticity of a image and it is delected?? What's this?? This guy Dantadd knows me? Knows anything about me? Knows what I do in my pro life?? No, he doesn't. He's just a troublemaker.
I think the problem here is: people are not used to see beautiful photos uoploaded by their authors, just trash, taken by the wolrd bunch of digital amateur trash-cameras. They love trash, because is "a true thing", it is "wiki quality"; but this is a real image shot by this user. And it is good to wikipedia that this kind of image can be here. More for you than for me. "The log shows that 38 of the photos uploaded by this user have been deleted previously" No one mine. Cheers! Machocarioca 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
- If there is a troublemaker here, he is called Machocarioca. I'm not a troublemaker, I'm just a very honest and upright person. This picture is obviously not yours. It has a size of a thumbnail, it's a typical professional picture, because the photographer had to be in a very good position to take it. If this picture is yours, please upload a bigger version (if it's really yours you'll have it) and upload other similar pictures of the same concert. It's easy, if you are the author. Dantadd✉ 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you are not a troublemaker and a upright person. A lot. "This picture is obviously not yours." What?? How can you know that??? Do you know anyhing about me? Are you kidding?? Thumbnail size? The image is big, that image was taken twelve years ago, is the only one and will be placed again.
Per Infrogmation and Thuresson, Lugusto and Dantadd already fought with half portuguese wiki and Lugusto took off that wiki. It's an absurd that an administator delets an image here because another one "doubts" it is for real but knows nothing about the uploader. What's going on here? See what this guy Lugusto said:" Dantadd, please ignore provocations from Machocarioca.". This is ridiculous,Dantadd is the provoker here, he "doubts" about the image!
Machocarioca 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
deleted, Per Infrogmation and Thuresson. Machocarioca have a long history of misunderstanding copyright on Portuguese Wikipedia and their log of uploads here on Commons isn't yet a good example of someone that fully knows what are doing. Dantadd and Machocarioca, please stop to use public pages for personal attacks. Both have talk pages and e-mail. :( Dantadd, please ignore provocations from Machocarioca. Lugusto • ※ 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we please delete this photographic, someone had uploaded a much better version on Wikipedia so this isn't necessary anymore --Nima Baghaei 16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is the Wikipedia version suitable for commons? If so, can someone upload it to commons? If not, not much of an argument for deleting this one. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- yup it is suitable, i could replace this one with that verison, its the same one just better scan quality, let me see if i can replace this one with the better verison Nima Baghaei 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- ok updated it, but its a .jpg version, not gif Image:W2 Lazar.jpg Nima Baghaei 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bob Lazar W2.gif
That a picture is "widely distributed" does not mean it is in the public domain. I cannot find specific info on this image on the web saying that it is public domain. Fosdick died in 1969. Deadstar 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fosdick.jpg
Redundant with Image:Brasão de Botucatu.jpg Jusjih 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brasao.jpg
Duplicated with Image:Cxlkjvldksjoieoiruoie.png FML hello 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cxlkjvldksjoieoiruoie.jpg
copyvio, artist is still alive Deadstar 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. See also es:Discusión:Huguette Hoffmann. Thuresson 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cuadrouno.jpg
Not a very flattering photo of UK councilman Ian Harrow. Found info on him here: [41] for those interested. Propose deletion. Deadstar 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The image has been deleted due to the current election campaigns for this year's Scottish Parliamentary Elections
- Deleted. Thuresson 03:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ian Harrow.png
inappropriate 134.174.178.133 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - also contains copyright
violationsinfringements. ( ;) bastique) Lcarsdata 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Thuresson 03:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSC01498.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
None of these images is public domain because of it’s age, it’s simply impossible. --Polarlys 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Polarlys 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Images deleted:
- Image:Christuskirche Rostock Innen 1940.jpg
- Image:Petrikirche_Rostock_1942.png
- Image:St._Nikolai_Rostock_1942_brennend.jpg
- Image:Heinkelwerk_Rostock_1942.jpg
- Image:St._Nikolai_1942_zerstört.jpg
- Image:Christuskirche Rostock 1942.jpg
- Image:Christuskirche Rostock Innen 1942.jpg
- Image:Blindgänger_Rostock_1942_.jpg
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Rostock 1942 Bombing
superseded by Image:Arrow green.svg --slady (o.o) 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Image:Arrow green.png is public domain, the SVG is copyrighted. Thuresson 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- ^What he said. --Indolences 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this can't be copyrighted. Not enough creativity. Yann 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the licence to "PD-ineligible". Yann 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this can't be copyrighted. Not enough creativity. Yann 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arrow green.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Plus icon.svg --slady (o.o) 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Image:Plus sdkfdkfd.gif is public domain, the SVG version is coyrighted. Thuresson 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is public domain better than GNU? Then why? --slady (o.o) 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anybody who wish to use the SVG must explicitly credit you, which is burdensome and requires extra work. Thuresson 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and this little work (to credit my work) I require as a reward for work I have done. --slady (o.o) 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the GIF until somebody spends 10 seconds to transfer it to a public domain SVG. Thuresson 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, what a big trouble for you. ;-) --slady (o.o) 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have created a public domain SVG from scratch. Image:Plus sign.svg The file size is also 2,000 bytes smaller than the one in question here. --Indolences 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my aim was to have the same image size, dimensions, and file name as the original file, to allow the easiest switch from one image to another. While this was not critical in this case, I agree that yours can be better. --slady (o.o) 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is very thoughtful of you, but these are vector graphics. Image height/width do not matter, as they can be scaled to whatever size needed.
- Ha ha, very funny... :-7 I mean the original size of the image, so when the image is included in some wiki article without resizing, the size fits OK. Do you get it? --slady (o.o) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is very thoughtful of you, but these are vector graphics. Image height/width do not matter, as they can be scaled to whatever size needed.
- Well, my aim was to have the same image size, dimensions, and file name as the original file, to allow the easiest switch from one image to another. While this was not critical in this case, I agree that yours can be better. --slady (o.o) 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you right click and see properties of these images, Image:Plus sign.svg renders smaller than Image:Plus icon.svg. Plus Image:Plus sign.svg is totally free. Free > not free. Also why do you insist on deleting every image you "replace" with your "copyrighted" versions? Especially when you often (from what I see) you replace the original license with your "copyright"? --Indolences 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this can't be copyrighted. Not enough creativity. Yann 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, GFDL is free. CC-BY-SA is free. So you say that your work is better than the whole Wikipedia, because your work is totally free while Wikipedia is just the old puny GFDL? I do not think so. --slady (o.o) 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- My license is better than wikipedia's license, yes. -Indolences 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is licensed by a purpose, but that is not the point of this discussion. --slady (o.o) 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- My license is better than wikipedia's license, yes. -Indolences 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, GFDL is free. CC-BY-SA is free. So you say that your work is better than the whole Wikipedia, because your work is totally free while Wikipedia is just the old puny GFDL? I do not think so. --slady (o.o) 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Remove the GIF! It's PD because it's trivial work. FML hello 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then this shady guy should license his has PD! (But I feel Image:Plus sign.svg is superior). -Indolences 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the licence to "PD ineligible". Yann 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the now in svg link to Image:Plus_sign.svg. smaller files are usually better right? -Indolences 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the licence to "PD ineligible". Yann 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
More samples of bad license
[edit]Have you noticed that 
is licensed under CCBYSA20? Is it creative enoug? And is not that wrong that 
is copyleft, and does not even cite the original image? How bad that can be? --slady (o.o) 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just changed it to PD-ineligible. --Indolences 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Information that could be (and has been) better represented in a text table. --Fibonacci 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PermisosCHMODModoOctal.jpg
Information that could be (and has been) better represented in a text table. --Fibonacci 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SignificadoPermisosArchsDirs.jpg
No indication that this is freely licensed. Jkelly 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What would be the applicable copyright of a picture taken in Germany in 1933? Surely it can't be owned by the Holocaust Memorial Museum...
- Peter Isotalo 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- In Germany, it is copyrighted until seventy years after the death of the author. I am unclear on why NARA doesn't recognise this protection for some of its holdings (we're apparantly okay with accepting that), and on why the USHMM identifies itself as the copyright holder for some of these images (we don't typically have enough information to agree or disagree with them). Jkelly 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the collections of NARA 1930s-40s German photographs were gifted to them by the owners, Heinrich Hoffman's family relinquished claims to much of his collection of Nazi propaganda photographs and also lost a court case to gain ownership of paintings he owned by Adolf Hitler and certain photographs.Madmax32 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear more about this, but since we don't know the source of this image beyond "from a motion picture", I don't think it helps us in this specific case. Jkelly 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the collections of NARA 1930s-40s German photographs were gifted to them by the owners, Heinrich Hoffman's family relinquished claims to much of his collection of Nazi propaganda photographs and also lost a court case to gain ownership of paintings he owned by Adolf Hitler and certain photographs.Madmax32 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- In Germany, it is copyrighted until seventy years after the death of the author. I am unclear on why NARA doesn't recognise this protection for some of its holdings (we're apparantly okay with accepting that), and on why the USHMM identifies itself as the copyright holder for some of these images (we don't typically have enough information to agree or disagree with them). Jkelly 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum sources this to NARA, and thus claims it is in the public domain. Jkelly 22:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so in the U.S., but not in Germany, and thus not in the EU at large. Unsure about the status in the UK. Lupo 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep if it is PD in USA. Yann 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Licensing. Jkelly 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Is it possible that the USHMM bought the copyrights to this photo? I doubt they'd just claim they own the copyrights if they don't. Yonatanh 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to me as if it's rather likely that people would be far less concerned about appropriate copyright status of pictures taken in Nazi Germany, especially of leading Nazis.
- Peter Isotalo 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
After the WWII all the materials about the Nazi Germany are distributed without a license. Nobody has rights of the Nazi emblems as well as pictures, movies, publications, books etc.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.51.56.246 (talk • contribs)
- This is inaccurate outside the United States (and a handful of other countries, not including Germany). Jkelly 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You think you could be sued or something mantaining this image here? You make me laugh, friends. Keep the image, is a historic one, unknown author, unknown copyright, this is paranoid for shure. Welcome to the real life. 201.17.62.251 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Trust USHMM to provide accurate licensing information, besides taken in May 1933 makes me wonder if any one could claim copyright to a 74 year old still picture from a propaganda newsreel --Madmax32 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, as per Jkelly. --Polarlys 13:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted level from the proprietary game Oxyd (or Esprit). It makes no difference that the level is (illegally) running here on the oxyd clone enigma. Rtc 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a level from the GNU/GPL game enigma, not using any OXYD game data. It is a screen shot from the level package with enigma, level name "cracks" (as you can see in the screenshot). This game and this level does not use any code or level data from OXYD game.
- This level is a part of the GPL/GNU program enigma and it is licensed under the GPL version 2. Some more details for your information, so you can check it with the source code of this level: It is enigma level #6, filename "martin40.lua", written by "Martin Hawlisch", this level is licensed with GPL version 2. --Wdwd 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Meinolf Schneider, to the best of my knowledge, has not released any enigma levels under any license, so Martin Hawlisch has no right to implement the level for enigma. It is a copyright violation. Copyright protects the level as such, not its actual representation (be it a lua program, be it a file in the original Oxyd format), and the author is the one who originally created it, not someone who later duplicated it in the lua language! --Rtc 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete by MediaWiki TeX, orphaned, CheckUsage suggests it is used nowhere on Wikimedia projects -- Iamunknown 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by MediaWiki TeX, orphaned, CheckUsage suggests it is used nowere on any Wikimedia projects -- Iamunknown 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by MediaWiki Tex, orphaned, CheckUsage suggest that it is not used on any Wikimedia projects -- Iamunknown 06:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by MediaWiki Tex, orphaned, CheckUsage suggest that it is not used on any Wikimedia projects -- Iamunknown 06:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no indication that the character busts in this collage are freely licensed; indeed, it appears that the image is a derivative work of the anime series DNA2, which is likely not freely licensed. -- Iamunknown 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio against Katsura Masakazu (桂正和, 1962 - ). --Kareha 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not found at flickr Shizhao 06:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I did a fairly comprehensive search through the date-taken and date-posted archives, and did not find any photo. --Iamunknown 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The photo was easily found when looking at other photos he had taken on the same day as mentioned in the EXIF data. It's licensed CC-BY. These cases should just be put in Category:Flickr images not found and someone will look at them later. --Para 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image has now been Flickr reviewed. Thuresson 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
with Image:Bandurysty2.jpg, Image:Bandurysty1.jpg.
Stamps were issued privately in USA. PD-status of Ukraine/Canada (Canadian is not valid even due issue date) are irrelevant. -- EugeneZelenko 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Polytat.svg --slady (o.o) 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The SVG version is a copy of Image:Polytat.gif. User:Slady can not change licensing of somebody else's work. Thuresson 06:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a copy. I simply redrew that picture.
- Let's put an example: If you take a map and redraw it, do you need to tag it with the license of the original map, if you want to post it on Wikipedia? I do not think so. ;-) --slady (o.o) 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The GIF is somebody else's copyrighted work. If you redraw a drawing of Mickey Mouse, would you own the Mickey Mouse copyright? I don't think so. Thuresson 11:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, but do you think that this user “invented” a pictogram of heart? --slady (o.o) 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this can't be copyrighted. Not enough creativity. Yann 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support deletion -- the SVG appears to be superior in quality to the GIF. Also, if the GIF is a free image, then Slady is empowered to make a derived freee version of it without any problems, and if the GIF is not a free image, then it should be deleted. AnonMoos 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the svg is superior --ALE! ¿…? 10:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
March 9
[edit]User claims to be artist but there is clearly some sort of message at the bottom which casts doubt. User has previously been warned for uploading copyrighted images. ksfan 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: coppyvio
The image seems like a copyrighted book cover -- Meno25 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: copyvio
I uploaded the wrong file...see Image:Violin bout cross section.png instead SuperManu SuperMessage 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Emmanuel, tu peux utiliser {{Bad name}} pour ça. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like a collage of copyrighted videogame images, not purely user-created Davepape 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyrighted screenshots depicting copyrighted character representations. --Delirium 09:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
no information about the author given, no proof for PD-old, I doubt that this image is from 1915 (the year of his Nobel prize in physics), Bragg doesn’t look like 25 here but older (maybe ~35) Polarlys 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Any arguments? --Polarlys 12:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The source explicitly states "Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation". The original appears to be this photo, credited to Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, AIP, Weber Collection. Which still doesn't tell us who the photographer was, when he died, or when and where that photo was published for the first time. Lupo 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no information about the photographer. Kjetil r 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Low res of Image:Sappho and Alcaeus.jpg JuanPDP 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The photographer, Emil Otto Hoppé, lived from 1878 to 1972.[42] He worked in England, so the PD-US tag cannot be right. Looks like a copyvio to me. Lupo 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Lupo 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Yann's "explanation" added on March 15, 2007: Yann, your opinions get stranger and stranger. The author is known according to the image description page, he died in 1972, and it's not a U.S. work, and thus {{PD-US}} is not applicable. The image could be used as PD-US at the en-WP, but not here on the commons. Lupo 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Lupo 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete permissions appears to fail and image under copyright.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Siebrand (talk • contribs)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is a full wikipedia page on this African Writer and poet. The picture is used as an illustration. This is not wikipedia. Deadstar 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this picture has any use on wikipedia. The page associated with it looks like a sandbox experiment Deadstar 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Duplicate of Image:Alma-Tadema Unconscious Rivals 1893.jpg JuanPDP 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Alma-Tadema Unconscious Rivals 1893.jpg
This SVG version don't work in all formats, it have to be deleted (this is with all the Illustrator SVG - formats). Look at the example Warddr 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This SVG version don't work in all formats, it have to be deleted (this is with all the Illustrator SVG - formats). Look at the example. Warddr 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I remade the original in SVG format and named 1 Ranger Battalion Shoulder Sleeve Insignia.svg. It's not a "miracle" but it can work for a superseding image. --F l a n k e r 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This SVG version don't work in all formats, it have to be deleted (this is with all the Illustrator SVG - formats). Look at the example. Warddr 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The gif image is just added to the SVG version, so the SVG version don't work on all formats and it only takes more room of the server Warddr 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. This is a higher quality image than the original. We should not remove images just because Microsoft's current browser technology is unable to support them. Wikimedia is not just for today - it is also for your grandchildren. Bitplane 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats no reason for deletion. svg is the format for that. therfore: keep it . 84.150.222.78 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The png image is just added to the SVG version, so the SVG version don't work on all formats and it only takes more room of the server Warddr 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- delete - my unintentional error. Kahuroa 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Musubi-kashiwa.svg --slady (o.o) 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
unproper attributed image: copy-pasted from Image:Nuvola apps important.svg without history etc... It's also a duplicate of that image. Tuvic 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Image:Important.svg is useless duplicate. No need to rename, Image:Nuvola apps important.svg is used on hundreds of pages in many projects. --Crt 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Other duplicates: Image:Nuvola apps konqsidebar mediaplayer.png, Image:Nuvola apps mplayer.png, Image:Nuvola apps kmid.png. --Ysangkok 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a {{Duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see this image kept, I took it, and I'm quite fond of it. But I suspect that it may be a copyvio as a derived work, so listing here for comment. Ben Aveling 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment On the other hand another image of La Defense, Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg, reached featured picture status, which suggests that my picture is OK? Ben Aveling 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a derivative work, so I think the image can stay. From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright — photographs of two-dimensional objects (such as paintings in a museum) often do not (see the section on the "public domain" below)." 138.16.15.148 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Very sadly, I think this is a copyvio. If you look at Commons:Panoramafreiheit#France, you'll see that while a photo of the entire plaza - as in Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg - is permitted, a photo of the structure by itself is covered by the designer's copyright. Your photo is of the structure only, not of the plaza, so it's not covered by the very limited freedom of panorama that France grants, thus making it, as you suspected, a copyvio. -- Arvind 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
3'rd party questionable permissionCommons:Village pump#Image:Puppet3.jpeg Bongoman 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Second thoughts, Sweden has Commons:Freedom of panorama, but the publication purposes is still doubtful. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama, yes but where is the panorama? If you publish let's say an image with a film poster in a corner, that's fine but when you crop out all but the poster, you're smoked. --Bongoman 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's something entirely different; the poster is not subject to freedom of panorama in the first place because it is not permanently installed, and that you are permitted to make a photo nevertheless if the poster is beiwerk is unrelated to that. --Rtc
- CommentThe licensing seems unclear to me:
- "This is a photo of a graffiti painting by Puppet, Västerås, Sweden 1989. © photo:Puppet. I was given this photo with permission for publication purposes (Staffan Jacobson: Spraykonst, Åhus 1990.) Staffan Jacobson staffan.jacobson@comhem.se December 22, 2006. URL: www.travel.to/graffiti"
- It seems to imply that it was Puppet who gave him permission to publish the picture, but it's far from clear. See also Image:Puppet2.jpg which is a lower quality version of the same picture, not that the quality of either is great:
- "Detta är ett foto jag fått av Puppet (Daniel S.) med nytjanderätt för publicering. Foto: © Puppet 1989. Det föreställer Puppets stora graffitimålning "Den blå draken" med tillägget "I'll Burn Ya All! Gjord i Västerås 1989. © Puppet 1989. Staffan Jacobson staffan.jacobson.@comhem.se 22/12 2008."
- Has anyone tried emailing the uploader? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader has a somewhat diffrent opinion about IP-rights than the rest of us. You can se the last reply we got on User_talk:Staffan_Jacobson#Image:Paris68.jpeg "this image cannot be copyrighted" about a muriel. But feel free to try. He is a little discouraged to participate when he wasn't free to make the swedish article about capitalism into a kind of Marxism-scripture. Reply may or may not come. --Bongoman 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's probably a language problem on his part. Of course all murals are automatically copyrighted, but the argument that copyright for the specific mural in question was put into the public domain by the collective that created it makes sense. I've emailed him, we'll see what happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader has a somewhat diffrent opinion about IP-rights than the rest of us. You can se the last reply we got on User_talk:Staffan_Jacobson#Image:Paris68.jpeg "this image cannot be copyrighted" about a muriel. But feel free to try. He is a little discouraged to participate when he wasn't free to make the swedish article about capitalism into a kind of Marxism-scripture. Reply may or may not come. --Bongoman 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved discussion from the Village Pump
[edit]I moved this discussion from the village pump [43]. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Said image has a somewhat dubious licensing. The photo is a picture of a graffiti made by Puppet. The we can't contest. The photo is also a photo of Puppet himself. And the photo is taken by Puppet. The photo was given to User:Staffan Jacobsson to be published in his book about graffiti. No real evidence is given that any other may publish the image in their books and certainly not any of a CC-by! Should we delete it or accept the foggy licensing? --Bongoman 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- If copyright was transferred to the uploader, then he's more likely to have the right to upload it, but this is doubtful. Likely the publication permission given was limited. Moreover, considering the minimal creative interpretation going on, the real copyright holder here is probably not either of them but the original, anonymous graffiti artist. Without effective laws regarding orphaned or abandoned works, we may never be able to use it. Dcoetzee 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then the conclusion is that considered the graffiti is a work of art, unlike a normal scribble/tag, the use of the image is only permitted if the original artist gives his permission to us. Not applicable on this image. However you may argue panorama freedom on other images of graffiti like Image:Graffiti Uppsala Roof.jpg where the "art" is a minor component. It feels like the art of Puppet is best on the wall and if he likes his art to be seen here, he may give his permission but not through a third party. --Bongoman 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's indeed doubtful that the copyright was transferred, as this concept doesn't really exist in Swedish copyright legislation. As I understand it, the graffiti artist, photographer, and person appearing in the lower right-hand corner is the man with the pseudonym "Puppet." Copyright probably applies both to the painting and the photo, since the photo is not just a representation of a two-dimensional work, but also includes a person in the composition. Freedom of panorama in Sweden applies to two- and three-dimensional works, even for works that are not depicted de minimis, so interestingly, cropping out the person (thus removing the only copyrightable compositional element) would probably render this a free image regardless of any missing permissions. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If you do a blowup, you will see that the person is not a real person but a picture of a person. The photo is just a photo of a painting, nothing else.The permission given, to use it once, seems clear to me. Nationalencyklopedien is that once and then no more. What Staffan sees is not as important to what Puppet says. It is not shure if we can keep the image legally but it is unlikely anyone will do anything about it. But is it good to keep images under non-detection and low likelieness of liability or the fact of abandonment? --Bongoman 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- That crappy compression made the person look like a painting! --Bongoman 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's indeed doubtful that the copyright was transferred, as this concept doesn't really exist in Swedish copyright legislation. As I understand it, the graffiti artist, photographer, and person appearing in the lower right-hand corner is the man with the pseudonym "Puppet." Copyright probably applies both to the painting and the photo, since the photo is not just a representation of a two-dimensional work, but also includes a person in the composition. Freedom of panorama in Sweden applies to two- and three-dimensional works, even for works that are not depicted de minimis, so interestingly, cropping out the person (thus removing the only copyrightable compositional element) would probably render this a free image regardless of any missing permissions. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Email from Staffan
[edit]- Yes, the artist Puppet (Daniel Blomqvist) who made the painting and the photo, gave me permission to use it once for the Nationalencyklopedien, and I have the original photo in my possession. The article on sv.wikipedia is an update of this article, and I dont see any objections for this use.
- Staffan Jacobson
- staffan.jacobson@comhem.se
- Delete It is irrelevant who owns a photo, only relevant who has permission under copyright law to use it. Obviously the permission to use it once in the Nationalencyklopedien is as far from a free license at it can get. Besides that it's very ugly to recompress as a JPG a Floyd–Steinberg dithered photo that was previously in gif format. --Rtc 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no permission for all possible uses) --ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see this image kept, I took it, and I'm fond of it. It's of the Langemark German WW1 war cemetary. The image features a sculpture - shot from behind, so not really a substantial part of the artwork. All in all, I'm not sure if it counts as a copyvio as a derived work or not, so I'm listing it here for your consideration. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Ben Aveling 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - nice picture of the cemetery indeed, with the gravestones, the tall trees, the sculpture and the small building; nothing wrong with it. You can't remove those things before you make your picture can't you ;-) --LimoWreck 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- You could take the picture from another point. --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As far as I understand freedom of panorama applies here. Barcex 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete See: Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Belgium --ALE! ¿…? 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per ALE, the sculptures are by far the most important objects in the picture. Without freedom of panorama, they can't stay :( PatríciaR msg 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Artist was de:Emil Krieger ( † 6. September 1979 ) --JuTa 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
March 10
[edit]This is really an obvious copyright violation, since I doubt very much that the author of the logotype for the online role-playing game DragonFable (Flash required) died more than 70 years ago. However, since the uploader keeps removing the speedy deletion tag despite being repeatedly told not to do this, I'm filing it on COM:DEL so that it doesn't get lost. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader keeps removing {{Delete}} from the image as well, again contrary to instructions not to do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, deleted. Yann 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(same file uploaded again as Image:Anomalochromis thomasi 2.jpg) D.W. 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The de wikipedia version has been uploaded over this one, if someone knows deletion policy on de wikipedia please could they nominate it for deletion. Both images are now different, so no deletion required. Lcarsdata 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The design on the bottle may be copyrighted. Jusjih 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Mere design is not subject to copyright. --Rtc 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate of Image:Absolut vodka.jpg. Keep Image:Absolut vodka.jpg as per Rtc. Also see Ets-Hokin vs. Skyy Spirits Inc. (225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000); summarized in this MS Word document). Lupo 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Amazing, Lupo. Bravo! --Rtc 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Panther. Yann 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, derivative of works by Ray Moore who died in 1984 208.70.76.242 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is an aquarelle painting made by the norwegian user Frode Inge Helland. -- Atluxity 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you not understand that this is an obvious copyright violation? It baffles me that people with seemingly no grasp grasp of copyright revert copyvio tags and take part in the deletion discussion. It even states so on the no.wikipedia pages that use this image that this is a copyright violation (but not with those words). 208.70.76.242 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep this discussion about the image, and not about my knowledge of copyright-juristiction. You also make it seem like if I have reverted some tag, but I can not remember doing anything of the kind, but I will agree with you that those who dont know anything about copyright should stay away from such activities. What pages are you refering too on no:wp? I was just informing everybody that this is not a scan of something Ray Moore have done, but actually a painting made by a norwegian wp-user. -- Atluxity 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it actually still considered copyright violation when the picture in question is a general imitation of Ray Moore's style and not an exact copy of one of his panels?--oskila 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...Or is it just that the Phantom character is copyrighted... Silly me --oskila 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- When did Commons turn into Copyright 101? 129.241.71.155 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- 129.241.71.155: Hvorfor logger du ikke inn og bruker ditt vanlige brukernavn? Kjetil_r 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- When did Commons turn into Copyright 101? 129.241.71.155 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - On the basis that nobody has cleared the issue if it is an obvious copyvio case. -- Atluxity 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does this mean? 208.70.76.242 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Atluxity, please read commons:derivative works. In short, the Phantom character is copyrighted. Reproducing it in any form whatsoever (painting, drawing, modelling etc.) is an infringement on Alan Moore's copyright: the author of the reproduction cannot release his/her own work under a free licence (or any licence at all) because he/she hadn't got the right to reproduce it in the first place. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it rather the King features syndicate or mayhap Lee Falk who has the copyright? Anyway, the picture contains copyrighted material and therefore must be deleted :( --oskila 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, possibly, I'm no comics expert :-) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative, copyvio, deleted. Yann 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is a quotation or a work with multiple authors according to the chief editor of one of the Norwegian syndicates running the comics. The image caption at the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia clearly states that there are on-going talks with Egmont Serieforlaget (the syndicate), but with admins at commons guesses whats written in other languages such errors will prevail. Jeblad 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I am restoring the image and reopening the discussion. Please inform us about the outcome of the talks. Kjetil r 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, I left notices on no: 5 days ago. It's sad the picture had to be deleted for you to react. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 00:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jeblad, du vet godt at det er urimelig å anta at den administratoren som lukker denne diskusjonen (som med all sannsynlighet ikke kan norsk, eller er aktiv på no.wikipedia) skal kunne forstå at «Bildet er omdiskutert, men er lagt tilbake ifm samtale med Egmont Serieforlag» i en caption på no:Fantomet betyr at bildet diskuteres med Egmont. Du kan gjerne si at jeg burde ha opplyst om diskusjonen med Egmont her på denne diskusjonssiden, men da får du kritisere meg, ikke «admins at commons». Yann gjorde bare jobben sin sett i lys av de opplysningene det var rimelig at han vurderte da han slettet bildet. Kjetil r 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work. / Fred Chess 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphan, made redundant by ExampleCAC.jpg --66.159.210.12 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:ExampleCAC.jpg is not here at the Commons, but at the English Wikipedia. en:Image:ExampleCAC.jpg --Pmsyyz 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the two are redundant to eachother anyways. --MECU 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Already deleted from Wikipedia because of copyvio; not PD, copied from book scan at http://www.p-synd.com/thsh2big.jpg --Lee M 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The description states that a Tony Sandel took the picture. However, the similarity between this picture and http://www.p-synd.com/thsh2big.jpg is indeed striking. Did the original uploader offer an explanation about it on da:? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original uploader has not commented to my knowledge. I have superimposed a negative of the Commons image at 50% transparency over the p-synd.com image. This causes the image to almost completely grey out (although not quite because the colour and contrast of the Commons version have been slightly modified), proving a pixel-for-pixel match between the two images. Lee M 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
useless. I created it and don't need it. Map easy to remake. Finland is wrong (white spot). MaCRoEco 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Could easily be fixed. - PatricksheridanTALK|HISTORY 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- So please fix it and upload it over the old one. Yonatan talk 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded (not used)
Images licensed for Wikipedia only
[edit]licensed for wikipedia only, and they also contain copyrighted characters for which the artist certainly does not have any rights. de:Benutzer:Rtc/Einverständniserklärung Rtc 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another Hoffman photo that the U.S. gov't has decided is in the public domain in the U.S. Heinrich Hoffman died in 1957. Jkelly 02:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Commons policy that we respect the copyright laws of the country of creation, even if public-domain in the United States. However, this is definitely public domain in the U.S., not merely claimed as such by the government; the issue was definitively settled in Price vs United States (1995). In that case, an American (Mr. Price) who purchased the copyrights from Hoffmann's heirs sued the National Archives, and lost. The decision in that case reads in part, "The United States may dispose of items that were seized during the allied occupation of Germany as it sees fit; indeed, it has done so." So it seems Hoffmann's photographs, under U.S. law, are considered seized Nazi property and no longer eligible for copyright. --Delirium 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: See here for a discussion of the case (69 F.3d 46) Delirium mentions. However, also see Civil Action 98-857 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, available here (archived), which I don't fully understand, but which clearly indicates that the Price case was not the final decision on the matter of the copyright status of Hoffmann's photographs in the U.S. Lupo 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, the matter apparently was still not settled in 2001: William H. Honan: Court Considers Ownership Of Seized 'Hitler' Paintings, New York Times, March 8, 2001. It appears the plaintiffs even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the matter (see Opinion of the U.S. Solicitor General), but that the court declined to do so: the writ of certiorari was denied in 2004 (see Journal of the U.S. Supreme Court, October 2004, p. 298). Lupo 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the Supreme Court denied review, I would say that settles it? The only circumstance in which it could be reopened is if a different Appeals circuit issued a conflicting ruling, but that seems unlikely to happen. --Delirium 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Sheepish grin) Yes, I guess so. I uncovered that info step by step and thought I'd post it here for all to see. Unfortunately, all this applies (as you already mentioned) only in the U.S. Lupo 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the Supreme Court denied review, I would say that settles it? The only circumstance in which it could be reopened is if a different Appeals circuit issued a conflicting ruling, but that seems unlikely to happen. --Delirium 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, the matter apparently was still not settled in 2001: William H. Honan: Court Considers Ownership Of Seized 'Hitler' Paintings, New York Times, March 8, 2001. It appears the plaintiffs even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the matter (see Opinion of the U.S. Solicitor General), but that the court declined to do so: the writ of certiorari was denied in 2004 (see Journal of the U.S. Supreme Court, October 2004, p. 298). Lupo 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: See here for a discussion of the case (69 F.3d 46) Delirium mentions. However, also see Civil Action 98-857 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, available here (archived), which I don't fully understand, but which clearly indicates that the Price case was not the final decision on the matter of the copyright status of Hoffmann's photographs in the U.S. Lupo 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, let us respect non-US laws. Kjetil r 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Map made obsolete by SVG version El Cid 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{Superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Diag phase eau.svg --slady (o.o) 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Täsch-drapeau.svg --slady (o.o) 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC) slady (o.o) 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You replaced your delete template with the creator of this image's share-alike tag, and your svg is "copyrighted". I do not think this is nice or allowed. -Indolences 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This image was created by Arnaud Gaillard who has licensed it under a CC license. Arnaud owns the copyright and other users can not change the license. I suggest removing the GFDL and GPL license from the SVG version. Thuresson 23:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- License updated. --slady (o.o) 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
DUPLICATE JuanPDP 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) image with correct name loaded as Image:Casorati - Silvana Cenni.jpg
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Image replaced by a sharper and brighter version: Image:Davits-starbrd.png. VanBuren 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep PNG is not good for photos, it's better to reupload sharper version in JPG format. Herr Kriss 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why photos in PNG - it baffles me. Wpedzich 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont believe that the uploader made the Image himself; Probably he is not more than 90 years old (he seems to like Dragon Ball - see his talk page) - ...Sicherlich Post 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the licence to "PD-old". Yann 14:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- why is it PD-Old? who is the autor and is he already 70 years dead? ...Sicherlich Post 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no proof that the uploader is the author too. --GeorgHH 12:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
PNG is just added to the SVG, it isn't superseded and the file only becomes bigger this way Warddr 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- What's your point? PNG is just added to the SVG: I don't understand that... What do you mean? The file maybe bigger, but looks better. Seems to me, that you are argueing pro PNG, not contra SVG. But you can keep the PNG without deleting the SVG. Keep this image. --::Slomox:: >< 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think, he means that the png is included in the svg file, but that's not the case --DieBuche 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I made a mistake - Warddr 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it stil doesn't work all the time, look at the example - Warddr 11:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I made a mistake - Warddr 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think, he means that the png is included in the svg file, but that's not the case --DieBuche 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A Wikisoftware-sizing-problem. with a width of 300px and on the description page it works (Firefox 2.0) Augiasstallputzer 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. What? Since when do we remove files just because they don't work with some user's software? I you are concerned about that, you could instead upload a version in another format such as PNG, but leave the original for those of us who prefer the advantages of SVG. --Itub 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- But there is a png version: Image:Anethole-structure-skeletal.png who is ok, Look in the thumb for an example
- That's strange, because I have no problem seeing the SVG at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Anethole-structure-skeletal.svg . There must be a bug in the wikimedia software installed in Commons (the SVG files don't get reduced and converted properly). The same problem does not occur when using the SVG image from the English Wikipedia. Anyway, this bug is not a reason for deleting an image. --Itub 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the svg, see thumb --DieBuche 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a old version of Image:Bandeira canoas.png CrocomireDSK 21:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader's history. — Jeff G. 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
no proof that author died more than 70 years ago. Obviously not anonymous since not a candid shot. May still be protected in US and EU for decades. --Wikipeder 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipeder 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep and stop copyright paranoia please. This is PD in many places because the photographer is unknown and in the USA anyway because it's pre-1923. Yann 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author is not unknown, he is just not mentioned here. --Polarlys 12:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- not old enough for pd - delete! --Flominator 12:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per previous debate that decided to keep. The editor of the book died in 1924, so the book is out of copyright, and the book (according to the uploader) doesn't credit a separate copyright holder forthe image. So either the image is copyrighted by the author of the book, who died more than 70 years ago, or it was published anonymously more than 70 years ago, and in either case it is public domain. --Delirium 09:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's the book that is out of copyright, i. e. the collective work, not its single components. That the book does not name the photographer does not make the image anonymous: It is enough if the author only ever once claimed authorship to not make the image anonymous. We have no proof he never did. Obviously, he has also not been unknown, for he must have been well known to the high ranking personell he staged for the image. These generals did not line up for anybody flashing a camera.
- As for the previous debate, it concluded with the decision to file individual deletion requests if necessary—which is exactly the case here. Most of the other images there were under expired British Crown Copyright, this one certainly not.--Wikipeder 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If a work was actually published anonymously or pseudonymously, this is usually considered legally to be anonymous, unless it is well known that the work is actually by a specific person (i.e. he/she has claimed publicly, and has proof of this). Note that someone must not only claim it publicly, but also have proof that they are the author of the said anonymous work, which is quite difficult unless the publisher has kept records and is willing to corroborate; you cannot merely claim copyright on anonymously published work without any evidence that you really are the author. And of course the law does not require anything so absurd as "proof" that it is anonymous, since such proof is always impossible to supply; it merely requires a bit of diligence, which has been done here, not the hiring of a private investigator to try to unmask the anonymous author. --Delirium 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no information about the author. Kjetil r 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: on conditions of {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. This decision does not affect template deletion discussion. A.J. 10:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The SVG immage don't work in all formats, so it have to be removed Warddr 08:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain in more detail what you mean? /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Obsoleted by image:p-Benzoquinone.png which is bigger and clearer --Rifleman 82 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There's also Image:P-Benzoquinone.svg too, a vector version. Bryan Derksen 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(Old request reopened today)
Info Logo with ® Linksys, a division of Cisco. This logo comes from a software which is GPL licenced, but the licence of the logo is unclear. Yann 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. At the time I downloaded it, the GPL Licensing center at http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ stated that the file was provided under the GPL. I left detailed instructions on how the image was extracted from one of their gzipped tarballs. Later on, the wording on the GPL code center was probably changed to state that the files are "under one or more open source licenses" to allow for source code that is under other open licenses like the MPL license. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I created a newer proof because the old notice at the top of the Linksys GPL code center has been changed. It is below:
- Converted from a GPL'd GIF image. To get the original GIF image, go to http://www.linksys.com/download/. This will redirect you to a dynamically generated URL, which will change every time you access any page on Linksys's website and therefore should not be copied here because it might not work the next time. Type in "WRT54GL" in the search field. Select Version 1.0 in the combo box under "Locate Version Number". You will notice that the current firmware revision is 4.30.9. Follow the hyperlink that states "Click here to view GPL Code". This is the proof that the file for the 4.30.9 firmware is under the GPL. Then look for WRT54GL under product name. Download WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US.tgz, which is a 179 MB file. Gunzip it into a 705 MB tarball. Untar the resulting tarball. It will generate a directory named WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US, which might be found in the directory WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US or not depending on what program you used to untar the tarball. Go to WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US/release/src/router/www/cisco_wrt54g_m/image, and the logo will be contained in the file UI_Linksys.gif.
- Jesse Viviano 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I created a newer proof because the old notice at the top of the Linksys GPL code center has been changed. It is below:
- Keep not copyrighted. --Rtc 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, some creativity was used to create this logo, so it is copyrighted. However, Linksys licensed it under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is clearly not enough creativity for copyright protection for something that is applied art. Applied art can be protected by copyright only under rare circumstances. That is so because these things can already be protected by design law and it costs money to register them, so a copyright protection would make it possible to circumvent this fee. Please also read w:Wikipedia:Public Domain#Fonts --Rtc 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, some creativity was used to create this logo, so it is copyrighted. However, Linksys licensed it under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If it truly was included in GPL software, then it is free: for discussion of trademarks that have been licensed in GPL software, see [44], [45], [46]. It is still subject to the usual trademark protection however. en:user:Nadav1 70.21.22.27 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if it's under the GPL. PatríciaR msg 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(Old discussion ends here and the new discussion follows:)
The Linksys Logo is copyright by Linksys® and Cisco Systems Inc.®; it never released under the GPL. It can be inferred from the usage of "®" in the logo (which explicitly means that it is a registered trademark) that it is not GPL. The GPL software code it is found with does not necessarily change the logo's status to be free as well. No written proof from Linksys has ever been given which says the logo itself is GPL. (And if this logo is GPL, all Linksys logos are GPL, since they differ in color only; this has never been confirmed by Linksys, who only say their content is copyright.) An SVG version of this logo (with more suitable colors) is also available on Wikipedia with an appropriate fare use rational. You can't just claim a registered trademark is GPL simply because the company's software is. Althepal 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- (R) does not mean that is coparighted, that is (c) sign but that it is registered trademark. However, we treat copyright here not trademark issues. That is why we have {{Trademarked}}. --ALE! ¿…? 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Linksys owns the copyright to all their material. Logos and other works do not require the © symbol to be copyright, yet Linksys does mention copyright on their website and with their software. The logo itself, however, does contain ®, which means it is a registered trademark. I don't buy the claim that GPL code makes the logo of the company as GPL. Althepal 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I personally tried contacting Linksys to get a statement one way or the other at both pr@linksys.com (email address didn't work) and at linksys-opensource@linksys.com (no reply) without success. Someone who wants to make this claim should certainly call them or email them before making the assertion. I'm confused as to why it is almost a given at the Commons that the Linksys logo is GPL. Althepal 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you GPL an item, you still own the copyright on it. You just gave permission to others to use it freely under the GPL's terms. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- While this is true, it doesn't apply.: I quoted below where Linksys says that all content on their website, including their trademarks are copyright and may not be used without explicit written permission from Linksys. Althepal 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Linksys owns the copyright to all their material. Logos and other works do not require the © symbol to be copyright, yet Linksys does mention copyright on their website and with their software. The logo itself, however, does contain ®, which means it is a registered trademark. I don't buy the claim that GPL code makes the logo of the company as GPL. Althepal 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The SVG version of the logo is subtly different to the real Linksys logo on their boxes. Also, it has no source. Third, SVGs are not allowed for fair use images on the English Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I recently updated the SVG version; I got it from brandsoftheword.com (soucred), and it is no longer different from the actual logo. Fair use svgs are allowed on Wikipedia, as is noted on the image's page.. Althepal 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to ALE! - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Fair use is not allowed on the Commons, and there is no proof that this is GPL, not even an effort by anyone (except myself) to get a written statement from Linksys. Just because someone CLAIMS that it is GPL with some illogic and irrelivent "proof", therefore that is accepted and NO ONE is allowed to change that claim. Yeah, right. If no one can make a real argument or bring a real source that says the Linksys logo is GPL (aside from some of the the company's software happening to be GPL), how on Earth is that accepted as default? Althepal 04:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I already proved that this was released under the GPL. Therefore, this image is freely licensed under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are more reasons that this can be considered GPL. The GPL is an all-or-nothing deal. You can only distribute something under the GPL if it is comprised entirely of GPL-compatiable parts. Since the firmware is built with GPL components from both the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, everything must be licensed under the GPL. Also, the firmware's source code package includes the images so that one can build the firmware with the included Makefile and have everything turn out right. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't buy it. An example of something which is not all or nothing is Wikipedia; it is GPL, yet includes non-GPL images. Firmware which is GPL can be packaged with logos under a different license. Get a written statement from Linksys if you're so sure, but don't make claims about the logo of a company being free. Althepal 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia distributes its text under the GFDL, not the GPL. Interestingly, the only reasoning for allowing non-GPL images in Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Copyleft licenses that I could find could be called suspect. The reasoning is that only the pointer is GFDL'd, and that the image is called up by the MediaWiki software when interpreting the code. Can someone please clarify why this is allowed? Jesse Viviano 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry about the confusion on this point. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia distributes its text under the GFDL, not the GPL. Interestingly, the only reasoning for allowing non-GPL images in Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Copyleft licenses that I could find could be called suspect. The reasoning is that only the pointer is GFDL'd, and that the image is called up by the MediaWiki software when interpreting the code. Can someone please clarify why this is allowed? Jesse Viviano 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't buy it. An example of something which is not all or nothing is Wikipedia; it is GPL, yet includes non-GPL images. Firmware which is GPL can be packaged with logos under a different license. Get a written statement from Linksys if you're so sure, but don't make claims about the logo of a company being free. Althepal 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another proof. Please see this old page from the Internet Wayback Machine. It states this: "The files available on this page have been provided under the GNU General Public License (GPL)." I could have finished this business if I had thought about the Wayback Machine a long time ago. Since I extracted the image from the file
WRT54GL-US_v4.30.7.tgzwhich is on this page, this proof is valid. Jesse Viviano 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are more reasons that this can be considered GPL. The GPL is an all-or-nothing deal. You can only distribute something under the GPL if it is comprised entirely of GPL-compatiable parts. Since the firmware is built with GPL components from both the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, everything must be licensed under the GPL. Also, the firmware's source code package includes the images so that one can build the firmware with the included Makefile and have everything turn out right. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think someone has to ask Cisco. Because they are the owner of Linksys and will also let the trademark Linksys die soon (see: [47] in German) --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- (800) 546-5797 (Option 3) is their number. You can call, and I'll take your word for it. But if Linksys says that their logo is GPL, that would by default make all derivatives of that logo (including color differences) GPL as well. But I doubt that it is GPL; it is found on products you buy in the store, for example. Althepal 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- On Cisco's website, they say, "The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Cisco or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Cisco or such third party which may own the Mark." and "Linksys" is on their list. Since this means that the Linksys logo cannot be used without written permission from Cisco, that doesn't fit in with the GPL. This is sufficient proof, and it is improper to claim otherwise.'
- (800) 546-5797 (Option 3) is their number. You can call, and I'll take your word for it. But if Linksys says that their logo is GPL, that would by default make all derivatives of that logo (including color differences) GPL as well. But I doubt that it is GPL; it is found on products you buy in the store, for example. Althepal 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I found my proof. From the Linksys Terms and Conditions:
"The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Linksys or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Linksys or such third party which may own the Mark. "Linksys" is a registered trademark of Cisco Systems, Inc. Please see the complete list of Linksys Trademarks." The Linksys logo is on their web page. I don't think that means it is GPL. Althepal 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I think the following also means their stuff is protected and copyright: "Linksys hereby authorizes you to copy materials published by Linksys on this Web Site solely for non-commercial use within your organization (or if you are a Linksys Partner, your customer's organization) in support of Linksys products. No other use of the information is authorized. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these materials which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices in the same form and manner as on the original. Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Linksys or any third party. ALL CONTENTS ON THIS SITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED HEREIN, NO PORTION OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, OR BY ANY MEANS, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LINKSYS. VISITORS OR USERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MODIFY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, TRANSMIT OR CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND ON THIS SITE FOR ANY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES."
- I rest my case, and think that these quotes from their Terms and Conditions are sufficient to do away with the notion that their logo is GPL, at least until you ask Linksys. (Why do you try making arguments when you could just call or email them and wait? I have again emailed Cisco directly; perhaps I will try a Live Chat at different hours.) Althepal 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I think the following also means their stuff is protected and copyright: "Linksys hereby authorizes you to copy materials published by Linksys on this Web Site solely for non-commercial use within your organization (or if you are a Linksys Partner, your customer's organization) in support of Linksys products. No other use of the information is authorized. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these materials which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices in the same form and manner as on the original. Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Linksys or any third party. ALL CONTENTS ON THIS SITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED HEREIN, NO PORTION OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, OR BY ANY MEANS, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LINKSYS. VISITORS OR USERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MODIFY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, TRANSMIT OR CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND ON THIS SITE FOR ANY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES."
- Get ready! I finally got an email from Linksys saying that I would get an answer within 24 hrs. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still waiting for my answer... Anyone else try contacting them? Althepal 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. This logo has one of the most convoluted arguments for being GPL I've seen yet! Style points for that :) , but I'm not sure I am convinced that LinkSys intended their logo to be GPL, even if one could argue strictly that it came out that way. We need to do the right thing, whenever possible, and absent some statement from LinkSys that this is their intent, deletion seems potentially prudent. But I'm seeing a more general problem here, what ARE we to do about logos? Category:Company logos has quite a few. Some of which the uploader asserted are just standard typefaces and thus ineligible. I think a more general discussion is in order. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I checked out all the company logos found on the commons, I was VERY surprised at how many copyright logos were claimed as being not copyrightable. Almost none of them were entirely in standard font, and they all had trademarked company names written as their recognizable logo. It's a bit shocking to know that a company could work on a logo and then get someone on the Commons to just claim that it is not copyrightable. I'm all for discussion on the topic, but I don't know where that would be held. Althepal 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned this issue on Commons talk:Licensing which may be a more general place. So far not too much discussion but that hopefully will change. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I checked out all the company logos found on the commons, I was VERY surprised at how many copyright logos were claimed as being not copyrightable. Almost none of them were entirely in standard font, and they all had trademarked company names written as their recognizable logo. It's a bit shocking to know that a company could work on a logo and then get someone on the Commons to just claim that it is not copyrightable. I'm all for discussion on the topic, but I don't know where that would be held. Althepal 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I managed to get through to Linksys technical support on the phone (the guys in India). I asked the guy if the Linksys logo is free to use under the GPL license, and he didn't know what that meant. After explaining that GPL stands for General Public License, he seemed to think that it was under the license (but he wasn't specific that he understood how it was released or if he knew the difference between one license type and another). However, I really doubt if he understood what he was talking about, especially since he had no idea what GPL was at first. He told me that this isn't his area of knowledge and that I should contact Customer Support (which directed me to tech support). So I emailed Cisco support again. Hopefully I'll get an answer from a knowledgeable and qualified person, but the answer from tech support does make me think. (Nevertheless, Linksys has specifically said that all content on their site is protected and copyright, and inferring GPL status from firmware is very twisted.) Althepal 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This logo is not copyrightable in the first place (in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable even if custom). The company wouldn't care about that anyways; it is trademarked which limits almost all usage. It can be used on the company page itself though, which is enough reason for Commons to host it. There are vast differences between copyright and trademark law and it appears to me they are getting very much confused here. Carl Lindberg 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not simple typeface; it is modified text. Either way, that doesn't make it GPL. Althepal 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very simple typeface, simpler even than most standard typefaces. Second, in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable at all (even custom ones). You need to have ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter itself (say something like this) to qualify. As for the GPL... harder, but maybe. Linksys shipped a version of Linux, so they had to license any changes under the GPL as a derivative work. If the logo was part of that work (like say shown in a startup screen maybe), then it very well may be GPL. If they released a package saying all files in the package were licensed under the GPL, and the image file was in there, then maybe (note though that it would be just that specific image file contained in the package, not any logo of theirs you can find anywhere). I'm sure that could be argued either way. I doubt Linksys would care anyways since again it's the trademark which is more important, which is not affected. But in any event, I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if the logo is GPL or non-copyrightable, the SVG should be moved to the commons and there is no need for the PNG. Althepal 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This I can agree with ;-) For the GPL argument, you may need to make the SVG using the GPL'ed bitmap as a source; you probably can't just use any version you can find. There is also the argument that the source text of an SVG/EPS/PDF file is copyrightable even if the corresponding bitmap image is not. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a copyright icon/logo and I re-draw it, that is still copyright. If there is a GPL icon/logo and I re-draw it, it is GPL. If the logo's status is GPL, all derivative works (everything that looks like it, i.e. the SVG version) is also GPL, regardless of the source. Since it would theoretically be easy to simply vectorized the PNG and modify the colors, the source doesn't change the status--It's all from Linksys. BTW: Still no reply from Linksys or Cisco. Althepal 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily... an author could conceivably release a low-resolution image under the GFDL, while retaining full copyright on the original high-resolution image. There is nothing wrong with that, and the GFDL license does not mean that the high-resolution version can be used under the same license. Logos are a bit harder to define, since all versions are supposed to look the same, but in reality only the bitmap released under the GPL'ed license is free, not any version you get from their website (unless it's the same exact image), as the GPL'ed version is a derivative of those, not the other way around. You are correct about making a derivative work of the GPL'ed image though; that should be fine. Carl Lindberg 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a copyright icon/logo and I re-draw it, that is still copyright. If there is a GPL icon/logo and I re-draw it, it is GPL. If the logo's status is GPL, all derivative works (everything that looks like it, i.e. the SVG version) is also GPL, regardless of the source. Since it would theoretically be easy to simply vectorized the PNG and modify the colors, the source doesn't change the status--It's all from Linksys. BTW: Still no reply from Linksys or Cisco. Althepal 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- This I can agree with ;-) For the GPL argument, you may need to make the SVG using the GPL'ed bitmap as a source; you probably can't just use any version you can find. There is also the argument that the source text of an SVG/EPS/PDF file is copyrightable even if the corresponding bitmap image is not. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if the logo is GPL or non-copyrightable, the SVG should be moved to the commons and there is no need for the PNG. Althepal 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very simple typeface, simpler even than most standard typefaces. Second, in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable at all (even custom ones). You need to have ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter itself (say something like this) to qualify. As for the GPL... harder, but maybe. Linksys shipped a version of Linux, so they had to license any changes under the GPL as a derivative work. If the logo was part of that work (like say shown in a startup screen maybe), then it very well may be GPL. If they released a package saying all files in the package were licensed under the GPL, and the image file was in there, then maybe (note though that it would be just that specific image file contained in the package, not any logo of theirs you can find anywhere). I'm sure that could be argued either way. I doubt Linksys would care anyways since again it's the trademark which is more important, which is not affected. But in any event, I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I don't think their logo is GPL. There is such a thing as a limited GPL license (which might make it so some files contained aren't GPL), and Linksys has never said that their logo is GPL. I think that until someone can actually get a written statement from Cisco, the default should be that it is a copyright trademark. And again, if this does turn out to be GPL, so is the SVG. Either way, there is no reason to have this instead of the SVG. Althepal 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listen: I have proof that software licensed under a free license (in this such as LGPL) can have a non-free logo bundled, a proof which makes the "proof" for this logo being free meaningless. Here it is: OpenOffice.org is free under the LGPL, but the logo (which is found in the software) isn't free. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoArt--OOo_logo_license See? A logo contained in LGPL software isn't free. THERE's REAL PROOF. I rest my case that there is no reason to call this Linksys logo free and thus this should be deleted from the commons. Althepal 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the documentation in the package lists it as not being licensed, then yes, that is different. Note that the GPL is a bit more stringent than the LGPL; if the logo is part of the actual kernel software it may not be so easy to disassociate it. However, the point is moot -- this logo is {{PD-ineligible}} in the first place (typefaces are not copyrightable in the U.S.), so there is nothing to copyright. It's trademarked obviously, but that is a separate concept (with utterly separate laws, restrictions, and legal history) from copyright. Carl Lindberg 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listen: I have proof that software licensed under a free license (in this such as LGPL) can have a non-free logo bundled, a proof which makes the "proof" for this logo being free meaningless. Here it is: OpenOffice.org is free under the LGPL, but the logo (which is found in the software) isn't free. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoArt--OOo_logo_license See? A logo contained in LGPL software isn't free. THERE's REAL PROOF. I rest my case that there is no reason to call this Linksys logo free and thus this should be deleted from the commons. Althepal 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Ineligible for copyright. O2 (息 • 吹) 07:49, 05 November 2007 (GMT)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png for previous debates over this image
No, I do not think this is under the GPL. The GPL requires that the GPL's copyright notice be placed inside EVERY file used in a GPL licenced program that is covered by the licence (for all I know). This image does not contain any notice, and thus should not be assumed to be under the GPL. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The license is {{PD-textlogo}}, not GPL. The issue is moot (see the previous deletion requests). And as far as I know, no, the GPL does not have to be placed in every file -- if there is a license for an entire package, without any exceptions listed, that would cover it. Placing in every file is recommended but that is not always possible. But as I said, this is a moot point for this image, as it cannot be copyrighted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a hard one. It's either GPL or PD-textlogo... but it's borderline PD-textlogo. J.smith (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's anywhere near the borderline ;-) -- this is text-only. One horizontal line doesn't change much, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
derived work of 'various' GFDL or CC-By-SA images without attribution Gmaxwell 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Two PD images and one GFDL+CC-BY-SA. Composition image can be licensed both GFDL and CC-BY-SA.It seems that copyleft rule allows to license it only on {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}} an CeCILL. CeCILL is compatibile with GPL, but I cannot find any reference about GFDL compatibility. A.J. 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Keep. A.J. 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)- Well two images are in th PD, the other has another free license. However, there is still the problem of the "wizard" --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept, if the copyright issue can be resolved with a simple edit to the image description page, there is no reason to bring it here. -- Cat chi? 16:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't close this until the actual copyright problems are resolved. I'm relisting it because it clearly needs more attention. It's not at all clear to me how its problems can be resolved via a 'simple edit to the image description page', if thats actually the case someone should do it. And I'll be glad to support keeping this. --Gmaxwell 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The work is a collage containing (in addition to some works in the public domain) several copyrighted works with various different licenses. Several of the licenses involved require that derivative works be licensed as a whole under precisely the same terms as the original work, with no additional terms. Since the licensing terms vary between the copyrighted constituent images, it is not possible to apply a license to the resulting work which doesn't violate the licenses of at least one of the constituent images. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Background:
- Image:Teacher writing on a Blackboard.jpg is cc-by-2.0. It's made someone in Flickr.
- Image:EPFL-p1010398.jpg is cc-by-sa-2.0-fr and it's made by User:Rama (a very active user)
- Image:Sopa de letras 0.svg is cc-by-sa-2.5 and made by User:Tintazul (a relatively active user).
- Other images are in the public domain.
Assumptions:
- I assume that you can make a derivative of cc-by-2.0 and release it with a cc-by-sa license.
- I assume that cc-by-sa-2.0-fr and cc-by-sa-2.5 are compatible licenses.
Hence I think that there are no problems. If I'm mistaken, someone should ask Rama and Tintazul to relicense their work with another license. Samulili 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- All images this cc-by-2.0 images is derivative of are either also Creative Commons licenced or PD. (Note, an earlier version had a GFDL image, but that was removed from the new version uploaded in July). Looks OK; closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
March 11
[edit]Wrong name, created in error (see Category:Edited images Tony Wills 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 11:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Mistake, wrong name. I'm very sorry. --Martin Kozák 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, placed the {{Badname}} template. Solved. Sorry, I've really bad day… --Martin Kozák 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland. Yann 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No free licence. Given only for use at wikipedia OTRS-Ticket Steschke 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eigenes Werk der Stadt Nürnberg, als gemeinfrei erklärt - looks like it is in Public-Domain.... --Habakuk 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently not. Habakuk, do you have OTRS access? Lupo 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The picture has been declared as Public-Domain by the initial right holder Stand Nürnberg. An email text concerning this transfer has been forwarded to Wikimedia Commons. What should I do now to remove this deletion request? (It's one of my first files in Wikimedia Commons.) --Lexikorn 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OTRS: „anbei drei Bilder, die von unserer städtischen Pressefotografin aufgenommen wurden und die sie durchaus verwenden können.“ - NO PD. --Steschke 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete press photo. annihilate! --Rtc 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! - Misleading permission has been replaced by a claer dedication to public domain. Just forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org by email. --Lexikorn 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now it's declared as PD. Thanks. [48] --Steschke 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept, licensing issues resolved. Lupo 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything moved I think, can now be deleted Tony Wills 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No indication that permission to use is GFDL, no indication that Satan Stole My Teddybear website is the copyright holder. Jkelly 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the image was uploaded onto Wikipedia initially by another user and released under the GFDL. It turns out it was a copyvio so delete it asap. Also delete Image:Myoung.JPG (it's a cropped version of the image under discussion). Sorry again, I should have checked everything before uploading, but I'm new to image uploading. HK51 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a clearer, less tinted version at Renoir21.jpg. grendel|khan 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Which version is better is quite subjective. Yann 11:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Why should we provide low quality images, the colors are simply false. --Polarlys 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Polarlys, the other image is closer to the original. --Blob4000 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see that I am a minority here. ;o) Yann 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Just a copy of the page from the English Wikipedia. Pmsyyz 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, not in Commons scope. Yann 19:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Uploader claims that this photo can be used by anybody for any purpose if the copyright owner is credited, but the image description page does not mention who the copyright owner is. Thuresson 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun, deleted. Yann 19:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mispelt cat, correct cat is Airports in Thailand', content moved, now empty Tony Wills 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, wrong spelling. Yann 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mispelt cat, correct cat is Airports by country, content moved, now empty Tony Wills 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, wrong spelling. Yann 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't read Swedish, but the restrictions seem a NonDerivative license -- Dantadd✉ 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphan, no content Pmsyyz 11:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Orphan, no content, as proposer says. --MichaelMaggs 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- crop to remove the text, Keep the rest. --Rtc 17:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am noticed this photo in my photo collection a few days ago and went to the SPIW page to learn something about this unusual weapon. I noticed there wasn't a picture, so I uploaded my photo and put it into the public domain. I am not experienced at this and I released that the photo had an unhelpful name. I couldn't figure out how to change the name of the file I had just uploaded so renamed the copy on my machine and I uploaded the renamed photo. I then linked in the renamed one (SPIW.jpg) to the article. There are thus two copies of the photo on the Wikipedia server. It looks like you're planning to delete the spare one. That's OK. I am not sure why you're calling it a derivative work. I took the photo. The copyright was mine until I put the photo in the public domain. Maybe there's a problem with the text in the photo that describes the gun? Obviously I didn't write those words. If that is a problem then as you suggest please crop them out. They do actually help identify the gun as the Springfield prototype rather than any of the other prototypes, but if the words have to go, they have to go. The important thing is that the SPIW page gets its picture - oh, and we stay within the law. BlaiseFEgan 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio of the printed words. Uploader confirms a word-less version is available. --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No permission/Unzureichende Freigabe nur für die Verwendung in Wikinews --Steschke 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Steschke 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC) OTRS Ticket
- Einen Moment! Ich werde Rücksprache mit dem Pressesprecher halten und bin mir sicher, dass uns auch die Verwendung in den anderen Projekten gestattet werden wird. Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 14:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Das wäre immer noch nicht gut genug. Das Bild muss unter einer freien Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Was bedeutet, dass das Bild auch von x-beliebigen Dritten für x-beliebige legale Zwecke verwendet werden darf. Lupo 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Translation: that would still not be sufficient. The image must be released under a free license, which would allow anyone (including third parties) to use the image for any legal purpose.) Lupo 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herr Wirz (Pressesprecher) hat mir nun auch die Erlaubnis nachgereicht, das Bild in allen Wikimedia-Projekten nutzen zu dürfen. Da dies anscheinend immer noch nicht ausreichend ist, werde ich mich noch ein drittes Mal mit ihm in Verbindung setzen. Bis dahin bitte ich darum, das Bild nicht zu löschen. Tilmandralle 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wie wärs umgekehrt: Wir löschen das Foto, und wenn Du die Erlaubnis bekommst, was wegen der natürlichen interessen der Rechteinhaber nicht passieren wird, wenn sie sich bewusst sind, was sie da machen, dann bittest Du einen Admin einfahc, es wieder herzustellen. Diese sinnlose Bildersammlerei ist doch reine Zeitverschwendung, greif stattdessen selbst zur Kamera und schieß ein eigenes Foto. Das kann doch nicht so kompliziert sein... --Rtc 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bitte: Löscht das Bild ruhig - wenn ihr es für den richtigen Weg haltet. So motiviert ihr jedenfalls keinen, hier mitzumachen :-) PS: @Rtc: Ich werde mir sicherlich nicht die Mühe machen, von Hamburg nach Baden-Württemberg zu fahren, um dort auf eine Gelegenheit zu hoffen, Herrn Goll zu photographieren. Aber Danke für den Tipp. Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Der Sinn des "hier mitmachen" ist, frei lizensierte Werke (und das bedeutet: sie müssen von jedermann, auch kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen) selbst von Grund auf zu erstellen, nicht, sie aus irgendwelchen externen Quellen zu sammeln, sie abzuzeichnen oder mit sonstigen verwerflichen und nicht erfolgreichen Methoden zu versuchen, Urheberrechte zu umgehen oder Rechteinhaber zur Abgabe von Nutzungsgenehmigungen irrezuführen und zu täuschen, die ihren Interessen völlig konträr sind und sie die bei vollständiger Kenntnis der Sachlage garantiert nicht erteilen würden, zumindest nicht (und das völlig zu recht) ohne entsprechende Bezahlung. Ich bin sicher, man kann auch in Hamburg interessante Dinge und Personen fotografieren, und ich bin mir ebenfalls sicher, dass Du den einen oder anderen aus BW kennst, den Du bitten könntest, ein Foto zu schießen und einzustellen. Ich hoffe, es lässt sich irgendwann eine Richtlinine durchsetzen, die das Einstellen externer Bilder, abgesehen von einigen Ausnahmen (Urheberrecht abgelaufen, US-PD, ausdrücklich CC-Lizensiert), kategorisch verbietet, damit dieser (oftmals sicher ganz unbeabsichtigt durchgeführte) Nutzungsrechte-Nepp aufhört, der gänzlich gegen den Zweck der Wikimedia-Projekte gerichtet ist und sie kaputt macht. --Rtc 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herr Wirz schreibt mir: "Das Bild können Sie gerne auch für die anderen Wikimedia-Projekte verwenden." Da ich laut dem Benutzer Rtc nicht davon ausgehen kann, dass mir Herr Wirz des Weiteren auch die freie Nutzung des Bildes gestattet, ist einer Löschung wohl nichts entgegenzusetzen. Schade drum. Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Der Sinn des "hier mitmachen" ist, frei lizensierte Werke (und das bedeutet: sie müssen von jedermann, auch kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen) selbst von Grund auf zu erstellen, nicht, sie aus irgendwelchen externen Quellen zu sammeln, sie abzuzeichnen oder mit sonstigen verwerflichen und nicht erfolgreichen Methoden zu versuchen, Urheberrechte zu umgehen oder Rechteinhaber zur Abgabe von Nutzungsgenehmigungen irrezuführen und zu täuschen, die ihren Interessen völlig konträr sind und sie die bei vollständiger Kenntnis der Sachlage garantiert nicht erteilen würden, zumindest nicht (und das völlig zu recht) ohne entsprechende Bezahlung. Ich bin sicher, man kann auch in Hamburg interessante Dinge und Personen fotografieren, und ich bin mir ebenfalls sicher, dass Du den einen oder anderen aus BW kennst, den Du bitten könntest, ein Foto zu schießen und einzustellen. Ich hoffe, es lässt sich irgendwann eine Richtlinine durchsetzen, die das Einstellen externer Bilder, abgesehen von einigen Ausnahmen (Urheberrecht abgelaufen, US-PD, ausdrücklich CC-Lizensiert), kategorisch verbietet, damit dieser (oftmals sicher ganz unbeabsichtigt durchgeführte) Nutzungsrechte-Nepp aufhört, der gänzlich gegen den Zweck der Wikimedia-Projekte gerichtet ist und sie kaputt macht. --Rtc 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bitte: Löscht das Bild ruhig - wenn ihr es für den richtigen Weg haltet. So motiviert ihr jedenfalls keinen, hier mitzumachen :-) PS: @Rtc: Ich werde mir sicherlich nicht die Mühe machen, von Hamburg nach Baden-Württemberg zu fahren, um dort auf eine Gelegenheit zu hoffen, Herrn Goll zu photographieren. Aber Danke für den Tipp. Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wie wärs umgekehrt: Wir löschen das Foto, und wenn Du die Erlaubnis bekommst, was wegen der natürlichen interessen der Rechteinhaber nicht passieren wird, wenn sie sich bewusst sind, was sie da machen, dann bittest Du einen Admin einfahc, es wieder herzustellen. Diese sinnlose Bildersammlerei ist doch reine Zeitverschwendung, greif stattdessen selbst zur Kamera und schieß ein eigenes Foto. Das kann doch nicht so kompliziert sein... --Rtc 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herr Wirz (Pressesprecher) hat mir nun auch die Erlaubnis nachgereicht, das Bild in allen Wikimedia-Projekten nutzen zu dürfen. Da dies anscheinend immer noch nicht ausreichend ist, werde ich mich noch ein drittes Mal mit ihm in Verbindung setzen. Bis dahin bitte ich darum, das Bild nicht zu löschen. Tilmandralle 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Translation: that would still not be sufficient. The image must be released under a free license, which would allow anyone (including third parties) to use the image for any legal purpose.) Lupo 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Das wäre immer noch nicht gut genug. Das Bild muss unter einer freien Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Was bedeutet, dass das Bild auch von x-beliebigen Dritten für x-beliebige legale Zwecke verwendet werden darf. Lupo 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herr Wirz schreibt mir: "Das Foto von Herrn Minister Goll ist allein zur Nutzung für Wikipedia freigegeben, nicht aber für eine anderweitige kommerzielle Nutzung durch wen auch immer." Deswegen werde ich das Bild auf Wikipedia hochladen und muss (leider) dem Löschantrag hier auf Commons zustimmen. Delete Nette Grüße, Tilmandralle 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Herr Wirz schreibt mir: "Das Foto von Herrn Minister Goll ist allein zur Nutzung für Wikipedia freigegeben, nicht aber für eine anderweitige kommerzielle Nutzung durch wen auch immer." Deswegen werde ich das Bild auf Wikipedia hochladen und muss (leider) dem Löschantrag hier auf Commons zustimmen.
- Deletepress photos baaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAd§%/§=/() --Rtc 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Contains (probably) non-free cover art Notwist 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. Please, delete it. --Faxe 13:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio --MichaelMaggs 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work after copyrighted sculpture Pyegemalion by Julio Silva (b. 1930). France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε)
Del. No FOP in France. --MichaelMaggs 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a picture of me, and I wish to delete it. 71.197.229.163 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you uploaded it, please log in to sign your post. Regards, Yann 11:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal file / A.J. 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
much better quality available, not to be used anymore Béka 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The svg has different color --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Synonym of Crassula ovata: content moved there Dysmorodrepanis 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've made this a redirect, so that we don't end up with redlinks that offer no hints on where the pictures went. Stan Shebs 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Synonym of Crassula ovata: content moved there Dysmorodrepanis 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also made into redir. Stan Shebs 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad quality, there is a better image:USS Atlanta (CL-51) refueling.jpg Pibwl 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yann 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally material from the provincial web site (if that's the source) would ne reproduceable only for non-commercial and educatonal purposes. Commercial reproduction is prohibited, by default. See http://premier.alberta.ca/copyright/. Rob 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- note that this license prohibits modification. Jkelly 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, {{Nonderivative}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP:PUI - "The image does appear on the website of the Post Office, which is part of the US Government; however, the context appears to be a reprinted article from the New York Times, which certainly claims copyright on images it creates. The typography etc. also looks similar to the sort of thing the Times usually does." I fully agree with the user's statement, and thus nominate (or co-nominate) this image for deletion. -- Iamunknown 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note also that the United States Postal Service is only a quasi-governmental agency. Their works are not public domain. --Tom (talk - email) 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, even if it was a USPS work, it wouldn't be PD. Night Gyr 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments above. PatríciaR msg 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted.--Jusjih 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
copyvio Rtc 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the second request of deletion, the previous discussion was here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/08#Board_Games_photo --Moroboshi 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a wargame designer myself (I create my own counterart and maps too) I see absolutely no problem with that picture. Except of course that it is poor quality and therefore doesn't represent the map work or game design very well. But that's not a copyright issue. In the worst case I would recommend asking the owners of the game copyright (map and counters could be differtent artists, but usually the set is licensed to an editor) whetehr the images can be used and whetehr they require autorisation. I don't really know this game and/or who designed it. In short, the image should not be deleted, though replacing it with a different version (slightly reduced angle so the counters are legible but still not reproductible) would be a good idea.--Caranorn 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: a direct link to the previous deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/Board Games photo (18/08/2006). / Fred Chess 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The publisher is an italian publisher (en:International Team), but it went out of market in 1988, twenty years ago.--Moroboshi 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case (supposing the game was not re-published by International Team's sucessors (maybe Eurogames (as I seem to recall a connection), which would then have been suceeded by Azmodée) the rights would have reverted to the designer(s) and artists. Of course that makes asking their permission almost impossible (I once tried to contact a team of designers, artists etc. to re-edit/expand a game in a similar situation, it's a nightmare).
- Heh, only now read that stub. Yes, indeed taken over by Eurogames, which since then became part of Jeux Descartes, which then was sold to Azmodée. Not to mention that it seems to be impossible to get hold of Ducio Vitale (CryHavoc Fan has been in touch with him on and off, we are still waiting to get recontacted since the last email several months ago). So getting a 100% certain authorisation for a picture like this is impossible (you could get authorisation by one party believing they hold full rights, yet another, or even the same could give an entirely different answer a few days later (ahd that happen with Azmodée, they gave a Fan license to a friend, when I recontacted them they told me they didn't own the rights to the product they gave that license for...--Caranorn 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete {{Derivative}} anyone? If we're not sure and we can't contact the authors, it can't stay. PatríciaR msg 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
kept (if someone does not agree please propose the whole Category:Board games for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
unfree, the en:IDF doesn't release its works into the public domain, that includes its insignia -- Yonatanh 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'd be neutral since I do not know the status of official insignia in general in Israel, but the license is clearly a fake: I doubt the uploader is the copyright owner (PD-self). PatríciaR msg 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, as no argument why it is PD has been presented. / Fred J 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
March 12
[edit]I can't see how this distorted image will be useful for any wikimedia project in the future. There's already Image:Berti Vogts cropped.jpg which isn't distorted.... -- Yonatanh 08:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It appears to be just a joke edit. Should have been tagged appropriately, or not uploaded to commons in the first place. Delete. --Dschwen 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the uploader gives some use for it in some work of ours, I could (just) see keeping it... but I think that unlikely, at least on en:wp anyway (see WP:BLP for why). A distorted image like this might be newsworthy etc if it had been done by someone else... but we ourselves probably should not do that. So... delete ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (see Commons:Village_pump#Distortion_of_the_information_:_an_example) Sting 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a bad joke and likely an attack image that should be deleted. -- Ram-Man 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a useful repository for such subtle and malicious digital mischief. We had a very controversial case in Australia where an image of a man was manipulated to make the man look insane - see w:Martin Bryant#Media coverage. I believe the public deprecated such tactics and captions in newspapers now note of the image has been digitally manipulated. My concern would be that our captions are effectively hidden and we cannot ensure that the image is always annotated appropriately. I would like to see a policy evolve to deal with such images.--Golden Wattle 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
non english spelling of Slovenia that already exists 121.73.5.55 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - Maybe the Slovenia categories need to change their name to Slovenija but until it's decided this one shouldn't exist. Yonatanh 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non english spelling of Slovenia that already exists 121.73.5.55 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - Maybe the Slovenia categories need to change their name to Slovenija but until it's decided this one shouldn't exist. Yonatanh 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This picture is very probably not in the public domain. Uploader states it has been scanned from a newspaper. Subject was born in 1921, died in 1989. Italian PD tag does not cover it for the US. Deadstar 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There are almost no scenarios in which this could be PD due to age. --Delirium 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for GFDL and no author given, uploader quite famous for uploading copyvios Polarlys 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - copyvio from here. Yonatanh 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this image have copyright. When i saw this image on flickr, y rode This photo is public and i thought that the image was in the PD, but I have just realised that image have copyright. --Jorgechp 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Jorgechp 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - copyvio from here (flickr license All rights reserved). Yonatanh 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no use for this file. I'll take a better pic for the use i meant this one. Paagi 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Editor at Large. Yann 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
German freedom of panorama doesn't allow derivatives without permission of the owner of the copyrighted sculpture or architectural design -- Yonatanh 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand this request. Unless the description is wrong, this is a relief from the Pergamon Altar which dates from the 2nd century BC. I don't see how it could be copyrighted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This was exactly why I listed this for deletion, as I don't speak German and couldn't check when the original work of art was created. This can be closed I suppose. Yonatanh 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- People should be more descriptive about their pictures, I'll grant you that :-) I'll complete the description. Ticket closed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- Dantadd✉ 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I scanned this image to illustrate a specific article about this book in the french WK. This could be also considered as fair use. See fr:The House That Berry Built. Regards, Patrick.charpiat 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio. Kjetil r 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Elmeto 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)I didn't realise the implications when I uploaded this image. It is a company logo and it's rights cannot be waived.
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(Image has no purpose, possibly spam.) 72.188.40.82 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Deleteper nom.(P.S., I am the IP address above, just now created the account.)--Vox Rationis 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see the point of this. grendel|khan 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, not in Commons scope. Yann 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This does not look like a page for commons. I cannot find a page on this subject on the Spanish wiki, I cannot judge what the text is about. Can someone have a look and decide whether it needs to be moved perhaps? It is not for here anyway. Deadstar 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's surely not "a work of the United States Federal Government". The USHMM, where this image is from, says "Photographer: Walter Limot/ Photo Limot - Credit: USHMM, courtesy of Andre Limot - Copyright: USHMM. So it's not in the public domain. --88.134.140.64 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Walter Limot died in 1984, so his work will not be out of copyright until 2054, unfortunately. --Delirium 09:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yann 19:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This image lacks "model release" for persons depicted. I contacted the author about that, and his response was:
- thx for the info.. i had no idea that it was being used..they are two of my best friends...i was never asked to use the images
So apart from that, author clearly misunderstood CC-BY license. I suggest we remove this photo: It's widely used in articles about homosexuality, which may violate personal laws of these men.
Author removed this photo from Flickr today.
A.J. 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 09:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete– Tintazul talk 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--Ecelan 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Privacy issue, deleted. Yann 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This image comes from Flickr, where it is tagged as cc-by-sa. But that Flickr account only has two sets of photos, both of celebrities (Mandy Moore and Lacy Chabert) of which all but this single image are tagged as "© All rights reserved". There is also no information on who the person behind that Flickr account actually is, so the chance is pretty high that this is just another Flickr user who uploaded copyrighted images. 88.134.140.64 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There are reasons enough. Dantadd✉ 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- Dantadd✉ 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; I agree to the deletion.--Clarin 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; not enough quality to be useable, either. – Tintazul talk 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON: derivative
This page is not a page for commons, but perhaps for wikipedia. I cannot find a page with this name on the Spanish site, but perhaps someone else can have a look. Duncan Leung is mentioned in the article on William Cheung on the en: site. I also do not speak Spanish very well, so cannot comment on the contents of this page. Deadstar 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not for Commons. Yann 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This page contains no pictures, just text in Swedish. It has not been edited since March 2006. The text on the Swedish wikipedia seems shorter than what is here, perhaps the text can be pasted from here onto the talkpage. This definitely is not a Commons page. Deadstar 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails Commons:Scope. All the contents from the Commons page is already in the Swedish Wikipedia article; the latter might appear shorter because it's been copyedited to remove the haiku line breaks and merge incorrectly split compound words. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not for Commons. Yann 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems this request for deletion was not closed by an admin.
I relisted this deletion request here, because I think the image is not free enough for commons. There's no evidence that the copyright holder allows derivative works or commercial use. "Promotional photos" are not the same as "free images". --88.134.140.64 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Old discussion:
I'm not sure the author has truely licensed this for any purpose, only for some purposes. The license on the original web site says for media and press use. This doesn't explicitly say that for example you can make derrivative works. --ksfan 22:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- So please change the licence by selecting a more appropriate one, or direct me to so that I can do it. I am not sure about the appropriate procedure here as I am more used to Wikipedia. I don't see any need to apply for an outright deletion when more appropriate licencing templates could be used. And by the way, nobody informed me about this deletion request on my talk page. I only came across this surprising deletion request when I logged in to randomly check this page. Ekantik 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the failure in notification. I do not think there is a commons license that covers this image, which is why it is listed for discussion about deletion. The original web site says "Free pictures in high resolution, for media and press use". The clear intention of these images is that they are used for the purposes of promoting this music group and there is no implication that they may be used for any purpose outside of this scope. I am not sure this is compatible with the principle of free use for any purpose. Under commons licensing, could I not take this image and use it on a web site to promote a product or service unconnected with the band? I am not sure that's what the author intends and is why I do not think this image is usable on commons. Would anyone like to correct me? --ksfan 10:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it was troubling to find an appropriate license. For the record I was originally going to use the {{Copyrighted free use provided that|insert conditions here}} license but I thought the {{Attribution}} tag was more appropriate since its description on Copyright Tags was "Copyrighted, but freely usable given the copyright holder is credited" and I felt that it fitted the terms of the website requirements. Turns out that it's not so accurate after all.
- Anyhow is it possible that this license can be changed to the above-listed Copyrighted free use, and that this picture doesn't get deleted? Ekantik 01:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't actually aware of that {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} tag until you pointed it out. It looks a bit better as it enables you to specifically state the conditions whereas the other one doesn't. There's still the problem though that any conditions must comply with commons licensing policy which means that virtually unrestricted commercial use and derivative works must be allowed. That's where I think you may have problems as (in my opinion) there is no implication that is the case. Do you have any means of contacting the copyright owners? Could you ask them to release the images unambiguously under an acceptable license? That would solve the problem --ksfan 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I could try contacting the webmasters of the Crucified Barbara site, but I seriously doubt that they could put me in touch with the photographer unless he is part of the website team. In the meantime I hope that any Admin will be able to help resolve this problem. Ekantik 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Free pictures in high resolution, for media and press use. Do always include the name of the photographer." isn't free. FML hello 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- How do you figure that out? I uploaded it on Wikipedia using a {{promophoto}} tag and there were no problems, and I was advised to upload it on Commons so that it can be used cross-projects. If a promophoto tag is sufficient for Wikipedia then how come it isn't sufficient here? Perhaps someone on Commons should create an appropriate tag that can be used on Commons to appropriately license pictures like these, since this is an acceptable 'promotional shot'. Ekantik 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Done - Please try to be patient as we have huge backlogs on commons. This photo was deleted since it's not under a free license. I did, however, contact the copyright holder(s) to try and get them to release the photos under a free license. Yonatanh 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion request concerns derivative works after sculptures by César Baldaccini (d. 1998) located in France, which does not recognize freedom of panorama. In its current state, it means the whole of Category:César Baldaccini with the possible exception of Image:Paris-Saint-Germain-p1010789.jpg where you can't figure out a lot of things anyway.
- Image:Cesar Baldaccini Le Centaure 01.jpg
- Image:Cesar Baldaccini Le Centaure 02.jpg
- Image:Venus de villetaneuse.jpg
- Image:Cesar Baldaccini Pouce.jpg
- Image:Paris sculpture.jpg
- Image:Thumb and car.jpg
- Image:Champs sculpture 1996 Cesar Rambo.jpg
Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. You appear to be correct; photographs of his sculptures will remain copyrighted through 2068. --Delirium 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: derivative work / A.J. 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Pointless page unless kept up to date, trying to duplicate wikinews Tony Wills 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like a nice idea but poorly implemented. Maybe a better name would be, "Today in a thousand words" or something like that (that is, if someone wants to make it their pet project). Otherwise, should probably be deleted. Yonatanh 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes my point is something called current events needs to be regularly updated (daily? weekly? monthly? yearly! :-( ), and old stuff deleted. A project needs to adopt it, or it should be scrapped. ---Tony Wills 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also Current events/2005 have to be deleted. --GeorgHH 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- At Wikinews we are actually in desperate need of Photojournalism for our Main page, so if you know a similar place to find any or if you have pictures, please come on over! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: not needed trying to replace Wikinews, a very not up-to-date
Copyright for the image gayvictimsofholocaut.jpg is claimed by the Schwules Museum. The image appears on the USHMM website (and permission for this was obtained from the Schules Museum), but it is not a public domain image. Please check specific copyright for each image on the USHMM site, as not all images there are in the public domain. Zxcvbn 21:08, 12 March 2007
- I will write to the "Schwules Museum" in Berlin and ask. --Fg68at de:Disk 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete still coyprighted. --Rtc 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the situation is not so clean. - Zac allan 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a 22 Kb picture uploaded by a Kristen Bell fan (he claims to be her father...) on the en.wiki. I nominated the picture for deletion there, but I think it's important to do it here as well. I found the exact same picture here and here. Dantadd✉ 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I used this pic on her temporary official site www.tomsnet.net/kristenbell.html. Doesn't surprise me that fans copy and pasted it to their own sites. I offered the pic as a courtesy to the English Wiki site. Makes no difference to me whether it stays or not. Advice: I'd be a bit more careful in your editing and assumptions, though. Cheers, Kristen's Dad. --Tomsnet 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here is the original pic before I cropped and resized. http://tomsnet.net/wiki%20.htm Try finding this one on a fan site. --Tomsnet 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it works here on Commons, but I vote for keeping the picture, for the same reasons as here. Blur4760 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, appearently we don't vote on Commons, but I still think that the same discussion on the English WP contains some good arguments in favour of keeping the picture. Blur4760 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Kevin Vandevelde
[edit]- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2002 Belgium.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2002 Malaysia.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2002 Great Britain.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2004 Brazil.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2004 China.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2004 Monaco.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2004 Australia.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2003 Japan.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2003 Italy.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2003 MP4-18.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2003 Malaysia.jpg
Kevin Vandevelde uploaded these images. All state that they are "Free for media use" which is not free enough (not usable by everyone, no derivative works). The source website from where the images were copied seems to no longer exist. 88.134.140.64 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
More images from the same source (different uploaders):
- Image:Juan Pablo Montoya 2005 France.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2005 France.jpg
- Image:Kimi Raikkonen McLaren-Mercedes 2005 Germany.jpg
- Image:Juan Pablo Montoya 2005 Spain.jpg
--88.134.140.64 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See here which shows near the top the free use phrase. Also this image is being used on wikinews so please inform me here of any deletion or further convo. Thanks--Markie 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: press photos / A.J. 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a free licence: "Commercial use not permitted" Wikipeder 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - German speakers with OTRS access please read the ticket and provide any pertinent text; please don't close until this is done.--Nilfanion 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (the uploader marked it as noncommercial) --ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
March 13
[edit]David Boruchowitz email to OTRS (ticket ID: #2007031210015523) say, "We would like to contact someone whose photograph appears on your site with no provenance noted. It is very important that we get in touch with this person."Shizhao 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Submitter claims it as own work and licensed it under the GFDL. I don't see the problem, unless there's evidence that the submitter is lying? --Delirium 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This file is entirely made of copyrighted logos as per http://www.sncf.com Captain Scarlet 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvios. Yann 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
incomplete -- Aconcagua 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete despite the incomplete nomination. The source, http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2719 (in English, I'm not sure where it is on that site in Swedish), indicates that "The photographs of the Swedish ministers on this page may be used free of charge for press and media, not for commercial use, during their term of office." This is a non-commercial limited-term license and should be deleted immediately. To that end, I've tagged the image with {{Noncommercial}} --Iamunknown 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Press photo, source website does not mention derivative works and commercial use. And the CC-by 3.0 license can't be found on the website too. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would a native speaker care to translate that permissions statement in full? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per previous deletion request (read above, it's already translated) -Nard the Bard 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom /Slarre (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per previous deletion request Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
this appears to be a modification of an image on en:wp that is claimed under fair use... see also this discussion on the admin noticeboard ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Image is a derived from this image on Flickr [49]. Although that image is purpotedly uploaded under the Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0" license, it appears in fact to be a copyrighted promotional photo of the trophy is question. WjBscribe 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence that it is not under the licence claimed. Please find a better reason, eg copyright violation, or w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith--Golden Wattle 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Who gets to make judgments on uploaders of flickr? It says it's free and why are you assuming bad faith on that? Can you provide any evidence that shows its not free? So if not why are you guessing its not free?--Thugchildz 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main concern is that the photo might be a derivative work. Kjetil r 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If thats the case then check out Trophies all those have been there for months and no one said anything and plus the object which the picture taken from was a replica and can not be copyrighted (the ICC has the original one while the replica is what winners get/ have)--Thugchildz 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/06#Image:Fifa_world_cup_org.jpg_.28and_Image:FIFA_World_Cup_trophy_.28unedited.29.jpg.29. Kjetil r 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok so why does the trophy page exist any then all of them are vio's except for the ones that are pictures of replicas. And the fact that the trophy which this picture is taken of is a replica makes it not a vio of the derivative work because replicas(anything thats not original) can not have copyrights.--Thugchildz 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have a question for Thugchildz and a comment / question for all.
- At the English-language Wikipedia, on the first unedited revision of the image [50], you said "The trophy itself is copyrighted in some jurisdictions, and is featured in the photography under the doctrine of fair use." That would seem to indicate that image is not free and should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Should it not?
- Comparing the image (linked above) with the image at cricket-worldcup.net (direct link), it appears the trophy, if it a replica, is a rather slavish replica. As far as I know, slavish replicas of copyrighted works of fine art are still subject to the copyrights of the original work, and are thus non-free unless the original work is licensed freely. Thus it would seem that this image of a replica of the trophy is also subject to the copyright of the trophy, as it is a slavish replica and it is a photograph. To anyone more knowledgeable about copyright law than I: does that make sense?
- --Iamunknown 03:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok to answer the 1st question, no because when i uploaded the picture I just copied the sumary of the FIFA world cup trophy because when we were doing cricket world cup article we tried to do things like the fifa article at 1st. So not really, was new to wiki, didn't know as much as I know now and so did what it looked would be ok because it as a similar to the fifa world cup trophy.
- Now to the second question-well no again, because you only have copyright to the original one, thats it. If you copy or make something similar to something thats already made, it doesn't have copyrights. Also if you notice, the three columns on the trophy are golden but in the original trophy its silver.--Thugchildz 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This flickr user has also uploaded at least one other picture that he assuredly did not take, and claimed CC-BY: http://www.flickr.com/photos/icc-cricket/324545380/ . That, the very small size of the image, and the promotional feel of the original background, suggest to me that this image was grabbed from some other website and uploaded to flickr as a copyvio. It may be possible to use under free use on the English Wikipedia, but it's not freely licensed for commons. — coelacan — 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again what makes you the judge of deciding that that picture is not free either? Please assume w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Can it not be that the user is a professional? Can it not be that he took it from a helicopter? whatever it is... Its not for use to decide and make judgments on people, that not how it works on wiki. We must assume good faith.--Thugchildz 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that we are dealing with copyright issues which could potentially shut down the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that we should only assume good faith in the lack of any circumstancial evidence suggesting otherwise. What coelacan presented is certainly circumstancial evidence suggesting otherwise. --Iamunknown 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that you're deciding to have bad faith, what evidence is there that the pictures are not free? coelacan have not presented any evidence...So why are we amusing bad faith? Neither of the pictures have been found guilty of not being free so I don't see any evidence against the pictures. So I certainly don't see any vio--Thugchildz 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that we are dealing with copyright issues which could potentially shut down the Wikimedia Foundation, I think that we should only assume good faith in the lack of any circumstancial evidence suggesting otherwise. What coelacan presented is certainly circumstancial evidence suggesting otherwise. --Iamunknown 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Thoughts: instead of solid legal reasoning to alleviate my original concerns that the image is a copyrighted, un-free derivative work, I have been offered parroting, wikilawyering, repeated suggestions that I assume good faith, and accusations that I "have bad faith" (I didn't know this was a religious discussion). Doesn't seem like a solid reason to me to keep this image. The closing administrator deleted the images in question at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/06#Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg .28and Image:FIFA World Cup trophy .28unedited.29.jpg.29 "To stay on the safe side". This image is in a similar class -- though not the exact same class -- of the images in that discussion. Because of that precedent, because I have received no solid legal reasoning to alleviate my concerns or to suggest that these images should not be deleted, and because of the circumstancial evidence surrounding the case presented by coelacan, WjBscribe and readily accessible at the original image description page at the English-language Wikipedia, this image too should be deleted. --Iamunknown 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on. So you are going to delete this because the fifa trophy picture was deleted? Then why is there a dozen more pictures of trophies that are clearly derivative work because it says on there original trophy and still you are worrying about this picture which is a picture of a replica and is free. But still you say its not free and so it makes it not free? Who makes you the judge? Too keep on the safe side? Then why are you not deleting all the pictures of the trophies? Why are you targeting this? So without being bias, and not assuming that its not free, what evidence is there to prove that the picture is not free?--Thugchildz 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're free to nominate any image you feel is a copyright violation for deletion. --Iamunknown 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional tangentially-related comments: while freedom of panorama surely applies for some images of trophies, it is true that some images displayed in Trophy may not exactly fall under freedom of panorama. For example, while Image:UEFA-Women's Cup Final 2005 at Potsdam 5.jpg (IMO) certainly does, Image:FIFA World Cup trophy.png may not (and the source images were deleted in the deletion request referenced above). Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer and am not entirely confident with the legal concept of freedom of panorama, but with my rudimentary understanding, I wonder how many of those images are actually free. --Iamunknown 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't and am not after deleting pictures or being " on the safe side" you are and so you should go after those too? If you can put time into deleting this picture, why can't you on the others? Also doesn't matter about the other pictures, Because as far as I'm concerned the picture is free! Its a picture of a replica(WHICH CANT HOLD COPYRIGHTS!!!!) and NO proof of it being not free!!! Can you provide anything like a site/link or anything that has the picture and say it holds copyright? there's a single proof that shows its not free and still saying its not free? Is this a joke? There's not even circumstancial evidence that says its not free(saying that the user have another picture thats not free either without proof isn't evidence)--Thugchildz 05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Question for accusers that are saying its not free:
- If you're saying its a copyvio, then what is it a copyvio of? Because there's evidence that it is free and can not be a derivative work but no evidence have been found that its a violation of any kind--Thugchildz 06:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. http://eazyvg.wordpress.com/2006/08/25/cricket-world-cup-2007-and-schedule/ has a better-quality version of the same photo, which I think proves that this one is a copyvio. Stephen Turner 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1st of its not the same photo with better quality, its a similar but different photo. There are so many pictures of the world cup that are similar but that doesn't make it that they all are the same.--Thugchildz 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, do remember that other web sites copy contents and pictures off of wiki because its free. So if you do find the pictures which is the same, which you haven't found yet, do remember to find out that the site you're looking at has the copyrights- which the blog you provided for the similar picture doesnt have anyway.--Thugchildz 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same picture, except with the background made transparent on your copy. All the reflections seem to be in exactly the same places in both pictures. Stephen Turner 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No we are talking about the original picture which was taken from flickr, from which i modified it. Also how can you tell that the picture wasn't taken from wiki? Its a blog and surely he doesn't hold copyrights to it. The original picture and that picture doesn't look the same to me--Thugchildz 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete we do not assume good faith with copyright issues. Flickr users often tag copyright images with cc license without knowing what they're doing. Looking through the user's photostream it does not look like user generated content at all. ed g2s • talk 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- ok, don't assume anything at all then, why assume bad faith? Can someone just ask the user? Also how does the users content not look user generated?--Thugchildz 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, this image has already been deleted twice, see [51] (admins can see the actual image), look at the upload log and you'll see the link to this exact Flickr image. I commented that any insight from the deleting admin, Cool Cat, would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete the image has been deleted twice for being a copyvio, I read the discussion and couldn't find a compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be deleted just as I'm not finding one here. The burden of proof of the free status of an image is on the user, there is not (at least in most cases I can think of off the top of my head) a burden of proof on the one accusing of copyvio or something else (as long as he makes a compelling argument that is).
IMO it's very likely the photo is a copyright infringement by the flickr user but either way, it's a derivative of the unfree Cricket World Cup trophy. Unless you can get an e-mail or letter from the body governing Cricket saying that the cup is in the public domain (or released under a public license or that they allow a photo of the cup to be released under a free license, then you'd only have the copyvio claim to deal with) and then send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org then there's no question we should delete it as a derivative. Actually, it could probably even be deleted now by someone since it's an upload of an image previously found to be a copyright infringement and the reasons leading to that conclusion have not changed. I'd delete it now but I suppose it'd only be fair to wait for this discussion to go on. Yonatanh 03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well i cant see the past picture so i dont know if it was the same picture that was deleted before or not. But is it hard to get that a REPLICA can not hold copyrights? so it cant be derivative work. Instead of making a big deal why dont someone just make a flickr account and ask the user if its free or not? and put it here what he says...Is it not compelling enough that someone has put it up saying its there's? Because you know someone had to have taken that photo in the 1st place right? And so how can you not believe that this user wasn't the one who took it?--Thugchildz 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is hard to get because I don't see the rationale behind this. It's possible the user took the photo himself and I might've asked him if that had actually been relevant to the discussion. The replica (if this is a replica, something which you claim) was made based on the original Cricket World Cup, probably with the consent of the owner of the copyrights. This doesn't mean they released the work into the public domain and it doesn't mean that the copyrights of the original work don't still stand. The photo is a derivative of the "replica" which is a derivative of the original work. It's still a derivative and it is still unfree. In addition to this argument, it's also unlikely that the flickr user took this photo himself but it's irrelevant as the photo being a derivative of a copyrighted work is in itself a reason for deletion. Yonatanh 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. It doesn't matter who creates the replica of a three-dimensional work. The original copyright holder retains the right. Until evidence is shown that "Cricket World Cup trophy" is a free work (the trophy itself), it will have to be deleted. Same rule applies to other trophies (and any other 3d image for that matter) but those are not in discussion here. -- Cat chi? 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from [52]; assertion of copyright holder does not match Airliners.net use policy Hawaiian717 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, along with the rest of this user's contributions, as it seems likely that the whole lot are copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
wrong category, see Category:Saar River Onkel Pit 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
scaled-down version of: Image:Wappen_Stadt_Bottrop_DE.svg --213.160.11.219 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland COM PL 12:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Website says nothing about commercial or derivative use being permitted. Jkelly 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. According to this page, "You may view the photos on the web site and download any of them free of charge in high resolution. Published photos must include a reference to http://www.g8russia.ru/." That sounds pretty clear to me. Also, this website seems to be managed by the Kremlin, whose website allows free reproduction of all materials without permission. I would suspect that the same (or similar) usage restrictions apply to the G8 website as well, which is reflected in the link above. --Tom (talk - email) 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we cannot assume that the license to republish includes a license to modify. Jkelly 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the permission does not include the right to make derivative works. Kjetil r 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the mention on the site should be enough for Commons. Regards, Yann 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As the uploader, I'm not sure a !vote from me should really be counted, so I just thought I'd bring up the many other images uploaded to commons from the same source. To avoid seeing !votes on every single one, might I advise applying the results of this one to all the others? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Publishing != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete against press licenses. Press licenses are against the purpose of Commons. Not only that, they are actually detrimental and harmful to its purpose. --Rtc 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Only republishing mentioned. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Website gives no indication commercial or derivative use is allowed. Jkelly 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. According to this page, "You may view the photos on the web site and download any of them free of charge in high resolution. Published photos must include a reference to http://www.g8russia.ru/." That sounds pretty clear to me. Also, this website seems to be managed by the Kremlin, whose website allows free reproduction of all materials without permission. I would suspect that the same (or similar) usage restrictions apply to the G8 website as well, which is reflected in the link above. --Tom (talk - email) 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we cannot assume that the license to republish includes a license to modify. Jkelly 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the permission does not include the right to make derivative works. Kjetil r 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the mention on the site should be enough for Commons. Regards, Yann 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Publishing != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete against press licenses. Press licenses are against the purpose of Commons. Not only that, they are actually detrimental and harmful to its purpose. --Rtc 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Publishing license only. In future please make one deletion request for all images from one source instead of listing them seperately. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No indication at source that this has been released for commercial and derivative use. Jkelly 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. According to this page, "You may view the photos on the web site and download any of them free of charge in high resolution. Published photos must include a reference to http://www.g8russia.ru/." That sounds pretty clear to me. Also, this website seems to be managed by the Kremlin, whose website allows free reproduction of all materials without permission. I would suspect that the same (or similar) usage restrictions apply to the G8 website as well, which is reflected in the link above. --Tom (talk - email) 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we cannot assume that the license to republish includes a license to modify. Jkelly 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete seems like a nonderivative. Kjetil r 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tom. Kph 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. Do you know something about the licensing terms that applies to this discussion? Jkelly 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- And why should not be a vote? Who decide what is a vote? Yann 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- At the time of JKelly's comment, Kph didn't say "per Tom." ([53]) Kjetil r 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- And why should not be a vote? Who decide what is a vote? Yann 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you consider the statement “If you wish to re-publish photos, you must provide a link to www.g8russia.ru” as a clear statement that allows the right to make derivative works? Kjetil r 05:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. Do you know something about the licensing terms that applies to this discussion? Jkelly 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The term The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the website http://www.g8russia.ru/ is linked, is very obvious to me. It's very similiar to those pictures published by the US government for public issues. --Herrick 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find that statement on the source website. That page only says "If you wish to re-publish photos, you must provide a link to www.g8russia.ru." which is not a free license. There's no mention of derivative works or commercial use.--88.134.140.64 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the mention on the site should be enough for Commons. Regards, Yann 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are aware that we need permission to modify the work? Kjetil r 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Publishing != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete against dubious licenses. Accept only licenses that explicitly permit derivative work, explicitly commercial use, explicitly use for anypurpose, explicitly by anybody. Pictures with press licenses have to go... all of them. --Rtc 04:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Publishing license only. In future please make one deletion request for all images from one source instead of listing them seperately. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No indication at source that commercial and derivative use is allowed. Jkelly 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. According to this page, "You may view the photos on the web site and download any of them free of charge in high resolution. Published photos must include a reference to http://www.g8russia.ru/." That sounds pretty clear to me. Also, this website seems to be managed by the Kremlin, whose website allows free reproduction of all materials without permission. I would suspect that the same (or similar) usage restrictions apply to the G8 website as well, which is reflected in the link above. --Tom (talk - email) 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we cannot assume that the license to republish includes a license to modify. Jkelly 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the permission does not include the right to make derivative works. Kjetil r 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the mention on the site should be enough for Commons. Regards, Yann 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Publishing != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the mention on the site should be enough for Commons. --Ssolbergj 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- «Download free of charge» != free license. Kjetil r 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We badly need a policy that prohibits pictures of such dubious licenses. --Rtc 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Publishing license only. In future please make one deletion request for all images from one source instead of listing them seperately. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Replaced with png version Image:Complement pathway.pngDO11.10 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Replaced with png version DO11.10 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Replaced with .png image DO11.10 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a free licence: "commercial use not permitted", see also the uploader's recent comment on Image:1986-08-02 Elspe Karl-May-Festspiele.jpg Wikipeder 08:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Die Einschränkung „keine kommerzielle Nutzung“ sollte zugelassen werden, um insbesondere Fotos von Theateraufführungen und anderen künstlerischen Darbietungen Tausenden von Benutzern der Wikipedia nicht vorzuenthalten. Es geht hier keineswegs um gekränkte Eitelkeit des Fotografen, wenn das Bild von Pierre Brice gelöscht werden sollte, sondern um ein grundsätzliches Problem, das den Wert und die Attraktivität der Wikipedia mindern könnte. Spurzem 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nein. Es ist eines der grundlegenden Prinzipien der Wikipedia, dass ihre Inhalte unter einer freien Lizenz stehen und von jedem genutzt werden können, auch zu kommerziellen Zwecken. Eine derartige Einschränkung eines Teiles der Inhalte würde die Qualität des Projektes mindern. --88.134.140.64 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Da kann man bloß noch sagen: Na ja! -- Spurzem 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Fotos von Pierre Brice und einer weiteren Szene der Karl-May-Festspiele inzwischen aus den entsprechenden Artikeln entfernt, bitte aber noch einmal eindringlich, über den Sinn des „grundlegenden Prinzips“ der Wikipedia nachzudenken, keine Bilder zu veröffentlichen, die nicht uneingeschränkt auch kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen. Dieses „Prinzip“ erscheint mir ebenso verfehlt wie das andere, demzufolge jedermann bestehende Artikel anonym verändern oder unausgegorene Gedanken in Wikipedia einstellen darf. -- Spurzem 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Against policy; not edited for 0 days
double to Category:Old maps of Schleswig-Holstein according to usage of "historical"/"old" --W!B: 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
no need to handle this here --ALE! ¿…? 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- ah ja, sorry, I forgot that - did it before I learned about category-redirect - greetings --W!B: 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather useless for me, not used anywhere. Poor quality. Derbeth talk 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with above. – Tintazul talk 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal pictures of a wikipedian's personal trip. Commons is not a family album. -- Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The idea for using this picture is to show the "Club Med experience" as to activities done there. It also shows in the background the exotic places where Club Med is at. --Doug Coldwell 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- laying in on the beach is not a very fancy activity. The background itself is only a background, like you said. It doesn't help anybody. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! The "Club Med experience". I knew once I explained this, you would probably understand and obviously you do. The background is Bora Bora, which helped me alot. Cann't you tell? So this showed exactly what it was suppose to deliver as a message: "the Club Med experience" of laying on the beach in an exotic place. --Doug Coldwell 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bingo! That's exactly what I said, private funpics. Bora Bora? Could be the island of Hawaii or maybe Cuba? I can't tell where it is. Not appropriate and not useful for Commons. EOD for me, let the Admins rule. 8-) --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 10:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You may not be able to tell, however anyone familiar with Tahiti will know that this background volcanic mountain peak shape is unique to Bora Bora. Anyway the purpose of the picture is not to represent exactly where this was taken, but to represent the Club Med experience; which obviously it does. The quality of the picture is more than sufficient to show this. --Doug Coldwell 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic, bad pic quality too. – Tintazul talk 12:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and Image:Club_Med_Tahiti_3.jpg Image:Club Med Tahiti 4.jpg Image:Club_Med_Tahiti_5.jpg Image:Club_Med_Tahiti_6.jpg Image:Club_Med_Tahiti_7.jpg (not yet nominated for deletion) should go with it. 24.235.64.4 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Category for private photo collection Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
completely unsourced (even the link given here is dead), falsification of history 83.131.207.78 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: clearly a scan of a printed material (textbook, see all the moiré pattern); highly unlikely that the original uploader owns the copyright to the work and can license it here under GDFL! If so, the uploader would upload their original work. – Tintazul talk 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no checkable source given. --GeorgHH 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
March 14
[edit]I do not believe this image meets commons:project scope Bawolff 00:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, {{Attackimage}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as an attack image. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work Melkor23 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work Melkor23 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Article suppressed from French Wikipédia. Amateur group. Chris93 19:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Unknown as of 14 March 2007; not edited for 7 days
Illustration fot amateur group article suppressed from French Wikipédia. Chris93 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete– Tintazul talk 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Unknown as of 14 March 2007; not edited for 7 days
surely no work of the United States Federal Government Polarlys 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged the image the same as the movie it was grabbed from, Image:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg. ZorroIII 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
surely no work of the United States Federal Government Polarlys 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- if the work is from trusted source (archives.gov) and the author is not known. When will this work be free enough for commons? is it first publication + 70 years. 1938 + 70 = 2008 ? --Raul6 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author is surely not unknown, he is just not mentioned here. Term of copyright is 70 years pma (post mortem auctoris, = 70 years after the author’s death. --Polarlys 13:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- This image has been deleted from WikiCommons before (deletion log). It was claimed that the name of the photographer is Walter Frentz (1907-2004). Thuresson 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Walter Frentz--69.110.137.45 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- ??? The author died three years ago. --Polarlys 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD given Polarlys 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The license given by the uploader can not be applied for a school logo -- Dantadd✉ 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not, being a school which belongs to the government? If you are not yet convinced, what kind of license would you suggest?
Becar 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The license {{PD-BrazilGov}} does not apply for school and university logos. The logo can be kept here only if the school gives permission. Dantadd✉ 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, bad licensing (not a Brazilian official symbol, that would be a flag or coat of arms of Brazil, for instance), and also very bad quality. – Tintazul talk 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All the images on Category:Beer labels are copyvios imho. Elly 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, all copyvios unless exempt from copyright (old ago, etc.) – Tintazul talk 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
All files (and category, too) deleted. /odder 07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
better version: Image:BremenSchlachte-01.jpg --Romwriter 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
kept, no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Reproduction of a painting that is almost certainly copyrighted, either by the painter or by the California State Government (and unlike with the U.S. federal government, California government works are rarely public domain.) Delirium 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
i was using this in the wikipedia article about jerry brown. would this qualify for a 'fair use' image? as in: could i add this same image (i took it) to the wikipedia article, but not have it in the commons? Minnaert 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fair-use claim would probably legally stand up, but since it seems like it should be possible to get free images of Jerry Brown (he's still alive, after all), there's a general preference against fair-use images. --Delirium 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio of painting. Fair use not allowed on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(wrong file, black and white) Artfan 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. B/w dupe of Image:Baldungamorc.jpg. Siebrand 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
it is a copyvio of a figure (figure 1 page 230) in an article published by the Bulletin of Seismological Society of America references : Nuttli, Otto W. (1973). The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intesities, ground motion and magnitudes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 63, 227-248. andre 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This was uploaded to provide a picture for Gove County, Kansas, but several better pictures have recently been added, and this was removed. There is no likely use for this picture on any Wikimedia project. Therefore, I, the creator of this image, propose its deletion. Nyttend 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Not certain if this qualifies as a derivative work of copyrighted material. I am at a 50/50 stance towards deletion/keep. Cat chi? 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
relisted for further discussion Yonatan talk 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think that in the scope of the whole picture, it's not a derivative work as the copyrighted materials are not the focus of the picture (or at least each one of them alone isn't). Yonatan talk 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not only is is not derivative, as it's a whole scene and not focused on the bottles, the Coke logo is actually public domain, see Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg. -Nard 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coca cola generally appreciates derivative works that increase attention to their products, case in example, the coca cola kid (1985) made without permission from coca cola. Madmax32 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need this image? (Checkusage does not work at the moment) --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I copied it to my local project after it has been deleted for the second time. That means I gave up. You can delete it if you want, but I still don't see a valid reason. --Filip (§) 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need this image? (Checkusage does not work at the moment) --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coca cola generally appreciates derivative works that increase attention to their products, case in example, the coca cola kid (1985) made without permission from coca cola. Madmax32 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted (the image was partially out of scope IMHO) -ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
March 15
[edit]unused category 121.73.5.55 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Source it:Immagine:Isernia-Stemma.png = fairuse Vaya 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
upload by mistake Vaya 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
copyrighted MB-one 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The permission given in the image page is:
Johannes Franz: "gescannte Kopie der Autogrammkarte von Matthias Becker darf für Wikipedia genutzt werden."
Delete This is a permission for use on wikipedia and does not indicate it is released under a free license. Yonatanh 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Photograph taken (c. 1930) by Man Ray, who died in 1976. Contrary to the claim on the image description page, works in France do not pass into the public domain after 62 years, but only after 70 years past the death of the author. Delirium 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, deleted. Yann 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Soldier requests that this photo be deleted. Possible security issue. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Fish Cop (talk • contribs)
- Delete. If I recall correctly, generally we honor deletion requests when the photograph is primarily or exclusively of a specific individual (as opposed to a person being incidental in the photograph), when the individual doesn't want to be here and is not a public figure. --Delirium 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible privacy and/or security issue. Yann 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- EugeneZelenko 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The image description page for this image indicates "PC-old" which I take to mean "PD-old". It is perfectly plausible that, if this work was created in 1924 as indicated at the image description page, that the creator did not die more than 70 years ago, which would invalidate the PD-old claim. I can find no evidence to support the claim of PD-old. -- Iamunknown 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author is given as "Joseph Janssens". This is evidently Joseph Marie Louis Janssens de Vaerebeke (first name sometimes given as "Jozef", also sometimes "de Waerebeke"). He was born on May 29, 1854, lived from 1884 at Antwerpen (Anvers in French) and died on June 29, 1930.[54]. Hence Keep, add this info about the painter to the image page, and fix the tag to {{PD-Art}}. Lupo 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note, however, that the image is probably not PD in the U.S. ... (painted 1924). Lupo 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Correct me if I am wrong.) Don't all images hosted on Commons' servers have to be PD in the US? --Iamunknown 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- In principle: yes. However, the commons has always ignored the possibility of non-U.S. works of authors who died more than 70 years ago being copyrighted in the U.S. and has simply applied 70 years p.m.a. My "keep" is based on this observation of actual practices here. Lupo 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the 1924 date given on the image page seems to be wrong. The subject died on August 18, 1923. See also [55]. Lupo 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hurray! I'll try to add in the information and then I'll close the deletion request. :) --Iamunknown 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- But note that even if the portrait was painted before 1923, it is probably still copyrighted in the U.S.: as a foreign work still copyrighted in Belgium in 1996, it was subject to the URAA copyright restorations... Lupo 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, when were reproductions of the painting published? That seems to be an often-neglected variable in determining whether a digital reproduction is freely licensed or not. --Iamunknown 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- But note that even if the portrait was painted before 1923, it is probably still copyrighted in the U.S.: as a foreign work still copyrighted in Belgium in 1996, it was subject to the URAA copyright restorations... Lupo 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hurray! I'll try to add in the information and then I'll close the deletion request. :) --Iamunknown 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the 1924 date given on the image page seems to be wrong. The subject died on August 18, 1923. See also [55]. Lupo 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- In principle: yes. However, the commons has always ignored the possibility of non-U.S. works of authors who died more than 70 years ago being copyrighted in the U.S. and has simply applied 70 years p.m.a. My "keep" is based on this observation of actual practices here. Lupo 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Correct me if I am wrong.) Don't all images hosted on Commons' servers have to be PD in the US? --Iamunknown 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note, however, that the image is probably not PD in the U.S. ... (painted 1924). Lupo 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yann 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not donebased on the discussion, the image should be kept. Yonatan talk 03:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No longer needed, and bad quality... --Stefan-Xp 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) corrected by --Melkor23 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Melkor23 04:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see us using this for anything. Yonatanh 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You're still right... but it seems the deletion is still undone :( --Stefan-Xp 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention this is a derivative work… Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Uploaded to use at en.wikipedia.org before realizing that the image name was already in use. Since I didn't see a "move" function (as on Wikipedia), I have just reuploaded to Image:Phishband.jpg. Moeron 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done please use {{New_image.jpg}} in the future. Yonatan talk 08:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Outside of scope. No informational purpose beyond that of the shield itself, already more adequately described by Image:Brasao Petropolis rj .jpg. Dcoetzee 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed with the above. Yann 19:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
copyvio from homepage. Licencing has to be confirmed via OTRS Taxman(de) 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done no proof of GFDL. Yonatan talk 08:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I restored the old deletion request that had been commented out ([56]) --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no evidence that this is a work created by the United Kingdom Government, so the copyright status is unclear. Has been deleted before, but was uploaded again only a week later. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is certainly originally not a UK Government photo, as it is a photo taken by German war corrospondents or an official Luftwaffe photographer sometime between 1939 and 1942 (when the Ju 87B-model depicted was used in combat). Maybe this photo was taken to a British archive after the Second World War. However, I just sent an e-mail to the German Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) inquiring the copyright status of Third Reich official photos. I hope to get an answer, soon. -- Cobatfor 20:05, 10 Aug 2008
- So as I know the Bundesachiv, you won't get a clear answer, if you get any answer...--Avron (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Horrido! Well, I called the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) in Koblenz and was told the following: If the photo was taken by the official propaganda companies the rights are with the German State. But, you have to find out first, who has the rights on this particular photo. The Bundesarchiv has about 1.5 mio. photos of about 3 mio. taken. The rest went up in flames or is somewhere else. If the copyright lies with the Bundesarchiv, you can use 50 dpi-versions from the Bundesarchiv website, but ONLY, if the pictures are not downloadable for others [57]. Otherwise you have to pay a fee (see "Kostenverordnung" of the Bundesarchiv [58]). If the copyright lies somewhere else (like Ullstein publishers [59]), be warned, as fees for misuse are very high. So, if you search in the photo archive of the Bundesarchiv for this photo, at least I did not find it. I did not find it at the US archives, too. Therefore I would recommend to delete it, as it is not clear where the copyright lies.-- Cobatfor 16:48, 18 Aug 2008 (CEST)
- Delete for the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The Bundesarchiv still lives in the last millenium. --Avron (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am named as the original uploader, but that was not this copy of the image but a pure monochrome one. I never claimed it was a UK government image, in AFP it was credited "Courtesy of 'The Aeroplane'". I don't know where the tinted version came from--Keith Edkins (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have been asked for further information. This old version is the version I uploaded. I presume Cobatfor found the tinted version, I have no knowledge of its source. AFP = Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, a series of seven books published 1941-47, "Compiled by H.J. Cooper & O.G. Thetford, Edited by D.A. Russell A.M.I.Mech.E". "The Aeroplane" was a monthly magazine[60].--Keith Edkins (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I found the coloured version of the above picture here [61]. No source is given, but it is certainly the same as originally uploaded by Keith Edkins. As the picture appeared in a UK magazine in the 1940 it seems to me that it was "liberated" by the Allies and is probably in some British archive, state or private. However, this photo was certainly made by a Luftwaffe photographer and the coloured version hints that there are more copies around. Doesn't really help with the copyright question... --Cobatfor 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have been asked for further information. This old version is the version I uploaded. I presume Cobatfor found the tinted version, I have no knowledge of its source. AFP = Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, a series of seven books published 1941-47, "Compiled by H.J. Cooper & O.G. Thetford, Edited by D.A. Russell A.M.I.Mech.E". "The Aeroplane" was a monthly magazine[60].--Keith Edkins (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work after copyrighted sculpture L'homme aux semelles devant by Jean-Robert Ipoustéguy (d. 2006). France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Should be speedy deleted. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This image must not be used for commercial purpose. Dédélembrouille 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The status of this speech as a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body of Finland is disputed. See fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone_(tekijänoikeudet)#Rytin_puhe_26.6.1941 (in Finnish) Joonasl 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we wait until the discussion at the fi-Wikipedia has reached a conclusion. --MPorciusCato 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a conclusion now? --ALE! ¿…? 10:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- In Finnish Wikipedia, the discussion has died out. Joonasl and Samulili believe that the text of the speech does not fall under the article 9 of the Finnish copyright law as the speech is in oral, not in written form. On the other hand, Dr. Jukka Kemppinen, professor of information law in Lappeenranta University of Technology has discussed in his blog this file and its status, concluding that it is in the scope of article 9 and thus in PD[62], [63]. Kemppinen notes:
- Is there a conclusion now? --ALE! ¿…? 10:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Minusta asia on jokseenkin selvä: viranomaisen lausuma. Se esitettiin viranomaisfunktiossa eli sotavoiman ylipäällikkönä. (Ei ihan totta, koska homma oli nakitettu Mannerheimille, mutta tasavallan presidentti oli kuitenkin perustuslain mukaan tätä.) Ja lausuma koski päätöstä "sodasta ja rauhasta" ja suhteista ulkovaltoihin eli keskeisesti viranomaistoimintaa. [64]
- In English:
- In my view the thing is rather clear: a statement by authority. It was made functioning as an authority, i.e. the Commander-in-Chief. (Not quite right, as Mannerheim was taking care of this, but the president of the republic was anyway this.) And the statement was about a decision on "war and peace" and the relations with foreign powers, i.e. central area of public power.
- In my view, he is right. Samulili has told he is going to write to the Finnish Copyright Council and is going to consult them on this to get another expert opinion. (Not a "legal threat" but a bona fide attempt to get more information.) --MPorciusCato 12:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What shall we do with this now? --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I say we should delete it, and if it turns out we can use it, it can be restored. / Fred J 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- What shall we do with this now? --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
March 16
[edit]Derivative work: http://www.carilat.de/creutzmann/sven_4.htm -- Dantadd✉ 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - Obvious derivative. Yonatanh 05:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(c) -- Szczepan dyskusja Mail 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Done by User:MesserWoland Yonatan talk 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This picture of Noam Elkies is named Bill Gosper, which could generate confusion similar to that which led me to upload it with the wrong name in the first place. It is also a duplicate of the existing image Image:Noam_Elkies_2005.jpg Dan Hoey 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Done use {{Name of duplicate.jpg}} in the future. Yonatan talk 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The image says it came from Toyota Deutschland GmbH, but there's no evidence that they've licensed the image under the GFDL. Interiot 17:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, deleted. Yann 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no indication on the URLs provided that this image is licensed under CC-BY-SA-1.0. It was admittedly, however, uploaded a long time ago, so I brought it here instead of speedying it. -- Iamunknown 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The site design doesn't make it entirely obvious, but http://zaxl4.fotopages.com/ does have a link in the left column "My CC license", to CC-BY-SA-1.0. --Davepape 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Darn, I didn't see that. I'll withdraw my nomination. --Iamunknown 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn, the license is indicated, although inconspicuously, on the website. --Iamunknown 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer active on wikipedia and want my user page deleted. I can't log in to request deletion because I don't remember my password. JohnM --89.8.153.103 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If JohnM is your account, please login in and sign with this name. Regards, Yann 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't remember password. 89.8.157.237 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:JohnM. Kjetil r 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer active on wikipedia and want my discussion page deleted. I can't log in to request deletion because I don't remember my password. JohnM --89.8.153.103 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If JohnM is your account, please login in and sign with this name. Regards, Yann 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't remember password.89.8.157.237 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can see the problem we might have with deleting an account's talk and user pages without knowing for sure that the owner of the account is requesting the deletion. Yonatan talk 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the problem, but the user JohnM has been inactive for months. 89.8.170.170 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can see the problem we might have with deleting an account's talk and user pages without knowing for sure that the owner of the account is requesting the deletion. Yonatan talk 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the login page there's the "E-mail password button" you can use to email a new password to you - if you specified an email address in your account information. --88.134.140.64 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't specify. But I'm sure my e-mail adress can be found on this deleted image Image:Svinesundbroa.jpg or its discussion page. Maybe you can undelete the image and send a new password to my e-mail adress? 89.8.170.170 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- E-postadressen din er ikke på hverken bildesiden eller bildediskusjonssiden. Kjetil r 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Det var rart. Jeg mener bestemt at jeg limte inn en e-post i denne fila, og at Cnyborg tilbød seg å oversette den til engelsk. Mulig jeg forveksler med et annet bilde. Uansett, e-postadressen min finnes på den norske versjonen av bildet, her: no:Bilde:Svinesundbroa.jpg. Den kan du sammenlikne med e-posten jeg sender til deg fra no:Bruker:Dummybruker. Det hadde vært fint om du kunne slette no:Bilde:Svinesundbroa.jpg og no:Bilde:Skien fengsel 800.jpg også, så slipper e-postadressene som vises der å ligge åpnet på nettet.89.8.190.98 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Greit, jeg skal slette disse. Kjetil r 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Det var rart. Jeg mener bestemt at jeg limte inn en e-post i denne fila, og at Cnyborg tilbød seg å oversette den til engelsk. Mulig jeg forveksler med et annet bilde. Uansett, e-postadressen min finnes på den norske versjonen av bildet, her: no:Bilde:Svinesundbroa.jpg. Den kan du sammenlikne med e-posten jeg sender til deg fra no:Bruker:Dummybruker. Det hadde vært fint om du kunne slette no:Bilde:Svinesundbroa.jpg og no:Bilde:Skien fengsel 800.jpg også, så slipper e-postadressene som vises der å ligge åpnet på nettet.89.8.190.98 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- E-postadressen din er ikke på hverken bildesiden eller bildediskusjonssiden. Kjetil r 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't specify. But I'm sure my e-mail adress can be found on this deleted image Image:Svinesundbroa.jpg or its discussion page. Maybe you can undelete the image and send a new password to my e-mail adress? 89.8.170.170 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
JohnM (or at least someone who claims he is JohnM) has made a similar request at no.wp. I think that we should trust him. We can undelete the pages later if it turns out that 89.8.170.170 is not the real JohnM. Kjetil r 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I have received confirmation from JohnM through email. 89.8.190.98 is User:JohnM. Kjetil r 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The image does already exists at Image:Solvay conference 1913.jpg Donarreiskoffer 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per previous decision. Yann 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: duplicate of Image:Solvay conference 1913.jpg
- Delete I support deleting this image /odder 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Regions highlighted are not usual nor official. The Mexican territory is only officialy divided into states AlexCovarrubias 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; I just don't understand why it is the original uploader who is now asking for this picture's deletion. – Tintazul talk 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 4 days
The pyramid is specifically cited on Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France as an example of something not allowed. User:Atoma also appears to want the photo to have a non-commercial license. --Davepape 01:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info I updated the copyright status, removed the 'non-commercial' mention. --Atoma 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - derivative. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete derivative. – Tintazul talk 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find information on this photograph. On the Spanish wiki, there was a debate (here) on whether to keep an article on Mia Rauz - this page/photograph is about the same subject. They decided to delete. I propose we follow their decision. Deadstar 08:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find information on this photograph. On the Spanish wiki, there was a debate (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Mia_Rauz) on whether to keep an article on Mia Rauz - this page/photograph is about the same subject. They decided to delete. I propose we follow their decision. Deadstar 09:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
and Image:Smarties (Nestlé).jpg, Image:NestléFifa.JPG, Image:NestléFifa2.JPG.
Derivative works. -- EugeneZelenko 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all – Tintazul talk 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleting all as copyvios of design on pack. --MichaelMaggs 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
and Image:Picswiss VD-43-32.jpg.
Derivative work from corporate logo -- EugeneZelenko 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, it's a derivative work of a bas-relief of the corporate logo, placed at the outer wall of Nestlé's headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland. Image taken by a Swiss citizen and fine by Swiss freedom of panorama (§27 of the Swiss copyright law (in German)). Lupo 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Lupo. – Tintazul talk 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Picswiss_VD-43-15.jpg, but Delete Image:Picswiss VD-43-32.jpg: this is a photomontage of the Charlie Chaplin statue (also at Vevey, but not near Nestlé's HQ) and the first image. See [65] for where the statue actually stands: on a public promenade on the shores of Lake Geneva. Although the image is fine copyright-wise, I strongly object such image manipulation. (The author freely admits that it is a photomontage at the original source). Lupo 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
original image kept and montage deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted by Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation(SMRT). (Related disscussion --> Commons:Deletion requests/Seoul Subway Maps) LERK (Talk / Contributions) 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; someone please create the same map in SVG not using this image - that would be an original work, perhaps even improving on this cluttered map by SMRT? – Tintazul talk 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This map is out of date line 1 has been extended beyond the northern terminus it shows on this map
- I agree entirely. 59.15.61.147 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree completely. The evolution of the subway system is useful information to me and anyone else who would wish to write a "true-to-history" account of life in Korea. Without the images of the subway as it has evolved and continues to evolve, that useful information is lost. Keep it updated with the latest version (regardless of copyright...c'mon, we're talking fair use here!), but don't destroy historical facts. This image (and many, many more) belongs in the "History of..." subsection of this entry. User:abundantmind
Deleted. No permission supplied and fair use does not apply on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This temlate is ambiguos. Polish version of license text means something like GFDL+CC-BY-SA, but English one: GFDL+CC-BY. We've got problems with this template on pl:Wiki, why should we have similar problems on Commons too? There are only few images using this license template on Commons. A.J. 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete template, replace by plain GFDL. A.J. 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - what exactly does this template's text say? Can we replace this template with something like gfdl-self or {{self}} or would we have to delete the photos using it (there are about 5 I think)? Yonatan talk 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Polish version of text contains some conditions OR GFDL, English versions contains slightly different conditions OR GFDL: GFDL is in both versions, so answer is: we do not need to delete the photos, we can replace this template with {{GFDL}}. A.J. 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And does this template say anywhere that the uploader is the author of the image? Otherwise we'll probably get a lot of no source templates added to them. Yonatan talk 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This template is used by less than 10 images. In most cases author is given in image description, in other he/she is a renowed community member, who can be trusted. A.J. 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of whether or not we can contact them and ask them to relicense their files. Are they still active such that we can contact them? --Iamunknown 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if the original license (in both languages) said GFDL or blah blah, we shouldn't have any problem replacing it with a simple {{GFDL}}. Yonatan talk 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And about authorship: actually only 2 photos do not attribute its author, both are used on personal users' pages: Image:Matthias gor.jpg, Image:Niki k.jpg. That's not a big problem, I can contact these wikipedians and ask them to add self- tempates. :) A.J. 10:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if the original license (in both languages) said GFDL or blah blah, we shouldn't have any problem replacing it with a simple {{GFDL}}. Yonatan talk 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of whether or not we can contact them and ask them to relicense their files. Are they still active such that we can contact them? --Iamunknown 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This template is used by less than 10 images. In most cases author is given in image description, in other he/she is a renowed community member, who can be trusted. A.J. 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And does this template say anywhere that the uploader is the author of the image? Otherwise we'll probably get a lot of no source templates added to them. Yonatan talk 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Polish version of text contains some conditions OR GFDL, English versions contains slightly different conditions OR GFDL: GFDL is in both versions, so answer is: we do not need to delete the photos, we can replace this template with {{GFDL}}. A.J. 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a duplicate of Template:PLCC (about 100 inclusions) A.J. 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, useless duplicate. -- Cat chi? 16:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedied by another user, but I disagree with the deletion because he claimed it as a derivative fair use image from en.wiki (which is not true), and as for copyvio, I can't recall if there is a copyright law about trophies' pics here in Canada (where this pic was taken). Buchanan-Hermit 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep If NHL trophies aren't allowed, then why is there a Category:NHL trophies? Buchanan-Hermit 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- That a category exists for these images does not indicate that these images are categorically okay. In a similar vein, because a page exists titled Pablo Picasso, does that mean I should be able to upload a digital reproduction of any of his works? (I know that is a somewhat bad example because of the disclaimer, but I'm using it to attempt to prove my point.) --Iamunknown 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't matter if there's a category or not, trophies that are not copyright can be there. But trophies like this, which is copyrighted can't be here because of Commons:Derivative works.--Thugchildz 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep nothing wrong with a picture of some cup. You can have derivative work of real artwork, but you can't call some metal cup or other simply objects artwork --LimoWreck 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The trophy is a copyrighted work of art, this is an indisputable fact. This makes the Commentphotograph of the cup a derivative work which can subsequently not be free enough for commons. This is not covered under freedom of panorama either unless proven otherwise by one of the users. Yonatan talk 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Freedom of panorama exists in Canada (where the photo was taken) for three-dimensional artwork. Buchanan-Hermit 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- and is irrelevant in this case since it is inside a museum (or hall of fame, whatever) and not in a public place. Yonatan talk 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep utility articles are not copyrighted "even if [their] the appearance [is] determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations"[66] --Rtc 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly defines a "utility article" and why is a trophy such an article? --Iamunknown 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- A utility article is defined by its intrinsic utilitarian function, and aesthetic elements of such utility articles are restricted by copyright only if they are separate and independent from this intrinsic utilitarian function. In contrast to a picture printed on a t-shirt, this is not the case here. The trophy is an utility article because it is a drinking vessel. It is not relevant here that such trophys are hardly used actually; it is sufficient that they have this intrinstic utilitarian function in principle. So this picture shows mere design (applied art), not fine art. It would be eligible for a design patent, not for copyright. --Rtc 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Canadian freedom of panorama does apply within institutions, but only to permanently fixed exhibits, which this is obviously not.
Note that the trophy predates 1924, perhaps significantly so (we don't seem to know when it was created, only when it was donated) andcopyright on it may have expired in Canada. Unfortunately, even if the copyright is expired in Canada, that doesn't mean that it necessarily has in the United States. In short, we don't know enough about the trophy to determine its status. Jkelly 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, there are apparantly three different trophies, and this one is presumably the one first presented in 1949. Jkelly 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What does the US has to do with it? The trophy is Canadian-made, the photo was taken in Canada, the trophy was displayed in Canada. Wouldn't Canadian law apply then, even if the servers are in the US? Buchanan-Hermit 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Our rule of thumb is that any media here needs to be freely reusable in both its country of origin and in the United States; the latter of which is a necessity because that is where uploaders are publishing it. There are treaties between Canada and the United States that we have yet to fully tease out the implications of, complicating the situation. Jkelly 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It doesn't matter if its fine art or simple art its still copyrighted to the person who created or the owner of the trophy. Take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png. That was deleted just to be safe and so should this be.--Thugchildz 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept, for same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StanleyCup.jpg. / Fred J 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
March 17
[edit]the uploader of this picture obviously is not the author. the press release must not be released into public domain. --JD {æ} 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yonatanh: unused promo photo probable copyvio
I don't think the Flickr uploader took that picture himself, therefore the licensing isn't valid. --Rosenzweig 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Rosenzweig 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Original source appears to be here. Carl Lindberg 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, deleted. Yann 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
the uploader of this picture obviously is not the author. the press release can therefore not be released as "pd-self". JD {æ} 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- same with Image:Sem título1002.JPG. --JD {æ} 10:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is a screen shot of the copyrighted iTunes software and is tagged under a free license. 24fan24 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Derivative}} —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info The full screenshot of the copyrighted software that this image is derived from is available here. --24fan24 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This image is a screen shot of iTunes software display. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- Dantadd✉ 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio of shirt design --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) License
- Delete - Clearly not pre-1923. - Andre Engels 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: private photo with wrong license, not in use at all
This photograph is tagged as PD, but is in fact copyrighted as per this copyright notice on the source page.
The PD tag used, {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (which I wrote), is applicable only to images first published in Switzerland that lack the individuality that Swiss law requires for copyright protection. (See this Wikipedia article, also by me in pertinent part, for details and examples.) To oversimplify, only thoughtless "point-and-shoot" images are ineligible for copyright in Switzerland.
In this case, this is not so. The picture at issue is an elaborately staged scene designed to evoke a particular impression, i.e., that of a government "on the move". For this reason, it is my opinion as a Swiss lawyer that this image is copyrighted under Swiss law and should be deleted from Commons. Sandstein 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. That's the danger of having that template at all. I don't think it's useful. Even the Meili image would pass the Schöpfungshöhe criterion in Germany or the "threshold of originality" in the U.S. and thus qualify for copyright there. Hence one cannot even use the tag for the very image the cited court case was about. Unless someone can show that this case could reasonably be construed to be the Swiss equivalent of the U.S. Bridgeman ruling, I see no use for this tag. (Does the "Meili photo" case also apply to reproductive photographs of 2D originals?) Lupo 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we do use the Bridgeman ruling to claim PD on images that would be copyrighted in some non-US jurisdictions. The Blau Guggenheim case is the rough Swiss equivalent of Bridgeman, although it goes further and is more difficult to apply. I think we can and should use Blau Guggenheim-compatible Swiss images, if only because a Swiss rights holder is very unlikely to go to the trouble of pursuing a supposed U.S. copyright in a Florida court (or if they do threaten to, I assume an admin or OFFICE will just delete the image and that would be all). I agree that the {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} template is difficult in that it requires judgment calls, but I'll be patrolling Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality) regularly to report offending pictures such as this one. -- As to your question, yes, a mere photographical reproduction of a 2D artwork (such as Image:Bundesbrief.jpg) is PD under Blau Guggenheim (as under Bridgeman), due to lack of individuality, as long as - of course - the photographed 2D artwork is itself PD. Sandstein 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "judgment calls" should not be used. A photo that is not copyrightable in Switzerland as per this case can still be eligible to copyright elsewhere, see en:WP:PD#International aspects (or §5(2) of the Berne Convention directly). The case should only be used as the Swiss equivalent of the Bridgeman ruling, and the tag should make that clear. All other uses involve too much individual subjective judgment, and may not be valid in other countries anyway. Lupo 08:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not really a discussion that belongs here, but... as en:WP:PD#International_aspects says, the threshold of originality varies between countries. How do we as an international project deal with it? You would seem to suggest we should use the lowest common denominator of originality. I'm suggesting a more pragmatic approach: apply the law of the country of origin (if any), until the rights holder complains, in which case apply the likely lex fori, i.e. US law. And, well, all determinations of originality (or other rationales for deletion) involve subjective judgment; if not we could just turn Commons administration over to a bot. We'll have to live with it. Sandstein 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the rule on the commons. The commons' rule (at least in theory) is that a work for which a PD claim is made must be PD both in the country of origin and in the U.S. Lupo 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- What policy would that be? Sandstein 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and PD doesn't mean "we can get away with it". Lupo 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm looking at this from a pragmatical lawyer's point of view, so... up to a certain point, yes, it does. When (as here) the PD status hinges on the degree of originality the image exhibits, there's no objective, clear-cut answer as to whether or not it is PD, but only a matter of judgment. What I propose is merely that we exercise that judgment, in good faith, through discussions such as this one - except when we face legal action, at which point it's just not worth the trouble keeping the image. Sandstein 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the rule on the commons. The commons' rule (at least in theory) is that a work for which a PD claim is made must be PD both in the country of origin and in the U.S. Lupo 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not really a discussion that belongs here, but... as en:WP:PD#International_aspects says, the threshold of originality varies between countries. How do we as an international project deal with it? You would seem to suggest we should use the lowest common denominator of originality. I'm suggesting a more pragmatic approach: apply the law of the country of origin (if any), until the rights holder complains, in which case apply the likely lex fori, i.e. US law. And, well, all determinations of originality (or other rationales for deletion) involve subjective judgment; if not we could just turn Commons administration over to a bot. We'll have to live with it. Sandstein 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "judgment calls" should not be used. A photo that is not copyrightable in Switzerland as per this case can still be eligible to copyright elsewhere, see en:WP:PD#International aspects (or §5(2) of the Berne Convention directly). The case should only be used as the Swiss equivalent of the Bridgeman ruling, and the tag should make that clear. All other uses involve too much individual subjective judgment, and may not be valid in other countries anyway. Lupo 08:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- As an aside, the uploader has reported on my talk that he is now requesting permission from the Federal Chancellory for this image. In my experience, such a request is going to take some time and will more likely than not be answered in the negative, so I suppose we can delete this instance of the image in the meantime. Sandstein 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Discussions of whether or not judgement calls should be used aside, any judgement should suggest this work satisfies even highly set requirements of artistic intent. With respect to the permission request, permission should always precede uploading, so until permission is granted, we should assume it won't be. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This image was released to me by the Swiss Government, provided that the copyright will be mentioned when downloaded onto a computer Booksworm 10:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The mesage stated: The photograph of the Federal Council can be released under the condition that the copyright is being mentioned.
- Comment I have changed the license to {{Attribution}} Booksworm 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted. --GeorgHH 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd used wrong name (the little missing "r") and want the picture deleted. The new one I supplied instead was: Image:Rosenkrantztaarnet.JPG shark 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Slettet (Deleted). Den beste måten å få slike slettet på er ved å bruke {{badname|Image:Rosenkrantztaarnet.JPG}}. Kjetil r 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the Ubisoft-Attribution can be apply to there trakemark.
- But i dont realy know. ~ bayo or talk 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ubisoft attribution applies only to user-made screenshots, so if it would be screenshot of game title screen (like on Image:Beyond Good and Evil - title screen.jpg), then okay. In any other case we have no argue from Ubisoft, therefore we cannot approve that we are using the attribution correctly.Keep Ok, ok... Hołek ҉ 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a screenshot from Rayman 2 i took while playing. That is the title screen which is shown before the brief introduction of some characters, i believe. Canderous 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Using a free license on a logo would allow derivative works e.g., which is a non-sense for a trademark as shown in the image. Free screenshots should not apply in this case. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
kept as PD-textlogo --ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Uploader claims authorship. I think it's copyvio, maybe from http://www.airliners.net/ -- Dantadd✉ 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dantadd has called for this image to be deleted. He suspects the person claiming authorship of this image is doing so fraudulently. He gives no reason for his suspicion. Perhaps because it is so good? :>)
- I, Terence Danks, am the photographer and I personally uploaded the image. The image was taken in 1971 with a 400 mm telephoto lens on Kodachrome 35mm colour slide film while I was employed at the Whitehorse, Yukon airport in the capacity of meteorologist. And, yes, I have the original slide.
- While I have not seen fit to post this particular image, proof that I am who I say I am, and that I resided in the Yukon during 1971, can be gleaned from my personal photography web site at http://danks.netfirms.com/home.htm Follow the links to the Yukon and Alaska images.
- So, where do we go from here?
- This is the first image I have tried to upload to Wikipedia. Did I fail to do something properly? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dawziecat (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ok, calm down. Just give your reasons on the deletion request. We are very carefull with copyright matters, so do not take it personally. Dantadd✉ 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of copying the last couple of entries from the talk page of this deletion request. I think Dantadd's concerns were reasonable at the time, but I don't think there is any reason to doubt the authorship claims at this point. Keep. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of copying the last couple of entries from the talk page of this deletion request. I think Dantadd's concerns were reasonable at the time, but I don't think there is any reason to doubt the authorship claims at this point.
kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
copyrighted items, the manuals, the game cover, the texts -- Tarawneh 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The texts aren't legible and the game cover is a minimal part of the image as a whole, which I believe is insufficient to make this a derivative work. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per LX. Wind 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep agree with LX. Jalla 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete images can be cropped and therefore we have derivative works of copyrighted material included --ALE! ¿…? 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, agree to ALE! --Polarlys 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
March 18
[edit]Already existing category. Just see [[Category:Hermitages of Aragon]]. To avoid people from messing between both categories, please delete the one I just created by mistake. Thank You. --Lascorz (Charrez-me) 
00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Jerzy Kossak died in 1955(!); see en:Jerzy Kossak. This can't be PD-Old or PD-Art. Rosenzweig 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Done yep, you're right, I don't see a need to leave this open. Yonatan talk 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
taken place was prohibited photographed--N.C 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please rewrite your request to be somewhat more understandable. I really don't know why this image should be deleted. --Denniss 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- my only was simple english.--N.C 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- This image opposed society manners.--N.C 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph was released in Germany. For this reason it is no doubt on the availability of the license. --MB-one 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No proper reasons given by the person requesting for this image's deletion. Should the image be speedily kept? --Moonian 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am the author, what did I do wrong? I took the picture from departure level of Hanoi Noi Bai airport. --Craig 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for GFDL licence William Avery 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Nilfanion: In category Unknown as of 18 March 2007; not edited for 7 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicat, see Category:Buildings in Mannheim, Germany Frank 13:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
There isn't infromarion about GFDL or PD-old status at original source. Alex Spade 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Editor at Large: Deleted at source (en.wikipedia); no evidence of pd status at original source
Evasion license tags
[edit]| Don't use this | Use this instead. |
|---|---|
| {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} | {{CC-BY}} |
| {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} | {{CC-BY}} |
| {{Copyrighted free use}} | {{CC-PD}} |
| {{Attribution}} | {{CC-BY}} |
From Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates
- {{AgenciaCamaraBr}}
- {{AgenciaSenadoBr}}
- {{TVSenadoBr}}
- {{RadioSenadoBr}}
- {{Eurocoins}}
- {{FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs}}
- {{DutchRoyalNavy}}
- {{EU image}}
- {{ItalyDefense}}
- {{Kremlin.ru}}
- {{MdB}}
- {{SejmCopyright}}
- {{PolishSenateCopyright}}
- {{RomanianGovernmentCopyright}}
- {{FinnishDefenceForces}}
- {{AerialPhotograph-mlitJP}}
- {{Trainweb}}
- {{Euro banknote}}
- {{Euro coin common face}}
- {{PolishPresidentCopyright}}
- {{Ókeypis vefkort}}
- {{Flphoto}}
- {{IPPAR}}
In the same way:
- {{Norden.org}}
- {{AMI}}
- {{Attribution Entomart}}
- {{Autotravel}}
- {{NJDOT}}
- {{No rights reserved}}
- {{LarsenCopyright}}
- {{MORS}}
- {{Members of the Riksdag}}
- {{Met.no}}
- {{MosNews}}
- {{By G®iffen}}
- {{PD-8BS}}
- {{PD-AR-Presidency}}
- {{PD-BrGov-PF}}
- {{IPPAR}}
Over the years, many pictures with unclear copyright status have been uploaded to Commons, under the tags listed above. There is no reason to use these tags; we have clear and explicit Creative Commons licenses. Further, people have no reason to deny explicit CC licenses for their works if they really want to give the freedom that the above licenses grant, since these tags are compatible with Creative Commons licenses anyway if they are true.
Unfortunately, the tags are commonly not used for pictures that the author would grant a Creative Commons license for. They are used to evade COM:L and to upload about any picture for which in some way or another the author grants the right to "use", or permits "reproduction", but without expressly stating that commercial use, derivative work etc. are permitted, and generally, considering the interests of the author, it would be absurd for him to grant such a license. This has caused many emotional and heated discussions in the past. We should resolve the problem now once and for all. Either people give CC licenses without ifs and buts, or they have do without their pictures being available on wikimedia commons.
This deletion request is also a request to check these templates critically with the rights holder, and to ask him: "Do you really mean what these templates say, and would you hence please give an explicit CC license for them to express this intention unambiguously?" There's no honest reason not to ask, merely because the answer could be negative.
I suggest we phase out these tags completely. As a first step, their use should be deprecated and no new pictures with such tags should not be accepted anymore. People should contact the authors of these pictures, and ask them to release them under a CC license. If the pictures have been taken from web pages, people should ask the authors to put CC tags on their web pages directly. (It already worked for Template:Agencia Brasil.) After one or two years, depending on the progress, we can then delete the remaining pictures. --Rtc 05:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added {{Norden.org}} to the list. Kjetil r 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{Met.no}} seems ok, as they state “All material on our site is available for public domain, including figures and photos without byline. We only require that you state met.no as the source.” (see OTRS Ticket#: 2006120510014059). Kjetil r 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is, but it is not explicit. They should pick a CC license and add a corresponding tag to their site. Public Domain is an overused term. It can mean anything from "all rights released" to "by-nc-nd". We should also phase out OTRS permissions and ask people to put tags directly on their web site. Then there can be no misunderstanding about the license being given to the public, not merely to wikipedia and/or commons. --Rtc 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete the {{AgenciaCamaraBr}}, {{AgenciaSenadoBr}}, {{TVSenadoBr}}, {{RadioSenadoBr}} (I'm waiting for a reply for these a thousand of months [67]);
{{subst:npd}}for images from the {{PD-BrGov-PF}} tag. I'm adding the {{IPPAR}} to the list. Lugusto • ※ 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against. If someone provides a picture under some restrictions, who are we to ask that they change those restrictions, extend or restrict them or rephrase them differently? Even more, force them to state those different terms on their web pages? It would be good to do a check on some or all of these, but when someone states their work can be used freely under such-and-such conditions, that should suffice to assume that they can be used freely under such-and-such conditions. - Andre Engels 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that they don't clearly state that their work can be used freely under such-and-such conditions. Only CC licenses do that in a reasonable way, and thus we should accept only these. People don't have to give clear permissions and we don't force them to change their web site—I am only suggesting not to accept such images on Commons as long as they don't. Having one's picture on commons is a privilege, not a right.--Rtc 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in general (sort out especially problematic tags). I do not support Rtc's desire to force everyone to license under a CC license. / Fred Chess 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not propose to force anybody to use a CC license, I merely propose not to accept pictures on commons which have not been licensed so. These tags are all problematic, since they are over-optimistic personal interpretation of unclear statements from websites, done by some commons users. --Rtc 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like the initiative, but it is not realistic to expect that everybody starts using CC licenses. I therefore Oppose this mass deletion. I suggest that Rtc lists all the clearly unfree license tags separately instead, so that we can purge Commons of all the {{Promophoto}}s.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjetil r (talk • contribs) Rtc 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can you know whether it is not realistic before even trying? I gave a time frame of about two years. Why vote so early? There is no "clearly unfree" license tag; and the approach to talk about "clearly unfree" is the incorrect one. We must go the opposite way, accepting only clearly free license tags, and none of them is clearly free in the same sense as a CC license would be. From a realistic point of view, these licenses are simply not free, and if we don't get CC licenses for them, we have to take the consequences and delete them. The status quo of accepting pictures as free if only the statement does not explicitly deny that it's a free license is as unacceptable as if we would accept pictures as free if only they have no license statement at all. --Rtc 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the initial 5. We have to have some flexibility. I haven't reviewed the rest. Cary Bass demandez 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all for procedural reasons. If you have a problem with individual templates list them separately and argue on their individual merits. Listing them like this is the least likely method to produce a result. I believe that some of these templates are valid deletion candidates and others are fine (there's nothing wrong with {{Attribution}} IMO). Listing them like this poisons the debate - not least as this page is at a POV location: "Evasion licenses".--Nilfanion 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are simply too many templates to argue for each single one. Please be productive and ask the web sites to use a CC-license, and if they won't (say if they explicitly say that they won'T do this, or if they don't reply, or actually don't do it within two weeks after asking them), please let us know, so we can delete them. We simply cannot keep the status quo, no matter how many vote for keep. I think we all agree that these templates have to go, and we shouldn't talk too much about irreelvant things such as political correctness. --Rtc 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It its NOT clear we all agree ALL these templates should go. Why should we insist on them using the CC licenses exactly? If they want to use their own licenses, thats their option - we should assess each license on its merits.--Nilfanion 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are of course free to use any license they want, we merly can't accept such licenses on commons... The purpose of commons is not to provide as many pictures as possible, but to get pictures which have clear and genuine free licenses. We should assess licenses clearly not on their merits, especially not in the way it is done currently ("what is the most extreme interpretation of that template concerning my goal to use these pictures on wikipedia? okay, let's assume it's true.") We asses licenses based on whether they are explicit, clear, standard and proven, since we want to make sure that the pictures can actually be used by any third party, not merely in wikipedia. Commons also has a little bit responsibility here to push Creative Commons licenses and to convince people to use such licenses, and to abandon their home-brew ones. --Rtc 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It its NOT clear we all agree ALL these templates should go. Why should we insist on them using the CC licenses exactly? If they want to use their own licenses, thats their option - we should assess each license on its merits.--Nilfanion 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are simply too many templates to argue for each single one. Please be productive and ask the web sites to use a CC-license, and if they won't (say if they explicitly say that they won'T do this, or if they don't reply, or actually don't do it within two weeks after asking them), please let us know, so we can delete them. We simply cannot keep the status quo, no matter how many vote for keep. I think we all agree that these templates have to go, and we shouldn't talk too much about irreelvant things such as political correctness. --Rtc 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I am quite surprised that some of these are still around. Some of them has been discussed before (see Commons:Village_pump_archive-26#French_Ministry_Of_Foreign_Affairs, Commons:Village_pump_archive-28#Common_Misconception, Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/07#Template:Norden.org_and_all_of_the_many.2C_many_images_in_Category:Images_by_the_Nordic_Council, and Commons_talk:Licensing/Review_of_license_templates). It seems clear that suggestions for mass deletion of templates do not work (Rtc has tried a couple of times), so let us close this discussion and handle the templates individualy. I guess most of them have to be deleted, as they seem like press licenses. Kjetil r 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm closing this case. There seems to be consensus that we should not mass delete images under these terms. There are clearly some templates that have to be deleted, but like Kjetil points out, they should be handled separately. I don't think leaving this request open will add anything to the case. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) License
- Delete - Clearly not pre-1923. - Andre Engels 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: private photo with wrong license, not in use at all
Private userpage picture. No longer needed for my personal settings. Moritz moser 16:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate request. Yann 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody please delate that picture? Nobody`s needing it anymore. Thanks.--Moritz moser 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
wrong name; Wursmbach instead of Wurmsbach. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Parpan05 (talk • contribs)
- Use {{Badname|Image:Wurmsbach.jpg}}. Someone already did do that for you. Lupo 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Case closed: image is tagged {{Badname|Image:Wurmsbach.jpg}}. Lupo 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Permission not shown. Also uploded on ca.wiki as not comercial, not derivative ca:Imatge:Trias wikipedia.jpg Vriullop 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: copyvio| false license. In category Against policy; not edited for 7 days
File:Roraima_Municip_BoaVista.PNG (chk)(del) was superseded by Image:Roraima Municip BoaVista.svg. A vector version of this file is now available. --Dantadd✉ 14:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not used and good SVG --ALE! ¿…? 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a non-free license, since it permits only the use of a screenshot as such, no derivative works that go beyond that (for example, using the displayed elements to build one's own game). Please banish the thought of getting a free license even for parts of commercial products. That is diametral to the interests of the rights holder, and even if he sends you something that looks like a free license to you, it certainly isn't. That's also the reason why you won't ever see a clear CC-BY or similar by these people. Of course they want to have their stuff on wikipedia, so they say something you can easily misunderstand as a free license, but where they can say afterwards easily "oh no, it wasn't meant like that... We only wanted to point you to your fair use rights" --Rtc 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- When i read “derivative work” i understand we can use it in a derivative work.
- “Please banish the thought of getting a free license even for parts of commercial products” im not Ubisoft, are u ? ~ bayo or talk 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Think about it for a second and see that this is simply ridiculous and Ubisoft would never permit this. It's clearly about press use of screenshots. --Rtc 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- We got an OTRS system and with it, all the talk with Ubisoft is save. You can look yourself. I understand a lot of people already see it, and say there are no problem for Commons. I realy dont need to think. ~ bayo or talk 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept the simple fact that nowhere in the talk in the OTRS system, they give any license at all. They simply explain their guidelines for general use of their screenshots. Please stop dreaming. They would never ever grant such a free license. It's as ridiculous as disney granting a free license for mickey mouse. Please use a little bit of common sense. --Rtc 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a license, as {{Attribution}} is not a license too. ~ bayo or talk 08:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it is not a license, then that is a reason for sure to delete them, and in fact I have proposed to phase out Attribution (Commons:Deletion requests/Evasion license tags). Why don't people simply use screenshots under fair use? This law provides an easy way to use the pictures without all the hazzle. We don't need a free license, and it is unreasonable to even ask the publisher for one. --Rtc 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a license, as {{Attribution}} is not a license too. ~ bayo or talk 08:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept the simple fact that nowhere in the talk in the OTRS system, they give any license at all. They simply explain their guidelines for general use of their screenshots. Please stop dreaming. They would never ever grant such a free license. It's as ridiculous as disney granting a free license for mickey mouse. Please use a little bit of common sense. --Rtc 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- We got an OTRS system and with it, all the talk with Ubisoft is save. You can look yourself. I understand a lot of people already see it, and say there are no problem for Commons. I realy dont need to think. ~ bayo or talk 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Think about it for a second and see that this is simply ridiculous and Ubisoft would never permit this. It's clearly about press use of screenshots. --Rtc 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly mentioned that we can use it on free license. Hołek ҉ 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is nothing that would be valid in legal terms. Nowhere they explicitly say "We grant you a CC license on these pictures", and even if they had, that would have been a misunderstanding. --Rtc 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, over-zealous interpretation by Rtc. / Fred Chess 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing over-zealous about that, it's just common sense. --Rtc 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion request seems to be based on the idea that liberating content is impossible, and not upon any close reading of the release. Jkelly 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not impossible completely, but it is clearly not possible without lots of money (millions of dollars), lots of lawyers and written and signed official contracts. To think that some amateur commons user can ask and get a genuine free license from such a big company for their core product content by a little bit of chatting by mail with somebody who certainly is not in the possition to release any rights is simply beyond all reality and extremely naive. Ask them whether they really grant a CC-BY license, such that all the content of their games can be used by anybody, for commercial purposes that go beyond being associated with being a screenshot of their game, for example in other games. if you get a "yes", I will immediately cancel the deletion request. --Rtc 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc, I see your point, which has some good arguments. But arguing here is quite useless. If you think that the permission is not valid, writing to Ubisoft would easily give an answer on this issue. Regards, Yann 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not impossible completely, but it is clearly not possible without lots of money (millions of dollars), lots of lawyers and written and signed official contracts. To think that some amateur commons user can ask and get a genuine free license from such a big company for their core product content by a little bit of chatting by mail with somebody who certainly is not in the possition to release any rights is simply beyond all reality and extremely naive. Ask them whether they really grant a CC-BY license, such that all the content of their games can be used by anybody, for commercial purposes that go beyond being associated with being a screenshot of their game, for example in other games. if you get a "yes", I will immediately cancel the deletion request. --Rtc 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recognize that the right place for this probably is not a deletion request. But I'm also curious as to this: Has Ubisoft requested and received permission from every employee involved in the creation of their games to license screenshots as such, whether by the employee contract or otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) at 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- They don't need to; it's w:work for hire, and in droit d'auteur countries, there is an equivalent automatic transfer of exclusive rights. So that is not the problem. The problem is that Ubisoft did not, cannot (by its very interests) and won't give a free license. --Rtc 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the emails with Ubisoft, IMHO it's not 100% clear that they really understood what a free license means and all it's consequences. I also see problems with games that weren't made by ubisoft employees. And here's a screenshot from the game Star Wars: Lethal Alliance - it was developed by Ubisoft Montreal and published by Ubisoft. But I really doubt that they can release images of a Star Wars game under a free license - they don't even own the rights to these characters or their likenesses, these are owned by Lucasfilm Ltd. --88.134.140.64 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is an excellent example of why one always should insist on using Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung für alle Anfragen. What about writing to them and ask if they are willing to use our standard declaration of consent? If they are unwilling to use it, we should assume that they didn't really want to grant a free license. Kjetil r 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The initial contact used one of the standard email templates.--Nilfanion 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI cannot read German (if I could I would participate in this). The OTRS ticket is essentially the same as that recorded on-wiki, but there are subtle difference (rm of the contact details, maybe more as I cannot read German I'm not totally sure). One thing of significance: The contact with Ubisoft was with the Head of PR of Ubisoft Germany. I'd his position gives him the ability to release the content freely - whether he did or not I cannot say.--Nilfanion 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is certainly not a position that gives him the ability. With a little bit of knowledge about professionalism one can see easily that licensing happens only by written and signed contract, and that release of any rights to amateur projects such as commons, and especially release under a free license is a no go. --Rtc 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That position means almost all content on the Commons shouldn't be here. No Commons user has signed a contract with the foundation or anyone else, no Flickr user has signed a binding contract with Flickr or CC... That position in the company gives him the authority within Ubisoft to release the work - a release by him is effectively equivalent to a release by Ubisoft itself. Whether he did in that correspondence is an open question and I cannot comment (as I cannot read the text).--Nilfanion 11:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely not; commons users are an entirely different case because they actively contribute themselves. You missed the important fact that Ubisoft is not a commons user actively contributing its own pictures, adding license tags itself. No, a PR person certainly has no authority to do a release. The people that can are explicitly listed in the company agreement. A PR person is merely a company employee without any power to decide over the companie's assets. Just think for a second about the consequences if he could. The PR person gave advice on some things that need to be done for correctly using a picture under fair use; he has not given a license in the sense of copyright. --Rtc 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nor Flickr users are Commons users, but their pictures are here, right? Hołek ҉ 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely not; commons users are an entirely different case because they actively contribute themselves. You missed the important fact that Ubisoft is not a commons user actively contributing its own pictures, adding license tags itself. No, a PR person certainly has no authority to do a release. The people that can are explicitly listed in the company agreement. A PR person is merely a company employee without any power to decide over the companie's assets. Just think for a second about the consequences if he could. The PR person gave advice on some things that need to be done for correctly using a picture under fair use; he has not given a license in the sense of copyright. --Rtc 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That position means almost all content on the Commons shouldn't be here. No Commons user has signed a contract with the foundation or anyone else, no Flickr user has signed a binding contract with Flickr or CC... That position in the company gives him the authority within Ubisoft to release the work - a release by him is effectively equivalent to a release by Ubisoft itself. Whether he did in that correspondence is an open question and I cannot comment (as I cannot read the text).--Nilfanion 11:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is certainly not a position that gives him the ability. With a little bit of knowledge about professionalism one can see easily that licensing happens only by written and signed contract, and that release of any rights to amateur projects such as commons, and especially release under a free license is a no go. --Rtc 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Everything is described clearly and wisely, even the use of derivative works. Everything seems legal. BeŻet 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep these images all legal, becouse Ubisoft, the copyright holder of this file, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Ubisoft's declaration is very clear and everything is legal. Le Voleur de Feu 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If that permission is not enough, I don't know what is. A.J. 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep very important template. jedyooo განხილვა 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it time to remove the deletion request? ;P BeŻet 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - for once, a company *does* grant us permission - this might be an industry first and hopefully, others will follow, as will record labels etc to allow the "fair use" they have on en: on other wikis! (If I had a record label, I'd grant permission to use "low-res copies" to use all my record images). IIVQ 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Andersmusician $ 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of this photo being in the public domain. Works created by the Brazilian government aren't released into the public domain (unless they're coat of arms, etc.) and the source doesn't indicate that it's public domain. In addition, the guy in the photo apparently served as president of Brazil from 1964-1967 which is when, I assume, this photo was taken, meaning it isn't PD-old -- Yonatan talk 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very interesting issue. There seems to be many different "solutions" for the different pictures taken from this site. All of them claim the images are in the public domain, but no references to either legitimate sites or laws are cited. I would believe the older pictures are in fact PD-old, but a lot of these should be proven to be PD in other ways to be kept here. --Stigmj 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The official portraits of the presidents of Brazil -- which can be seen in the gallery of the site of Brazilian government -- are taken by, or have the copyrights retained by, the Agência Brasil, and so the licensces may be considered as this: {{Agência Brasil}}, which is similar to the Bridgeman Art Library --Tonyjeff 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The source isn't "Agência Brasil" (anyway, Agência Brasil periodically releases derivative works {Commons:Derivative works} as a CC works...). I've deleted some images like this a few days ago in the missing information routine, I don't see reasons to keep this another ambiguous one. Lugusto • ※ 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - these official portraits were produced by Agência Brasil (at that time called "Agência Nacional") and, IMHO, the same license applies. The modern Agência Brasil keeps all media archives of the defunct "Agência Nacional". In the case of non official portraits and other pictures that we can not trace the source, it's more prudent to delete. Dantadd✉ 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- it is not an ambiguous case. it is clearly an official portrait of Agência Nacional (now Agência Brasil). --Tonyjeff 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - No question, this image comes from the archive of Agência Brasil and is as such under the {{Agência Brasil}} template which releases all images under a CC-BY-2.5-BR license. --Stigmj 09:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - this picture was replaced by Image:Castelobranco.jpg all across Wikimedia projects, therefore it can be deleted, being a lower quality duplicate. Dantadd✉ 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted as a low res duplicate of Image:Castelobranco.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
All images under Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space
[edit] Delete According to COM:FOP, freedom of panorama in Russia only allows non-commercial use. According to w:Monument to the Conquerors of Space, this monument was created in 1964, therefore its design isn't in the public domain yet. So basically, all pictures of this monument are only allowed to be used for non-commercial purposes. Maybe we should allow these types of pictures as there definitely can't be a free alternative to them but as we do not, it needs to be deleted. Yonatan talk 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you decide to apply this policy in this way, you'd better be consistent and delete everything else where this interpretation of the laws applies - which will amonut to a great majority of all Wiki Commons pictures that involve buildings or statues or anything like that in Russia and other CIS countries! (Well, anything that's less than 50-something years old anyway). Or if somebody realizes how drastic a step this would be, perhaps it would be better to come up first with some policy for dealing with this multitude of images - say some kind of procedure for a "mass migration" to a non-Commons wiki site (like en.wikipedia.com) where a greater variety of licences are allowed. Vmenkov 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course an image or two may be transwikied over to en or a different wikipedia before deletion but under the current policy these images, which only allow non-commercial usage, need to be deleted. Yonatan talk 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's en.wikipedia.org; Wikipedia is a noncommercial site that, logically enough, uses .org instead of .com as its TLD. Dtobias 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Please leave Image:Soviet Union-1967-Coin-0.10. 50 Years of Soviet Power.jpg - money images are {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I don't think coin were minted without monument's author(s) permission. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted all, but kept the one Eugene requested. Vmenkov, maybe we will have to delete those in the future. That is the way our policy is written, and if you don't agree you'll have to try and change the policy. But until then, the images have to be deleted. / Fred J 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted files per [68]
- File:--Category-Monument to the Conquerors of Space Tsiolkovsky.jpg
- File:Km Museum R0010779.jpg
- File:Monument to the Conquerors of Space photo by Maxim Fedorov.jpg
- File:Moscow - Monument to the Conquerors of Space (Museum).jpg
- File:Moscow Memorial To the Conquerors of Space.jpg
- File:Moscow Memorial To the Conquerors of Space Assembly.jpg
- File:Moscow space monument.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-1652.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-1662.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-1663.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-1665.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-front-1657.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-engineers-1659.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-Laika-1666.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-left-1653.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-left-relief-1656.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-museum-1683.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-relief-Programmer-1660.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-relief-Programmer-1668.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-relief-left-1654.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-right-1671.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-right-relief-1658.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-right-relief-1667.jpg
- File:Moscow-Space-Monument-right-side-1661.jpg
- File:Ostankino and Conquerors of Space.JPG
_ list added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
March 19
[edit]There were two version of Bird in Space by Constantin Brancusi that I found on the Internet ([69] [70]); the former was created in 1923, the latter in 1928. They are both, however, sculptures and arguably require considerable creative talent to photograph. There is no indication of the photographer of this image and no indication if said photographer has released his or her rights to the image into the public domain. Unless such information is discovered, this image should be deleted. -- Iamunknown 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work (Brancusi died 1957), and, as the nom stated, image of a 3D work, and thus the image itself is copyrighted, too. Lupo 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - derivative of a copyrighted work and the photo itself is copyrighted. Yonatan talk 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
was AFAIK deleted on de.wikipedia.org because of insufficient permission Polarlys 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: Duplicate of Image:Katja_Bittner.jpg? --Polarlys 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I previously tagged this image with {{Npd}}. It was deleted by Yann as a copyvio and re-uploaded, once again with unverified permission claims, by Maikebildhauer, who seems unwilling to discuss the matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Done was previously deleted Yonatan talk 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
author CrazyPhunk 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Logo}}. --Iamunknown 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And thus speedy delete. In future, please notify the uploader when you submit a deletion request, using {{Idw}}. In case of a copyvio you can use {{Copyvionote}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
wrong licence, commercial use is not allowed Mazbln 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- see discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Marshal_Tito.jpg. --Minestrone 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image is not allowed on wikimedia commons, as commercial use is excluded. It meets the requirements for speedy deletion (non-commercial license). So, I will delete it immediately. --Franz Xaver 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
wrong licence, commercial use is not allowed Mazbln 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Source states:
Diese Grafik/Fotografie kann kostenlos herunter- geladen werden und ist für eine Veröffentlichung (ausgenommen Verwendung im kommerziellen Bereich) freigegeben. Als Urheberrechtsvermerk ist "Foto: Bundesheer" deutlich erkennbar anzubringen. Die Urheberrechte des BMLV sind durch die Freigabe nicht betroffen. Bilddaten: 91 kB bei 800 x 843 px. Austrian Armed Forces (2005) Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD Publication of this picture except for commercial advertisement permitted. Credit as "Austrian Armed Forces Photograph" Is there no possibility to leave it on Commons? Special Austrian Military License? --Minestrone 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly a non-commercial-only license ("The poto may be downloaded free of charge and is cleared for publication (except for commercial uses).") Lupo 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Meets requirement for speedy deletion, as commercial use is excluded at source page. --Franz Xaver 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly a non-commercial-only license ("The poto may be downloaded free of charge and is cleared for publication (except for commercial uses).") Lupo 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Uploaded 5 min ago as "PD-old", now suddenly under a new name with "GFDL" - all bogus, apparently Magnus Manske 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, notorious uploader of copyvios --Polarlys 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(No licence with Image:Anell Únic.png) Manlleus 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio. Yann 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is (a) redundant (there are 6 other images of visible thongs uploaded by ShinyFan (whose contributions are suspect in general): 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7), (b) contains a clear view of a person's face who may not want to be represented in this way, and (c) has been replaced by a new image that does not include this subject's face after discussion on the image's talk page and Spanish Wikipedia. —Benjamin Mako Hill 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all pics who show a person's face in what can be considered an embarrassing situation, for which the uploaded did not prove that the person gave their consent. – Tintazul talk 11:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible privacy isseus. Yann 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Of no value as there is no information on the image whatsoever. -- Siebrand 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Superseded by Image:Circle sign 440.svg. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(previously nominated as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif)
The man in this image looks an awful lot like he's from the printer scene of the movie Office Space. If so, I don't think this could possibly be a free image. Can anyone confirm? --TomTheHand 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a funny issue :-D The printer scene can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQzIg0CPW5Q , about 1:18 in. I can see a similarity but the question is if one can speak of copyright of this very short feature. I would say that this gif was "inspired by" the printer scene in Office Space. But can we say even that for sure? Keep / Fred Chess 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep unless you can find out for sure. // Liftarn
- As the creator of this image is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely, it's not possible to ask him where he got the image of the man. Youtube is blocked at work for me, so I can't view it myself, but the image looks like a shaded version of an actual movie. It does not look like it was simply drawn. Liftarn, can you view the Youtube video? Does it look to you like the scene where Mike is on his knees punching the printer, right before being pulled off? And don't we need to be absolutely sure that it's free, rather than absolutely sure that it's not? What would you call "finding out for sure", since it's not possible to ask the person who uploaded this to Wikipedia? TomTheHand 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we can just let people look at it and vote. I don't mean to say that we should keep an image if we can't prove it is a copyvio, but I do think that this is a border case, because I wouldn't say that the gif image violates the creative intention of the movie. I also question whether anything in this representation is copyrightable, and what the copyright claim in that case would be. / Fred Chess 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming that it's a clip from Office Space, run through some kind of a filter to give that cartoon shading effect, it would seem to me to be a derivative work. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I can't take a song I don't own the copyright to, sample it, and GFDL the result, because I don't own the original work, right? So I don't think you can take a video clip, run it through a filter to make it look like a cartoon, add in a horse and GFDL it. See this, specifically, "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." TomTheHand 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we can just let people look at it and vote. I don't mean to say that we should keep an image if we can't prove it is a copyvio, but I do think that this is a border case, because I wouldn't say that the gif image violates the creative intention of the movie. I also question whether anything in this representation is copyrightable, and what the copyright claim in that case would be. / Fred Chess 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- After a quick look they seem different to me. In "Office Space" he uses a bat and the position of the arms are different. // Liftarn
- I'll have to look at the Youtube clip when I get home. Perhaps it's incomplete, or maybe I don't remember it right. As I remember it, in Office Space, they start out using a bat on the printer, then as they're leaving Mike runs back at it and starts punching it and they have to drag him off. TomTheHand 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't remember the sequence of events quite right, but I looked at the clip and I'm pretty convinced that the image is the Office Space clip. I realize that Fred doesn't think so, but Liftarn, could you look at the clip again? As Fred said, it's at about 1:18 minutes in when Mike drops the bat and starts punching. I'm not trying to twist your arm if you don't think it's the same, but I do want to make sure you watch the portion of the scene where he drops the bat and punches the printer instead of just seeing the bat portion. TomTheHand 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to look at the Youtube clip when I get home. Perhaps it's incomplete, or maybe I don't remember it right. As I remember it, in Office Space, they start out using a bat on the printer, then as they're leaving Mike runs back at it and starts punching it and they have to drag him off. TomTheHand 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- As the creator of this image is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely, it's not possible to ask him where he got the image of the man. Youtube is blocked at work for me, so I can't view it myself, but the image looks like a shaded version of an actual movie. It does not look like it was simply drawn. Liftarn, can you view the Youtube video? Does it look to you like the scene where Mike is on his knees punching the printer, right before being pulled off? And don't we need to be absolutely sure that it's free, rather than absolutely sure that it's not? What would you call "finding out for sure", since it's not possible to ask the person who uploaded this to Wikipedia? TomTheHand 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at it again and it does look simmilar (notice the tie). // Liftarn
As a big fan of Office Space i can tell you that I'm 100 % sure this is from the "Printer-scene" in the movie Office Space. The question should be if it's alike enough, it's not illegal to portray something with vector graphics afaik Notwist 11:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Image is very low-quality; dark, overly compressed, and too pixellised and small to be able to read even the large text on the signs. I attempted to digitally enhance but lightening of the image doesn't improve it much, especially as it is over-compressed. It is not used anywhere. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - maybe if a better quality version was uploaded but this can't be used for anything. Yonatan talk 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - why keep it? Dantadd✉ 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Stamp was issued in 1996, not 1976 [71]. Recent US stamps are copyrighted by the USPS. Davepape 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
NSFW for anyone going to look at it. It's redundant, we have too many photos of penises, how many do we need? -- Yonatan talk 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Argh, my eyes! Delete, we are not a collection of penis pictures. Kjetil r 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a derivative of the copyrighted FA Cup. I'm bringing this up for discussion because the original cup (this is an exact replica) was created in 1911 so if someone can get more info on the creator, it's *possible* that it's in the public domain. -- Yonatan talk 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Created by the firm of Fattorini & Sons in Bradford, England.[72] See also [73]. No death dates found. Lupo 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep utility article (drinking vessel); not copyrighted. --Rtc 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - created by a firma, and thus by a non-natural person, which means that copyright ended after 70 years. - Andre Engels 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it was still someones work and this meets the same reason why Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png was deleted.--Thugchildz 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept. While it can't be said with certainty whether the trophy is truly PD, I think the arguments presented here are persuasive enough. / Fred Chess 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
same as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bird in space.jpg where Lupo stated the author died in 1957 -- Yonatan talk 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the {{Delete}} tag? The MOMA says Brancusi died in 1957.[74] Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The "delete tag" was deleted by the uploader, whom I had notified. I put it again at its place. --User:G.dallorto 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the {{Delete}} tag? The MOMA says Brancusi died in 1957.[74] Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Image:Coloana fara sfarsit.jpg, no evidence of freedom of panorama in Romania. Yonatan talk 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added to COM:FOP (our list there is incomplete). Romania has only non-commercial freedom of panorama. Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I tried looking for it on google but didn't find it. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the website(s) you use to find this sort of information. By the way, if it's non-commercial freedom of panorama I suppose it should still be deleted. Yonatan talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- See COM:L#Weblinks, which I have expanded a bit now. I thought these sources had already been added there, but apparently not. The Romanian law I found at CLEA. Lupo 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the CLEA fiche is also the second hit in the Google search for +Romania +"copyright law" :-) Lupo 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I didn't search for the right thing ;) Yonatan talk 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the CLEA fiche is also the second hit in the Google search for +Romania +"copyright law" :-) Lupo 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- See COM:L#Weblinks, which I have expanded a bit now. I thought these sources had already been added there, but apparently not. The Romanian law I found at CLEA. Lupo 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I tried looking for it on google but didn't find it. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the website(s) you use to find this sort of information. By the way, if it's non-commercial freedom of panorama I suppose it should still be deleted. Yonatan talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added to COM:FOP (our list there is incomplete). Romania has only non-commercial freedom of panorama. Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- whay the hell should you want to Delet this pic? i took it in a public space? Talmoryair 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy. --rtc 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
surely no work of the United States Federal Government Polarlys 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- sorry, request removed...this makes no sense and is unwarranted. --69.110.137.45 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Any arguments why the “Fuhrer” was filmed (as declared) “by an officer or employee of the United States Government”? --Polarlys 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that these are 'reasons' being given for the deletion of this file?? It seems to be the only discussion going on under the heading of the big red 'deletion request, but I find it hard to believe that these comments are being forwarded as arguments in favour of the willful removal of historical footage from a site that purports to support the perpetuation of human knowledge. So I hope I'm mistaken. If, however, I'm not wrong and that is what is happening here, then I would offer the following reason for keeping the file freely available:
The fact that bastard walked the earth is, unfortunately, a fact and it is important to confront the record of what has happened on this earth no matter how rotten it may sometimes be. It is generally beneficial to learn from the past. If we're lucky, it may help us to recognize the terrible sight of another human herd unleashing destruction on this earth, in the future. - res ipsa loquitur —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.80.179.174 (talk • contribs)
- Delete It's unlikely that the author of this movie died more than 70 years ago, so it can't be PD yet (I don't know when this movie was shot, but it's highly unlikely that it was before 1936 and that the cinematographer and/or director died immediately after that - which would be necessary for this movie to have become PD). --88.134.140.64 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's in the Eva Braun collection in US national archives and this collection is public domain Madmax32 08:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As all pictures from the nazi era, this is not public domain, and claims of the contrary by US governmental organizations are incorrect. --Rtc 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think it ise either in the US archives or the tag is meant to say, it is by the German government (instead of the US)
- Delete If the movie was done by Eva Braun (died 1945), it will enter the public domain in 1946+70=2016. --ALE! ¿…? 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify whether this file is being deleted for copyright or content--Humheadfish 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright. --Polarlys 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but upload to :en as fair use before deleting. A little digging shows that this is most probably not free. Contrary to popular assumption, not everything in the National Archives is in the public domain - as their own FAQs expressly say. You need to look at the record for each image or video to check whether it's public domain or not. The Eva Braun collection - if that's where this is from - has ARC identifier 43461 and its record, which you can find by searching for it on their online search gives "Use restrictions: Undetermined". In other words, the US National Archive does not know whether this video is PD or not. FWIW, most records I found through a search using the two keywords "Berchtesgaden" and "hitler" had a similar status. Under the circumstances, I don't think we can host this on commons. But there would probably be a good case for uploading it locally as "fair use" on :en (and other projects with similar policies). -- Arvind 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting for now. The copyright tag appears to be wrong, and there is only speculation that this might be PD. On request this may be undeleted for a short period to allow it to be copied elsewhere. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [75]. Yann (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Not old enough to be PD --Wikipeder 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipeder 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment maybe PD-US or like ? VIGNERON * discut. 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This image is very likely taken from this site, where it credits the image to "Fr. Protodeacon Pol (Hommes) of the Monastery of the Mother of God, Joy of All Who Sorrow, Diksmuide, Belgium, by permission of Abbot Thomas". A search for Protodeacon Pol Hommes brings up two resources ([76] and [77]) that suggest that he is quite alive and well. The permission to use the image was expressly given to the site which cited having such permission. We do not have permission to use this image, and the tag given for the image is invalid. Alekjds 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the permission surely must be a photography permission, since the work itself is clearly out of copyright. As such, it's a contract between photographer and abbot, and there is no way in which we would be bound to it. On the other hand, I might favor to delete this as a courtesy to the abbot rather than because we might be legally obliged to do so as in the case of a copyright violation. - Andre Engels 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Is there anything to be said for the fact that the uploader provided erroneous copyright information, such as stating that the work is "18th century"? Even so and furthermore, I don't understand what you mean when you say that "the work itself is clearly out of copyright." How is this so? The author is alive, as I believe I have demonstrated, despite false information on its source was provided by the uploader. I think it is a violation. Alekjds 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoted permission is not sufficiently free (does not include the right to make derivative works). —xyzzyn 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and even if it were the permission would have to go through OTRS. Yonatan talk 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment best contact the original uploader to try and have him get the image(s) relicensed with a proper cc-by or GFDL. Siebrand 06:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - right 'to use' is given without restrictions. - Andre Engels 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I can't find this image on http://world.guns.ru/ (it should have been at http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg32-e.htm but isn't), it is possible that the author didn't actually have the permission to spread the image, and in addition I do not think that the author granted a free use license -- on his website he says "all texts and some pictures copyright (c) 1999-2007 by Max R. Popenker and can not be used without author permission"
So I find it likely he gave a for-Wikipedia-only permission.
March 20
[edit]A correct replica of the en:Screen Gems logo would not be allowed; this one serves no purpose and is potentially misleading Davepape 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yep. Yonatan talk 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope; article deleted from nl: for the same reason Erwin85 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Requested speedy delete. --Erwin85 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is for wikipedia, not for commons. I did not see an article resembling this on the es: wiki, perhaps someone else can have a look? This is the wrong place for it. Deadstar 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Deadstar 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Not for Commons. Yann 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
An inappropriate word is included in a file name. A correctly named duplicate exists at Image:IJN Destroyer Akizuki blows up.jpg. Saburny 05:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- You gotta be kidding :-) In the name of this image, "Jap" is just an abreviation of "Japanese". Nothing inappropriate there. What I think inappropriate is to make a copy/paste of the image under a new name (so that it looks like you are the one who uploaded the media to Commons) and then ask for deletion of the original photo without taking into account the links that will be broken. I see no reason for the deletion of this image. On the other hand, I think Image:IJN Destroyer Akizuki blows up.jpg should be deleted as it is completely redundant. Bradipus 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your personal impression. A point without the words that are easy to cause an argument does not become a weak point. Saburny 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I added the original upload information to the new image, per Bradipus's concerns. Main reason is the new image has a shorter and easier name; I think it should be used instead. "Jap" is an abbreviation, but is seen as offensive by many people. -- Editor at Large • talk 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I consider this extremely difficult to accept. I would not consider "Belg" (belgian) or "Fr" (french) offensive. Anyway, I can see no trace of some guy thinks it might be offensive in Commons:Deletion guidelines (even if the guy, such as Saburny, obviously is a very basic english user I cannot even understand what he said hereabove. The fact is that this image exists since 20 months without any problem. I am strongly opposed in principle to this politically correct move that Commons should avoid, or we will see a multiplication of this kind of request. BTW, does Saburny volunteer to make the change in all the Wikimedia projects who used this image since 20 months? Bradipus 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Jap" can be a short form for "Japan", yes, but when used to describe something is considered very derogatory by many Japanese; it is not equal to "fr" as an abbreviation in that "fr" has never been used to insult or refer to French people in a negative light. You can see w:Jap#War_slur for more information. Also, considering the context (a war image) it makes the term a tad more serious than it may otherwise be. -- Editor at Large • talk 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I consider this extremely difficult to accept. I would not consider "Belg" (belgian) or "Fr" (french) offensive. Anyway, I can see no trace of some guy thinks it might be offensive in Commons:Deletion guidelines (even if the guy, such as Saburny, obviously is a very basic english user I cannot even understand what he said hereabove. The fact is that this image exists since 20 months without any problem. I am strongly opposed in principle to this politically correct move that Commons should avoid, or we will see a multiplication of this kind of request. BTW, does Saburny volunteer to make the change in all the Wikimedia projects who used this image since 20 months? Bradipus 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As per User:Bradipus' points. --|EPO| 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm with Editor at Large here. I know it is merely an abbreviation of Japanese - however to an era of folk that abbreviation has other connotations and was an offensive term - to those people it still will be --Herby talk thyme 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. See Jap - specifically "In Japanese dictionaries, the term Jap is only defined as a disparaging term used against the Japanese people". Also, no one can be said to OWN uploads which are not their own work - this image is from the US military and who uploaded it is an irrelevance. Therefore we don't need to preserve upload/edit history (though it is a courtesy). When a word is offensive it should be avoided; it doesn't cause any real issues to reupload here. The deletion guidelines may not cover this, but the deletion guidelines are guidelines and only talk about copyright issues (theres no mention of vandalism images being speedy targets for example).--Nilfanion 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The word "Jap" could be insulting, so renaming the image is quite appropriate. Yann 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe this deletion request was inappropriate : IMHO, it was sufficient to rename the image and tag the "old" one with {{Duplicate}}. Saburny, next time please contact the user directly, it may avoid this kind of incomprehension :-) Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am still a bit surprised by the fact that this can be an issue. @Nilfanion, I hope you opinion is a minority on Commons. I do not look for hours for free media to see somebody else doing a cut and paste and pretend he found it. Bradipus 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- My view above is a bit extreme yes; your contributions are valuable but it was not the intent of the other user to "steal your image" but to remove offense from the filename, which is laudable; all you had to do was edit "his" to assert you were the original uploader if you care. This filename has the potential to be perceived in Japan in a similar way to how Image:Frog Battleship Richelieu (in lieu of Image:CuirasseRichelieu.jpg) would be seen in France, though "Jap" was derived by you in good faith; you were unaware of the negative connotations of the term. Everyone makes errors from time to time, people shouldn't have to talk to the original uploader to fix them (though it is a courtesy).--Nilfanion 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- To be perfectly clear, I did not say it was Saburny's intent. I am pretty comfortable it wasn't. And as long as the image is renamed and the history is kept, I see no major objection provided that the process is not started as Saburny did. Bradipus 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- My view above is a bit extreme yes; your contributions are valuable but it was not the intent of the other user to "steal your image" but to remove offense from the filename, which is laudable; all you had to do was edit "his" to assert you were the original uploader if you care. This filename has the potential to be perceived in Japan in a similar way to how Image:Frog Battleship Richelieu (in lieu of Image:CuirasseRichelieu.jpg) would be seen in France, though "Jap" was derived by you in good faith; you were unaware of the negative connotations of the term. Everyone makes errors from time to time, people shouldn't have to talk to the original uploader to fix them (though it is a courtesy).--Nilfanion 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am still a bit surprised by the fact that this can be an issue. @Nilfanion, I hope you opinion is a minority on Commons. I do not look for hours for free media to see somebody else doing a cut and paste and pretend he found it. Bradipus 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, I may have uploaded a lot of images from that period that use the same abreviation. So? Bradipus 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So if anybody wants to they can rename them and add {{Duplicate}} to them and the old ones will be deleted. We allow anyone to rename anyone's images provided it is for a good reason. Yonatan talk 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done I personally don't think the term is offensive and even if it is, that nobody should take it as such. However, if anybody does find the term offensive then we should give them the opportunity to rename the image and ask for the old one to be deleted. The same thing would be with the word "jew" in an image name - I wouldn't be offended by it (and I'm Jewish) but some overly-sensitive people might be and therefore we should give the opportunity to rename any such images. Of course they should keep the old upload history as a courtesy, since the user who first uploaded it spend time finding it and uploading it. I am now closing this as I don't see this discussion going anywhere further even though it hasn't been seven days, if some admin disagrees with me they can feel free to open it up again. Yonatan talk 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
Useless thumbnail portrait -- Siebrand 10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fang Aili: useless thumbnail; used in spam Wikipedia article
We have enough babies already and this photo isn't especially good (and isn't used anywhere). -- Yonatan talk 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Nilfanion: In category Unknown as of 18 March 2007; not edited for 5 days
When beeing asked for additional written permission according to template text, company did not respond. Original contact person who gave permission in 2005 does not work for company any more. Svencb 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Uploader had not yet been notified. Please wait deletion until he has had a chance to react (for example by giving the text of the permission he got). - Andre Engels 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already notified myself. --Svencb 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - it's indeed you yourself who uploaded it, in which case I won't hesitate further. - Andre Engels 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think this page is a "featured picture" page that is in the wrong space. Can someone have a look and see? There is a page "Ponte Vecchio" that covers the subject and features this photograph already. Deadstar 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This should be deleted. I took and uploaded this image, but apparently forgot about this version. A better version of almost the same picture already exists and is actually a QI. So, go on and delete this version - it is just vaste of disk space. --Thermos 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
uploader reverted several requests for sufficient licence information, now request for deletion: No precise source, no reason for GFDL given. -- Polarlys 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support In page of image exist precise source, I am for leave. MaciekChorzów 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the photo is released under the GFDL? Yonatan talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- See his other uploads. All from different websites (if a “source” is given at all). --Polarlys 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source. MaciekChorzów 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no mentioning of GFDL on source site. --EugeneZelenko 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source. MaciekChorzów 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- See his other uploads. All from different websites (if a “source” is given at all). --Polarlys 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the photo is released under the GFDL? Yonatan talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then please forward them to permissions@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image page(s) so we can review them. Thanks, Yonatan talk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- ??? MaciekChorzów 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maćku - pozwolenia na publikacje wysyła sie na ten podany adres - inaczej skąd admini mają je znać? Masur 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kjetil r 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- ??? MaciekChorzów 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please only vote {{Support}} once per image. grendel|khan 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then please forward them to permissions@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image page(s) so we can review them. Thanks, Yonatan talk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support LUCPOL 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Szoltys 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a farce. You post a request for deletion on a Polish topic and suddenly users from poland appear, “voting” “support”. Wake up, we need free content and permissions. --Polarlys 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'll change my vote if author of the pic will send permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Herr Kriss 19:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The image must be deleted unless the permission is forwarded to the OTRS system. Kjetil r 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Don't be joking, author of this map probably has used other map as his background. --WarX 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 11:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No permission given. grendel|khan 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete wrong license, background of the map copyrighted Julo 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
I have very much doubt that Encyclopaedia Britannica would make things copyrighted free use Andre Engels 01:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio of map with Encyclopaedia Britannica copyright notice on it --MichaelMaggs 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Photo of 3D object. PD-Art is not applicable -- EugeneZelenko 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not PD-Art. --MichaelMaggs 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no information on this person online. There was no reply to my request for more info from the user that uploaded it. I assume therefore that this is not for wiki. Deadstar 11:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No information which would make this image more useful for any purpose than any other picture of a woman, of which we already have thousands. - Andre Engels 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. V60 VCTalk · VContribs 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no information on this lady online. Picture is up for deletion. Deadstar 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the filename of the image at Stanford, the image was taken by George (or Georgii) Petrusov (1903 - 1971)[78][79]. Thus PD-Russia does not apply because the author of the photo died after 1954. Lupo 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- See also here or here for confirmation that Petrusov was the photographer. Lupo 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
source is a copyrighted image, uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. See licensing attached to source image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Astaire_at_NBC_1936.jpg for details Dermot 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The 'Japanese PD' claim does not seem to apply because I see no evidence to suggest that Japan was the place of first publication. - Andre Engels 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a copyvio, but it would be better if a German speaker could double check the source site for the alleged free license (I couldn't find the words "GFDL" or "CC" anywhere on it). --Davepape 15:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any licenses on the Hopepage!!!--Uwe W. 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete checked too, no license on homepage, pic isn't useable for Wikipedias, not relevant enuf to keep. Sped. Sack is only an mostly unknown band. --Hedwig in Washington 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Bug" fixed. There is now a GFDL license on the source website of Spedition Sack --Henry 07:15, 27 February 2007
- Excellent. I'll close this then. --Davepape 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Kept, based on updated source site. --Davepape 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's pure bandspam, see usage -- Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 10:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed it is. Just removed a whole slew of spam links from en-WP. See also the deletion log at de-WP. However, that's not a reason to remove this GFDL image altogether. Cut down on its uses, leaving only those where it makes some sense. (Well, I dunno. de:Vokalquartett maybe, but at de:Hut and de:Cowboyhut, it were better replaced by -- oops, which image? Don't we have a freely licensed encyclopedic image of a cowboy hat?) I didn't check the other WPs. Lupo 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now we do. Could use Image:Cowboy Hats.jpg to replace the band at de:Hut and de:Cowboyhut... Lupo 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is not pure bandspam. Spedition Sack is of course a just regional known country band in Western Germany. But despite this the men’s hats („Stetson“, “cattleman”) and cloths are typical for “cowboy style” and country bands. Well, has anyone a better pic for a vocal quartette? ...
- There should be a more carefully citing of the pic in other wikis with respect to the information wanted (while suppressing avoidable “bandspam”). Keep Henry 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can't see why that should be of any use for our guests/readers. The article about the band has been deleted on DE-Wiki 3 times! and the lemma was blocked. Now there are trying it here. Tell me that's not spam. It's a misuse of Wikipedia & Commons. The picture is used on 21 pages in 14 projects with shady reasons (hat, cattleman LOL). Sorry, a local band is not that important. Otherwise it wouldn't be local.
<cut>Deletion request on DE-Wiki Feb. 2nd 2007
Spedition Sack (gelöscht, gesperrt) [Bearbeiten]
Nach Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien nicht relevant. Bitte herausragende Relevanz nahctragen oder
löschen. -- Hey Teacher 09:27, 2. Feb 2006 (CET)
15:58, 1. Feb 2006 Jergen Spedition Sack wurde gelöscht (hobbyband, keine veröffentlichung)
15:19, 1. Feb 2006 Jergen Spedition Sack wurde gelöscht
Wie oft wollen die noch versuchen? :( --Griff ins Klo 09:30, 2. Feb 2006 (CET)
Wie immer in solchen Fällen. ((ó)) (Ex-A) Käffchen?!? 09:56, 2. Feb 2006 (CET)</nowiki>
</cut>
- See Commons:Project scope, especially #3. cite: „Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted.“ That means the image has to be deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, spam Kjetil r 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, spam. --Polarlys 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is exactly, but I suspect that it's copyrighted, thereby making the photo a derivative of it meaning it's unfree. It's not used on any wikimedia project other than the author's user pages anyway. -- Yonatan talk 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Yonatanh. There's no suggestion that the uploader created the original work. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. V60 VCTalk · VContribs 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleting. Derivative of 3D design--MichaelMaggs 08:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Possible copyright violation ✉Hello World! 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Lcarsdata: Dupe of Image:Jade Kwan 001.jpg
Reasons for deletion request: Possible copyright violation ✉Hello World! 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Jade Kwan 001.jpg
SVG version available is also a correction of this image - delete as outdated and potentially confusing Mareklug talk 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please provide the name of the SVG? --ALE! ¿…? 11:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
kept (incomplete request) --ALE! ¿…? 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This photo is from the collections of the Beazley Archive of Oxford University and is posted with a copyright notice. The photo is a detail of a 3-D work of art, and therefore not public domain. Valeren 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright notice from the Beazley Archive on this piece : http://www.cvaonline.org/CGPrograms/Dict/ASP/OpenDictionaryBody.asp?name=Eris -- The copyright warnings within the Archive proper are even more explicit, and registration is required to access the digitally fingerprinted photos in the archive. --Valeren 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep copyright law determines whether something is copyrighted; the presence or absence of a copyright notice is entirely irrelevant. I do not see anything on this picture that is not a mere reproduction of a 2D work. It is also irrelevant here whether this 2D work is part of a larger 3D work. --Rtc 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Even though it's 3D, there are no elements in the photograph that depend on the non-2D nature of the work. No more copyrightable than a specific cut-out of a 2D art object would be. - Andre Engels 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fault with that argument, despite its apparent logic, is that it extends the scope of the actual "Corelcorp" ruling on Public Domain domain, which only refer to 2-D works of art, and NOT 2-D portions of 3-D works. I don't think its appropriate for Wiki to be used as a place to test the copyright laws -- after all, who risks being prosecuted in the end? If its not absolutely clearly a work is public domain according to the legal precedents, then it should be removed. Or at the very least the copyright holder (in this case the German Museum) should be contacted by the image uploader for their permission for use. --Valeren 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright warning could only reach the text of the site. The picture itself is:
- "Above: Detail from Athenian black-figure clay vase about 575-525 BC. Berlin Antikensammlung F1775. Photo. Museum (I.Gesk) © Berlin Antikensammlung" (See on the site.)
- Conclusion: The picture of the Athenian black-figure ist public domain, because the creator's dead was more than 70 years in the past. And a simple photo of an artwork of another has (german law) not enough "Schöpfungshöhe" for protection. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.56.226.2 (talk • contribs)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Possible copyright violation ✉Hello World! 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What reason do you have for believing that they are? However, even if we decide to keep this one, I vote Delete for the other two. - Andre Engels 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "other two" were already deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not cc, only permission for use in nl.Wikipedia . If you read the original email on nl:Afbeelding:Leterme.jpg (in Dutch), you can see that it was only requested to post the image on nl.Wikipedia, nothing about reusing content, derivate works, commercial use,... the request letter was clearly insufficient. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, the images uploaded on nl.wikipedia under this permission email have been put up for deletion on nl.wikipedia as wel.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not correct, the request and the acceptance refers to THE wikipedia, the license rules point to nl:wikipedia. (no that I care ...) --Foroa 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted (in doubt delete, the image was not being used anyway) --ALE! ¿…? 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not cc, only permission for use in nl.Wikipedia . See also Image:Yves Leterme.jpg. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I imported the image from fr.wikipedia but I do not speak Dutch, so I may have missed the point about the authorisation ; sorry about that. I would be worth contacting the original uploader. le Korrigan →bla 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (does not allow explicitly all possible uses, looks more like a press license --ALE! ¿…? 08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
March 21
[edit]"Vogelwarte.ch" is mentioned as the source. The photo is copyrighted here image has been tagged to be deleted from October last year. Deadstar 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Done copyright infringement Yonatan talk 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This file isn't useful at all. I thought it would be usable for a Finnish wikipedia user box, but i found a lot better pic for that, so please delete this. Paagi 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, please use tag images like this with {{uploader request, not useful}} in future.--Nilfanion 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for GFDL given Polarlys 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source. Polarlys - you are vandal? What do you do? MaciekChorzów 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete On source page: © 2004-2007 UM Świętochłowice, Arkadiusz Chorób & Piotr Ochman. GFDL was not mentioned. --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are on my e-mail. MaciekChorzów 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support LUCPOL 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Adik7swiony 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a farce. You post a request for deletion on a Polish topic and suddenly users from poland appear, “voting” “support”. Wake up, we need free content and permissions. --Polarlys 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
no reason for GFDL given, see other uploads by this user Polarlys 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source. Polarlys - you are vandal? What do you do? MaciekChorzów 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete On source page: © Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Śląskiego. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone.. GFDL was not mentioned. --EugeneZelenko 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are on my e-mail. MaciekChorzów 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support LUCPOL 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Adik7swiony 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a farce. You post a request for deletion on a Polish topic and suddenly users from poland appear, “voting” “support”. Wake up, we need free content and permissions. --Polarlys 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that the source site realese his images into the public domain Jaqen 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
en:Radio Patrol comic strip ran from 1933 through 1950, meaning it's very likely it hasn't been 70 years from the author's death yet -- Yonatan talk 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- See also Image:SgtPat1.gif Yonatan talk 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Charles schmidt.final.jpg apparently the author's photo taken in 1940, meaning this definitely isn't PD and in addition the photo also isn't in the PD. Yonatan talk 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo and the image of Molly came from my personal files. My grandfather is the artist of Radio Patrol. They copyright once was owned by King Features long ago. My father, if anyone, would own the copyright and he gave me the drawings and photo. I appreciate your efforts to prevent copyright violations. These cartoons have been published by others who do not own any copyright.
Perhaps these should be listed under a differnet license? What do you suggest?Fish Cop 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Not doneHe is apparently the copyright holder of these images since his grandfather is the one who created them. Yonatan talk 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Request of uploader: Please delete this, as I've uploaded a much better version at Image:SAAndree.png. Bishonen 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC). Deadstar 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Serious incoherence in this chart --Kremtak 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) You can see just before 1900, the curve is "going back"... Which would mean that there would be 2 population numbers for the same date. Please note that I was the uploader of the file, which was built from a very similar chart which also had the same problem. I didn't see the problem when I've done the upload. --Kremtak 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by uploader request. Yann 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No permission to release this under GFDL. Note: This user uploads images from various websites (see following images). --Polarlys 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Polarlys 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source. Polarlys - you are vandal? What do you do? MaciekChorzów 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete On source page: © 2004-2007 UM Świętochłowice, Arkadiusz Chorób & Piotr Ochman. GFDL was not mentioned. --EugeneZelenko 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are on my e-mail. MaciekChorzów 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- MaciekChorzów: Please do not accuse de.wp administrator Polarlys for being a vandal. Kjetil r 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support LUCPOL 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Adik7swiony 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Szoltys 06:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- By «support», do you mean that you support the deletion of the image? It is quite ambiguous. Kjetil r 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a farce. You post a request for deletion on a Polish topic and suddenly users from poland appear, “voting” “support”. Wake up, we need free content and permissions. --Polarlys 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- All support votes will be discarded unless the uploader provides a reference to the GFDL claim. Copyright issues are not determined by voting. Kjetil r 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unless the uploader can back up the claim by serious documentation. Kjetil r 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Pibwl 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the uploader does not understand what does "right to copying" mean. Julo 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
no reason for GFDL given Polarlys 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are to to let go this under GFDL. Written source and author. Polarlys - you are vandal? What do you do? MaciekChorzów 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Where we could see permission to use this image under terms of GFDL? --EugeneZelenko 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Permissions are on my e-mail. MaciekChorzów 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please forward that e-mail (and the other ones) to someone (best OTRS) to check it. Thanks in advance. - Andre Engels 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as all upload of this user!--WarX 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - what do we need it for? Pibwl 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Lestat 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete scanned © publication Julo 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
old deletion request („Probably copyvio - hard to find this image on forums page ...“), no reason for GFDL given, see other uploads by this user Polarlys 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Pibwl 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Lestat 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unreliable GFDL. By the way - bad quality (fuzzy, shaken). Julo 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
no source, no reason for GFDL Polarlys 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Thumb from the Web. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: '
why GFDL, no source, no author, copied from another website (see other uploads by this user) Polarlys 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is {GFDL-self}!!! MaciekChorzów 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete А почему Вы не указали русский язык на pl:User:MaciekChorzów? Image contains text on Russian, which is not mentioned on pl:User:MaciekChorzów, so very likely image was stolen. --EugeneZelenko 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Author of this picture seems to be Mr. Oлeг Бoдня, as mentioned in lower-right corner of the image. Seems the uploader - MaciekChorzów - has no right to use this picture. Julo 13:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: '
http://www.renqvist.se/Vintage_posters/Olympic_1912.html Author died in 1959, less than 70 years ago Ekeb 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --Rtc 08:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
March 22
[edit]copyvio -- Leafnode 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
test complete, no use Moonian 12:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done you can probably use {{Speedy}} in the future. Yonatan talk 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be spam — Jeff G. 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done copyvio from here Yonatan talk 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Work of en:Joan Miro (died 1983) is still in copyright. William Avery 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joan Miro died only in 1983. William Avery 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joan Miró died only in 1983 William Avery 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Joan Miró died only in 1983. William Avery 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
fair use image ~ putnik 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done in the future please use {{Fairuse}} Yonatan talk 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
fair use (see ru:Image:Postyshev.jpg) ~ putnik 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done please use {{Fairuse}} in the future Yonatan talk 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a cropped version of a non-free photo by Tracy Allen / International Sports. Filing at COM:DEL since the uploader keeps removing the speedy deletion tags instead of opposing at the talk page as instructed, claiming that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with Tracy Allen, taking a photo at the exact same nanosecond (notice the position and motion blur of the hands) and just happened to upload the image at the exact same resolution as Tracy Allen's image. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, shoulder to shoulder wouldn't be enough, since there is no distortion in perspective. Pasting Wnivk's version onto the original shows that it's a crop with the top left-hand corner at (77, 3) and the lower right-hand corner (321, 392) in the original. I recommend deletion and blocking of the user for knowingly misrepresenting the origins of copyrighted materials to fraudulently contravene Commons policies and violate copyright law. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I support deletion of the orphan image and blocking of the single-purpose user account. — Jeff G. 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This photo was taken by myself. It looks differet from the one on the internet, but probably taken at the same time. Wnivk 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- A lie doesn't become any more true simply by telling it over and over. As I've shown, it's a pixel-for-pixel match crop of a non-free photo. This is ridiculous. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the photo and
Block the uploader for lying. The photos are identical. Kjetil r 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done and the user was blocked for a week. This is ridiculous and is an obvious copyright infringement. Yonatan talk 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
wrong license & Copyvio Hedwig in Washington 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Jeff G. 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted, not GFDL (Source: http://bbs.hasea.com/viewthread.php?tid=170256&extra=page%3D1) Wrightbus 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support More specifically, the source image is here. — Jeff G. 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be spam — Jeff G. 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No licence, copyvio. Yann 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
seems like copyvio from here, no implication of permission or anything, used in w:Belarus so i figured i'd nominate first. -- Yonatan talk 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Source" appeared after anonymous spam/vandalism. See page history. --EugeneZelenko 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Description without spam/vandalism had been restored. --EugeneZelenko 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Porsche died in 1951, when was this bust done? surely derivative work. Polarlys 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- “Objects permanently located in public that can be photographed from public (accessible) grounds” – an interior (museum) isn’t covered by this. I don’t know where this bust is located. After all the museum is located on the factory premises of Porsche. --Polarlys 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is the public not allowed to visit the museum? — Jeff G. 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, the public is allowed to visit the museum, but it’s not a public place within the defition, but a private ground:
§ 59 UrhG - Werke an öffentlichen Plätzen „(1) Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen (public alleys, avenues or places) befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Grafik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben. (…)“ --Polarlys 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support OK, you have convinced me. — Jeff G. 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it was, photos taken under FOP in Germany only allow non-commercial uses. Yonatan talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure? de:Panoramafreiheit seems to say otherwise. --88.134.140.64 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, I am extremely unsure, if someone verifies that you are correct it should be changed ASAP on COM:FOP which is what I go by. Yonatan talk 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure? de:Panoramafreiheit seems to say otherwise. --88.134.140.64 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work. Panoramafreiheit does not apply. Kjetil r 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted bust. --Rtc 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work -- Editor at Large • talk 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad quality. Out of project scope. Privacy. -- EugeneZelenko 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Delete Please note that this image was used solely by an autobiography which met w:WP:CSD#A7 before it met its
secondthird demise here. — Jeff G. 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as spam. Kjetil r 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- spam, as "in support of this individual's band"? I don't think so. Sorry about my use of the support template above. I meant "support deletion" AKA "Delete". :) — Jeff G. 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: '
category isn't usefull, alle logos are already in Category:Logos of STS missions Henristosch 09:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - any images remaining without a category should be moved to the other category Yonatan talk 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
ro-wikipedia and ru-wikipedia as sources. in ru- marked as fair use, in ro- link to ru-wikipedia putnik 18:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done after checking source. Yonatan talk 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename to Category:Boston, Lincolnshire Evrik 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but wouldn't the nomenclature Category:Boston, Lincolnshire be better in the actual request? — Jeff G. 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Done and moved Category:Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Boston Yonatan talk 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For the love of madness this template should be spitted. One template per country please. -- Cat chi? 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: do the split first and then go for deletion - Sven-steffen arndt 07:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when a wish for splitting is a reason for deletion? --213.155.224.232 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Split first. Yann 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Split and apply the specific license for each image. If any of the images lacks country of origin then delete those images. /Lokal_Profil 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I started to create PD Template for each country. you can have look at {{PD-KSA}} Menasim 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's wrong it should be life +50 ww.sagia.gov.sa/Downloads/Copyright%20Law.pdf
- Comment Yes, split the template up into each country. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed. It's obsolete, not incorrect. Alex Spade 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest to split it not according to the countries but according to the time of Copyright so we can make : Template:PD-Arab-10 , Template:PD-arab-5 , Pd-Arab-25 and PD-Arab-50 ... PD-arab-10 includes : syria , yemen : PD-arab-5 inculding Iraq , PD-arab-25 : Sudan ' Saudi arabia , Pd-arab-15 : Egypt , Pd-arab-50 : includes : Algeria , jordan Kuwait and Morroco. --Chaos 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The time of copyright may be changed at any moment (may be not any moment ;-), but change is possible). Alex Spade 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, we need to have templates based on country and not on region, since copyright laws are different by country, not by region (with a few exceptions, such as the EU harmonization). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Alex Spade, I feel Iraqi law will be among the first to change.
I am a fan of dual licensing EU images with one license for the actual local country and one for eu. Countries can pull off of EU. And even if they don't pull out, identifying the origin of the image may still be useful.
-- Cat chi? 09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Alex Spade, I feel Iraqi law will be among the first to change.
- Plus, we need to have templates based on country and not on region, since copyright laws are different by country, not by region (with a few exceptions, such as the EU harmonization). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Iraq is now pma+50[80] and before it was min(pma+25,50 years), not 5 according the English sources I can find[81]. Kotepho 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The time of copyright may be changed at any moment (may be not any moment ;-), but change is possible). Alex Spade 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment CoolCat, stay cool. I started splitting. I will recheck the copyrights laws as I go thought. First template PD-Jordan --Tarawneh 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The point of the deletion debate is to initiate a discussion and find a solution. There is no reason to rush things and mass delete unless thats the agreed solution. As far as I can see there are many "comments" and no "delete" suggestions. :) -- Cat chi? 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Practically Kept. The tag is obsolete and country-specific tags are prepared for retagging. Alex Spade 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sculpture by en:Anna Hyatt Huntington in 1959; no Freedom of panorama for statues in US --Davepape 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Davepape is correct, there is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues in the USA, and this appears to be a photo of a statue in Central Park, New York City, New York State, USA, without sufficient attribution and without proof of permission. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." — Jeff G. 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong license kintup 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the image is moved from en:Image:Mihalkov-sergey-vladimirovich.jpg, which states ru:Изображение:Mihalkov-sergey-vladimirovich.jpg as the source. Изображение:Mihalkov-sergey-vladimirovich.jpg is used under a fair use claim. Kjetil r 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete ru:Изображение:Mihalkov-sergey-vladimirovich.jpg further shows Совет по Детской книге России - RBBY || Персоналии as the source (that page actually displays the image stored at http://www.rbby.ru/img/michalkov2.jpg). There is nothing on that page or image, or on the main page [82] or main English page [83] to indicate any sort of free licensing. Furthermore, Source= {{RU}} is insufficient source information for Commons under any circumstances. — Jeff G. 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted no free license. --GeorgHH 09:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Unproven, non-Commons licensing applied. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- From Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_5#this_is_new.:
It seems that Nut-meg (talk · contribs) (an SPA?) has created a new licensing tag for Image:Abeerh.jpg. This was originally deleted (twice actually) for missing licensing information, so the user appears to have created their own. I don't know whether the C&P licensing there stands up to scrutiny or not, and am not an authority to decide so.
However, to throw my 3¢ in, the supposed licensing claims that "All photographs released by Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organs before 2003 invasion that are without a clear copyright notice are assumed to be in the public domain.". If this should be true, and Commons accepts this licensing; the image has two further problems. died in 2006, and I presume that the document was released in conjunction with her death -- I doubt the sovereign Iraqi government before 2003 had any reason to release this document (a citizen's ID card, containing private information) publicly before her death. Secondly, the image is sourced to , not the "Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organ". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did not make this template. Nut-meg 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to have added all of the text on that page, except the delete tag added by pd_THOR | =/\=. You appear to have added what looks like a licensing tag (but is not an actual template) via this edit. — Jeff G. 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any solid legal reason to hold that Iraqi state documents prior to 2003 are without clear copyright. I believe these claims rely mainly on the fact that the former Iraqi government and the Ba'ath party have both been disbanded; however, the current Iraqi state is the successor-in-law to both entities and can, in theory, enforce any copyrights which it came to possess as the successor of those entities. Note also that Iraq did not prior to the U.S. invasion participate in any international copyright treaty agreements; however, it appears that the occupation government made Iraq a Berne treaty partner, at least in principle; however, this is probably not guaranteed to persist now that Iraq is under (nominal) self-rule and will have to be ratified by the new government. Similarly, the Iraqi copyright term of 25 years p.m.a. was extended to 50 years p.m.a. by Paul Bremer, but this too may not last through the transition. Works copyrighted prior to the invasion would have remained copyrighted except where explicitly voided by the transitional authority or the new civil government. Kelly Martin 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not make this template. If that is the reason for the deletion, it is wrong. It is attached to several other government created photos fro Iraq. There is no private information on the ID card that was not already widely publicly available. Reuters is just where I found the photo. The photo was released in conjunction with her death, though I fail to see what relevance that has as the photo was created in 1991, when no copyright treaty existed.Nut-meg 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly where on Reuters did you find the photo? — Jeff G. 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Even if the United States and other countries were not bound to adhere to Iraqi copyright, there is no evidence to show that they did not do it nevertheless. Therefore, as long as the image is copyrighted in Iraq we should consider it copyrighted for our purposes. - Andre Engels 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete don't blame humans for their government's mistakes. --Rtc 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What has that got to do with anything? Nut-meg 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the ID is probably copyrighted by the old Iraq, and the scan is probably copyrighted by Reuters. Prove otherwise, and I'll reconsider my opinion. — Jeff G. 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"No advertising" clause would make this a non-commercial license Davepape 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion request would also apply to anything using this template - currently Image:Ie-courts.gif and Image:Ie-courts-map.gif --Davepape 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And I think their terms of use don't mention derivative works. --88.134.140.64 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Delete The licensing on this page is even more restrictive than the template makes it out to be; certainly incompatible with Commons. — Jeff G. 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to vote "Delete". — Jeff G. 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Absolutely correct. --Rtc 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, the template and the two images who used it. --GeorgHH 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Die Abbildung einer deutschen Briefmarke muss komplett sein, und kein Ausschnitt. In diesem Falle fehlt die Zähnung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken Gruß --kandschwar 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Bitte diese Version löschen, laut de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken müssen deutsche Briefmarken komplett abgebildet werden, in diesem Bild fehlt die Zähnung. Es gibt darüberhinaus zwei andere Versionen die diese Zähnung enthalten. Von daher ist diese Version überflüssig. Vielen Dank --kandschwar 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- in english: "According to german copyright this stamp has to be displayed completely. There are two other versions of this image doing this." --Prolineserver 07:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But this seems to be a "non derivative work" restriction, then the work is not free enough to Commons. Dantadd✉ 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not free enough for Commons. — Jeff G. 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep M.E. sind die Einschränkungen durch die Deutsche Post irrelevant, weil die Briefmarken als amtliches Werk gemeinfrei sind, und mit einem gemeinfreien Bild kann ich machen was ich will. --ALE! ¿…? 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo ALE! es geht hier um einen Ausschnitt! Die komplette Briefmarke an sich ist zwar als amtliches Werk gemeinfrei, jedoch nicht die einzelnen Teile davon. Klingt zwar komisch, ist aber so. Gruß --kandschwar 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wie kannst Du das belegen? (Was die Post dazu sagt, ist eigentlich egal, denn die wollen nur nicht, dass ihre Marken nachgemacht werden.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Es geht hierbei nicht um die Post, sondern um den Künstler / Urheber der Marke bzw. der Abbildung auf der jeweiligen Briefmarke. Die Briefmarke an sich, also komplett Abgebildet ist ein amtliches Werk, die einzelnen Bestandteile hingegen unterliegen dem jeweiligen Urheberrecht. Ähnlich wie bei der Panoramafreiheit. Alles abbilden ist erlaubt, jedoch teile davon nicht. Gruß --kandschwar 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wie kannst Du das belegen? (Was die Post dazu sagt, ist eigentlich egal, denn die wollen nur nicht, dass ihre Marken nachgemacht werden.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo ALE! es geht hier um einen Ausschnitt! Die komplette Briefmarke an sich ist zwar als amtliches Werk gemeinfrei, jedoch nicht die einzelnen Teile davon. Klingt zwar komisch, ist aber so. Gruß --kandschwar 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: exactly. Can I cut and make another picture with just H. Arendt face? Dantadd✉ 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A better version gives it already here Image:BM-HannahArendt2006.jpg or here Image:BM-Hannah-Arendt2006.jpg --19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The image is being replaced by CommonsDelinker and will afterwards be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
too new for pd-old Begw 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Delete — Jeff G. 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to vote "Delete". — Jeff G. 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree its good to have the comparison from then to now.. so it should stay! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.180.59.43 (talk • contribs) at 15:22, 24 March 2007) (UTC)
- What "comparison from then to now"? The pd-old license does not apply to this image, as you have not offered any proof that the photographer died between 1927 and 1937. — Jeff G. 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't comment until now, I uploaded it to the Commons and now don't mind if it is deleted, mostly because now we have Image:Weissenhof-Luftbild-2004.01.jpg which shows a current photograph of the place. One benefit of the postcard is that it labels each architect to their contribution, but those labels could be added to the aerial photograph we now have. The postcard also shows it upon conception in model form but if it isn't public domain it isn't public domain. It would be nice if an admin on de: could check the deleted file there to see if there was anymore information, just in case. DVD R W 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Photo was taken 1964, but is tagged as PD-old.Syrcro 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Syrcro 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A photo taken in 1964 cannot be PD-old. --Rtc 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support ok, let me check it out before deleting, I have provided this image, and I can personally contact the subject of the pictrure : Jean Béliveau or his agent. But please be patient as I'm just coming back from a convalescence period after a surgical intervention... Also please provide me with CLEAR and simple step-by-step procedure so as to normalize this picture's copyright tag and make it "wiki-ok", as I really don't have much time under hand to go through all the docs here, while providing content, working full-time and managing my personal familly life. Many thanks and regards, HawkFest 08:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I guess other pictures I've provided would fall under the same problem and need attention, so please tell me before deleting. thx, HawkFest 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Per "Photographs by professional photographers" at Commons:Deletion#How to detect copyright violations:
In the rare event that a professional photographer allows reproduction of his/her works, make sure he/she has licensed them under a free license (i.e. not "noncommercial" or "Wikipedia only") and post the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
- — Jeff G. 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I guess other pictures I've provided would fall under the same problem and need attention, so please tell me before deleting. thx, HawkFest 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We do not need permission from the subject of the photo, but from the photographer who did the photo in the first place! --Rtc 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have modiffied the copyright tag, please look at the image page (containing a link to the source page within its source field), and tell me what needs (if so) to be done. Notice that the copyright tag contains information which follows the Permission to Reproduce on the Library and Archives Canada Web Site (accessible from the top-right link labelled Important Notices on the source page), which reads as follows: In compliance with the above, Library and Archives Canada is making every reasonable effort to identify the information source and to ensure that it is accurately portrayed. In specific instances, Library and Archives Canada will notify readers that it will prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. No such mention is provided on the image source page, so one can conclude that it would be ok to use it – Click the link provided within the copyright tag for further information. Best regards, HawkFest 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note : if this is satisfactory, I will look-up other images I've provided which also originate form the Library and Archives Canada, and modify their copyright tag accordingly. But I am waiting for your advice first. Regards, HawkFest 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep given the above. — Jeff G. 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced" is absolutely not compatible with Commons licensing policy. PatríciaR msg 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
against policy as per PatriciaR --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately this image is of too low quality to be fixed. The contrast and lighting are too low to be able to lighten and still look decent, and it is too dark to be of any use at illustrating the subject on wikimedia projects. -- Editor at Large • talk 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well it will work with IrfanView or Acrobat. I'll try. 87.234.41.130 12:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of the ability to attempt fixing but rather the ability for the image to be edited. When contrast and lightness are increased the image turns nearly solid green; this is due to lack of data where the camera did not record parts of the image because it was too dark and there was not enough info to the camera to capture what it saw. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about it to really fix the image, it can only be (slightly) improved but will still be of low quality. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should not be deleted due to quality reasons until a better replacement has been found. --Sven 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
kept (quality is usually no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
March 23
[edit]fair use (poster, 1980) ~ putnik 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done - how are you finding these? ;) please use {{Fairuse}} in the future. Yonatan talk 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The license claims are bogus, it's surely not GFDL or cc-by-sa, because the uploader at the english wikipedia is surely not the author of this image. And it can't be PD because the author can't be dead for more than 70 years. --88.134.140.64 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Photo by Heinrich Hoffman (†1957). Kjetil r 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done derivative of a copyrighted work of art. Yonatan talk 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation Smiddle 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
(Duplicate and wrong Name; correct Gräpplang innen1.jpg, already uploaded) Parpan05 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Davepape: badname
Unlike en, we don't have WP:BLP so I don't see any use for this category. Yonatan talk 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We have Category:Dead people, it breaks them up evenly, it is just a way of sorting. Cbrown1023 talk 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe but nobody actually uses that category. Yonatan talk 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done - I retract my proposal as I've seen how it's useful for tagging photos with {{Personality rights}}. Yonatan talk 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
(duplicate Parpan05 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 4 days
Duplicate,schon vorhanden: Codex Manesse 081 Walther von Klingen.jpg Parpan05 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 4 days
one name,two different pics, see Holzschnitt Sempach.jpg Parpan05 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 4 days
"Bildene kan brukes fritt, - med angivelse av Kirkeinfo som kilde" == "The images may be used freely, with attribution to Kirkeinfo". This is not a free license, as it does not mention derivative works. Kjetil r 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete them yet, as a no.wp user will contact them and ask for a free license. Kjetil r 16:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete press license. --Rtc 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It does not mention derivative works, but it says the image may be used. Since it gives no exception to that, apparently there is none. However, asking for a clear license as Kjetil has done is definitely better than deleting as Rtc says or keeping as I say. - Andre Engels 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the text on the page is now Bildene kan brukes fritt, - med angivelse av Kirkens informasjonstjeneste som kilde. Bildene er lisensiert under betingelsene i Creative Commons Attribution 2.5-lisensen. (Images could be used freely - with attribution to kirkens informasjonstjeneste as source. The pictures are licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 [84] Røed 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept, and the template is updated accordingly. Kjetil r 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not PD, as the photographer can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years (it was taken in 1940). It was copied from the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which now says "Credit: USHMM, courtesy of Unknown Provenance / Copyright: USHMM" --88.134.140.64 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete False license. Cbrown1023 talk 16:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Picture can be found here on the USHM website, and, unlike this one that is treated in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Robert Ley.jpg, it is not in PD. Bradipus 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images --Rtc 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD / Fred Chess 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(duplicate Parpan05 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Derivative works are not mentioned. Kjetil r 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest (not that I wanna pile more work on you guys but...) that a German speaker contacts the owner and asks him for a less restrictive permission (CC-BY). Yonatan talk 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: copyvio
Duplicate - delete
(Duplicate of Image:Lumnezia01.JPG Parpan05 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Matt314 --ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work of a mural painting Lokal_Profil 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I checked the commons uploader, and he seems to be from New York City. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama, no freedom of panorama holds in the USA for artworks other than architecture. - Andre Engels 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copy of a mural. No FOP for this in the US. --MichaelMaggs 06:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems this is a copyrighted painting that the photographer has no authority to license. Sushiya 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the photographer. I agree with the listing, as I hadn't thought of it as a "2 dimensional work", legally, when I uploaded it. There's a possibility that I can get both the artist and owner of the surface to agree to a CC licensing, but it should be deleted in the meantime. - BanyanTree 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio deleted per uploader request. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(duplicate) Parpan05 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (incomplete request) --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This file is redundant - it signifies a configuration which never occurs AlexTiefling
Now, but it can occur. Therefore: keep it Augiasstallputzer 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This file is redundant - it signifies a configuration which never occurs AlexTiefling
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(duplicate) Parpan05 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted as a copyvio! --ALE! ¿…? 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
no rationale, assumes public domain but taken from a site that scans color images from books discarding the copyright information- no claim that the image is PD is made on the site, no detail as to who took the image are made, most likely a German photographer placing the image under German copyright law. Examples of the aircraft are preserved anyway and example of G-2 exists on commons presently. Use of a picture with no details is just asking for trouble User:Fluffy999
deleted, --Polarlys 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a work of the federal government, the source says “Copyright © State of New Jersey, 2006.” Kjetil r 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentI just saw this, I don't think it's enough for our purposes as they aren't saying the information is presumed to be in the public domain nor are they saying all their works are in the public domain, the photographer\state of New Jersey probably still own the copyright to this photo. Yonatan talk 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted as a copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
March 24
[edit]This image page was blanked by the uploader which could mean that he wants to delete the image -- Meno25 07:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Closed and marked the image with {{No source}}. Samulili 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The main subject of the photograph is a copyright protected work. Andre Engels 11:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy. --Rtc 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What kind of idiocy is that? The reproductions of the Vann-Nath-paintings are thought to document historical events, they are NOT thought as artworks. So they have rather educational value than any other quality (for real Vann-Nath-artworks look on the corresponding sites in the net or visit the artist himself in Phnom Penh!). And I think it is in the mind of the artist and the carriers of the museum to spread the documents about the Cambodian Holocaust all over the world. --Bnottelm 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The picture is illegal. It will be deleted; period. And you should be blocked for this kind of argumentation and for removing the deletionrequest template from the picture. --Rtc 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And you should be blocked because you are a stupid idiot. Period. --Bnottelm 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have warned Bnottelm. We do not tolerate abusive language. Kjetil r 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, did user rtc complain about that? But I don't care, maybe I should prefer the German word "Wichtigtuer", that would be possibly more adequate. Sorry, but the behaviour of user rtc is not really polite so why I should be better? Delete me if you like. It does not really matter. --Bnottelm 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc did not complain. I warned you at my own initiative.
- I know enough German to know that “Wichtigtuer” is a personal attack. Personal attacks will get you blocked. Nice for you that you don't care.
- Rtc is maybe not the most polite user here at the Wikimedia Commons, but that is no excuse for calling him a “stupid idiot.”
- Please have a look at Category:Khmer Rouge and especially the pictures kr3 and kr4 as well as tuolsleng3 and tuolsleng4. I think you have to delete them on your own initiative. Can we otherwise speak here about arbitrariness? Or selective perception? --Bnottelm 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, did user rtc complain about that? But I don't care, maybe I should prefer the German word "Wichtigtuer", that would be possibly more adequate. Sorry, but the behaviour of user rtc is not really polite so why I should be better? Delete me if you like. It does not really matter. --Bnottelm 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have warned Bnottelm. We do not tolerate abusive language. Kjetil r 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And you should be blocked because you are a stupid idiot. Period. --Bnottelm 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The picture is illegal. It will be deleted; period. And you should be blocked for this kind of argumentation and for removing the deletionrequest template from the picture. --Rtc 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This picture is copyright from Taichung City Gov. webpage -- Essolo 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, © from http://traffic.tccg.gov.tw/public/rapid/index.asp
copyrighted according to source page and no license given on commons. Botev 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Description claims both that the image was created in 1939, and that the photographer died over 70 years ago. The claims are kinda incompatible, as that'd mean that the photograph was taken by a 2-year old corpse. --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the "typo". I have made the proper corrections. Photo made in 1929 not '39. User talk:Milliot 24 March 2007
If the picture is PD-old, then name the author and give his date of death. --Rtc 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo was taken by A. Boito (who died in 1932) User:Milliot 26 March 2007
kept. --Rtc 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No indication that http://www.20minutos.es/ owns the copyright to this image, and could license it freely. Jkelly 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. 20 Minutos' copyright notice is truly misleading and a real plague for us. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Improper license. [85] is cited license, which explicitly claims "Boeing owns and retains the copyrights in the images, except where expressly noted." Shimgray 20:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio per nom. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted by Tarawneh: A clear COPYVIO.
Due to the small file size, high quality of the picture and the fact that Andrew Ward/glafRo4s is no longer active in Flickr, I suspect that this image is actually a copyvio. Samulili 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What are you exactly applying? That the uploader (myself) made a copyvio and falsified a description of a non existant Flickr image? Unfortunately I don't have the original file anymore, but I remember the picture (cropped by me) very well. Alanis is posing for a non professional photographer and on her right side is standing a woman, probably the wife/sister/friend of the photographer (I can even describe how the lady is physically if needed). I can assure this picture is cropped from a real and typical fan photo. The only thing I can offer now is my word and the review of Dodo. Dantadd✉ 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dantadd, I never meant to blame you for anything. It just seemed to me that the image might not really by Andrew Ward/glafRo4s. Samulili 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Dantadd is trustworthy, and his explatation is reasonable. Kjetil r 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the image uploaded here is a cropping of a full photo of Alanis Morissette with a fan (that's why its quality is not optimal). When I checked it the source at flickr still existed and it seemed legitimate. --Dodo 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
delete . Project scope and unconfirmed source. -- Drini 02:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The description page is incorrect -- the person can not be 21 because 21 year olds have more hair on their body -- Fred Chess 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is not necessarily true, the guy might be 21. Nonetheless, the image is completely useless, Delete. Kjetil r 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe he is 21, I have to admit to being an expert :-) / Fred Chess 09:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, many people in their 20's have this much pubic hair. You don't have to have hair all over the place to be in your 20's, or vice versa. I'd say don't delete. Stevey7788 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um, shaving?
So... I'm 26 and that's pretty much exactly how much hair I have. Many factors affect the amount of hair a guy has, not just age.
Delete. We have many other pictures, that are better sourced, that display the same thing. I do not feel this image is sourced enough to assure people the guy is over 18 and the uploader has been missing for almost a year. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"21 year olds have more hair on their body"? Oh, really? I'm 21 and I don't have a lot of hair on my body either. Don't be so ignorant and full of assumptions.
- Allowing me to play devil's advocate for a second--supposing this guy is under 21 (or 18, though personally, I feel this is unlikely), does it matter? Yeah, it's a nude photo but it's certainly not sexual, i.e. pornographic. Is this the basis for the age concern? That said, if there are better photos demonstrating the same subject matter (adult male genitals, uncircumcised flaccid penis, pubic hair) then I vote Delete simply to remove the doubt. 68.13.245.8 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unpermission uploaded.--N.C 11:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen 40 year olds with less hair. Hair is meaningless.
Body hair has very little to do with age, after a certain point. I've coached sports for years (youth and adults) and I've seen 16 year olds with more body hair than most adults, and I've seen 25 year olds with only minor leg hair, only an average amount of pubic hair and little to no chest hair or hair trail below the navel.
Please. I am 32 and have about as much as that person.
22:41, 21 April 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Gen 21.jpg"
All images in Category:Z (game)
[edit]Screenshots of a commercial game. All are tagged with {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}} and say "Permission given", but that's it. I assume good faith and do believe that the uploader had permission to upload these images, but without further information, we have to delete the images nonetheless. I've contacted User:Eldred more than a week ago, but there's no reply as of yet (his last activity was in August 2006). --Conti|✉ 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No permission. Deleted. Siebrand 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded this using FlickrLickr. Recently someone asked me why this person is notable, and the conclusion is that he's just a coworker in some non-notable company. As such, he is not notable and it's nothing more than a photograph of a man. We have thousands of those, so we can do without this one. Andre Engels 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Image is unused. Lupo 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletd, image of a non-notable man, no other useful subject. --GeorgHH 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also included in this request is Image:Getty Center 03.jpg.
derivative of a photo displayed at the Getty Center -- Yonatan talk 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value. - PatricksheridanTALK|HISTORY 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio? Cat chi? 10:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yann 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps speedy. Jkelly 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and commons will be deprived from a non copy image you are real funny guys... --Nevit 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio per nom. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the FAQ: The Wikimedia Commons Deletion Requests page is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion. Please provide reasoned arguments. Of course the first person who should provide an argument is the person who opened the discussion. The admin Jkelly comment is a pitty of course. This person should not be an admin. --Nevit 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
kept (only a textlogo) --ALE! ¿…? 09:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A vector version of this file is available De.Nobelium 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The SVG file has aliased edges, doesn't it. If my sensors don't mislead me, I'll vote Keep. Samulili 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because the PNG is not used. --ALE! ¿…? 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The permission does not mention derivative works and commercial use. Kjetil r 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The argument is valid. "You may post TrainWeb photos to other websites or use them in print media without charge and without any further permission from TrainWeb." [86] Which quite clearly refers to reproduction for publication purposes ("print media"), which does not include modifying. --Rtc 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - and quickly, please? Thanks, Iamunknown 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
derivative of the copyrighted logo of the Israeli political party "Kah" see their logo here. -- Yonatan talk 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as it's not too close derivated. // Liftarn
- Keep freedom of panorama in Isreal: Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Israel --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted at English-language Wikipedia as a result of en:WP:PUI (see permalink under section "March 4" and deletion log). Reason, "No reason for GFDL" -- Iamunknown 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I trust the reason on en.wiki --piero tasso 10:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Bridgeman vs. Corel doesn't cover 3d works of art such as this one. -- Yonatan talk 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as uploader. It's a 2D wall painting. It's painted on a wall which has since developed cracks; this doesn't make it a 3D painting. The painting, as far as I can tell, are the black smudges in the center. Certainly this photograph involves no originality as is required, under Bridgeman for copyright protection in the US. Sandstein 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete we discussed that already. This is as far from a mere reproduction as it can get. --Rtc 07:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where did we discuss what, please? Sandstein 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, where was this discussed? --ALE! ¿…? 13:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted (convinced in this case) --ALE! ¿…? 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Has been discussed previously, see Commons:Deletion requests/Reopen Template:Norden.org and all of the many, many images in Category:Images by the Nordic Council. “Bilderna kan fritt användas till redaktionellt icke kommersiellt bruk om du nämner bildkällan” == “The images can be used freely for editorial, noncommercial use if you mention the source.” Not a free license, but more of a press license. See also Template talk:Norden.org, they do not want to clarify the license, even though they are aware of the problem. Kjetil r 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The argument is valid. --Rtc 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I read Template talk:Norden.org as if they wants their photos used by wikipedia, and are about to modify their licence i order to made this possible. A good dialogue with the Nordic council would be better than deletion. --Orland 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I read Template talk:Norden.org as a clarification that commercial use is not permitted. The rest is merely a hollow promise. Of course, nearly everyone is happy to have his pictures used on wikipedia, and we'd get about any picture with a free "for wikipedia" license, instantly. That people are positive about wikipedia, or about what they perceive wikipedia to be—some anticommercial movement that tries to get the monopoly of knowledge out of the hands of some commercial publishers back to the general public—is really not an indication that they will grant genuine free licenses; the contrary is true. --Rtc 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, if they modify their license so that commercial use and derivative works are ok, we can keep it. If not, we will have to delete it. Kjetil r 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Just give them a little time or send a mail and ask about the process. --Lhademmor 12:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, we will wait a couple of weeks before deleting it. However, 6 months ago they said that they were going to change their policy, and they haven't done so yet. Kjetil r 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have sent User:Kjetil r/norden.org to norden.org. Kjetil r 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pending response from Norden.org. If they're adamant in refusing to adjust their license, it may be worth at least confirming that photographs taken prior to the change are still covered by the previous license - and thus are usable by Commons. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, the previous license is not suitable for Wikimedia projects, as it does not meet the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works. See Resolution:Licensing policy. Kjetil r 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed the addendum that the images were not freely modifiable even prior to the change of licence. Yeah, if no response is forthcoming after a few weeks, Delete the template. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed the addendum that the images were not freely modifiable even prior to the change of licence. Yeah, if no response is forthcoming after a few weeks,
- The current copyright notices are indeed confusing. Some pages say “All images may be used freely provided the source is attributed (e.g. NN - norden.org),” but others say “The photos can be used freely for editorial but not commercial use provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org).” Kjetil r 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's even more confusing than that. If you look at the root page for the pictures, in Swedish, English and Icelandic there is a specific statement that commercial use is not allowed ("icke kommersiellt bruk", "not commercial use" and "ekki er heimilt að endurselja", respectively). The Norwegian and Danish versions simply say "can be freely used" ("kan fritt avbenyttes" and "kan frit anvendes", respectively) with no mention about restricting commercial use (I can't read Finnish, so I have no idea what that version says). Basically, it's not clear at all what they intend, which means that we probably, and unfortunately, can't keep the pictures, since they don't seem interested in clarifying things. -- Arvind 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a clarification three weeks ago, but they have nor replied yet. I suggest that somebody else tries, or we will have to start deleting soon. Kjetil r 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- So nobody wants to contact norden.org? Then we should redirect template:Norden.org to template:Promophoto soon. Kjetil r 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, nothing happened for another month, license statements confusing, no compatiblity with Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems to meet the threshold of originality to me. Israeli copyright law is based on the old UK copyright laws (the ones passed on 1911) so anyone who has sufficient knowledge of those should be able to comment on this. This is absurd but I know more about copyright laws in the US and the EU than I do about the copyright laws in the country I live in. -- Yonatan talk 10:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
“The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged”. No mention of derivative works and commercial use. Not a free license. Kjetil r 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The argument is valid; this is a press license. --Rtc 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -Please not that this has already been mentioned on the talk page. A letter is being sent to the Finnish Defence Force asking them to clarify the status on derivative works and commersial use. /Lokal_Profil 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A clarification is if the web site has a CC license on it. Anything else is without value. Please see the that the photos are obviously from the very context supposed to be released only for press purposes, and it is against the interests of the oranization to permit them to be used for anything else. It is undue to even ask for a free license—such a request can only be misunderstood and leads to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft. We should radically exclude all such pictures from commons, and we should discourage people to even write mails to such web sites asking for permission. (Trying to make people to put CC tags on their site is okay, but not a request for permission that is reflected only by a mail reply. That has too much the character of giving permission to one specific person or entity, while free licenses are always licensed to the public—only the act of putting a tag on one's web site gives one inherently the right intrinsic idea about that). Ceterum censeo formula esse delendam. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A permission allowing ANYONE (of course) to use the images for commercial/derivative would be valid just like any other permission sent to OTRS. The whole point with forwarding the letter to permissions@wikimedia.org is that they will verify that the permission is indeed free enough for use on commons. If it is not then we will have a clear answer. A free license is NOT required to be made public by the copyright holder but it must allow ANYONE to use it, this is how permissions for all other images work./Lokal_Profil 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute that. If they really want to give a free license, they should cleary indicate that to public. The context of private mail communication is doomed to lead to misunderstandings, as the past has shown over and over again. (Especially because the communication often happens in a biased tone, hiding the almost exclusively negative consequences to the rights holders that a release under a free license has for him, and hiding to him that licensing under a free license is generally against his interests; something that can be avoided psychologically to a great degree if we require the rights holder to actively put a free license tag to the pictures on his web site.) The truth is simply that many rights holders (especially the professional ones) wouldn't and can't put, say, a clear CC tag on web sites simply because that is diametral to their fundamental interests. You are correct that what you describe is the way it is currently handled. But this process is incorrect and should be abandoned as soon as possible; it should be replaced by requesting people to put CC tags to the respective pictures on their web site to put an end to the unprofessional, unbearable, error-prone status quo that inherently seeds dishonesty. To license a picture to the public but sending the permission to a private entity instead of putting it besides the pictures is schizophrenic. --Rtc 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds more like you personally disagreeing with the OTRS system then there being any problem with this licens IF the FDF do agree to commersial/derivative use. A important part of Commons:Email templates is to explain all of the "downsides" of a free license to the copyrightholders in an clear and truthfull way. A second important part is that a CC licens on a webpage can be removed at any point making all the images from that webpage unfree since it becomes impossible for us to prove that they ever were under a free license. A permission logged with the OTRS is on the other hand unrevokable. In any case I think there are better places then a specific template deletion process to hold this very general disussion. /Lokal_Profil 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, disagreeing with the OTRS system is one thing, but this is clearly a press license. The disadvantages of the OTRS system overweight the benefits you cite by far. Solutions for the problems you pointed out have been found for flickr, too. They are true for websites with statements such as refered to by the template discussed here, anyway. They are not fatal. If OTRS is used in the correct way, by requesting not permission, but by requesting CC tags to be added to the site, this process can also be documented, and that is much more valuable than a "yes" to a biased question. (And has Commons:Email templates actually ever been used? I also do not think it is clear, truthful or even correct at all—the template makes some promises that are not necessarily given for all licenses. Also most requests (even if there have been one or two requests, ever, that used the template) give too much the impression that the release is for a specific purpose; for commons/wikipedia, and most people associated with commons/wikipedia noncommercial use, or even anti-commericalism. Requesting instead to put tags on a website radically avoids this dangerous association.) In fact, I already started the discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Prohibiting_license_requests, but nobody replied. --Rtc 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds more like you personally disagreeing with the OTRS system then there being any problem with this licens IF the FDF do agree to commersial/derivative use. A important part of Commons:Email templates is to explain all of the "downsides" of a free license to the copyrightholders in an clear and truthfull way. A second important part is that a CC licens on a webpage can be removed at any point making all the images from that webpage unfree since it becomes impossible for us to prove that they ever were under a free license. A permission logged with the OTRS is on the other hand unrevokable. In any case I think there are better places then a specific template deletion process to hold this very general disussion. /Lokal_Profil 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute that. If they really want to give a free license, they should cleary indicate that to public. The context of private mail communication is doomed to lead to misunderstandings, as the past has shown over and over again. (Especially because the communication often happens in a biased tone, hiding the almost exclusively negative consequences to the rights holders that a release under a free license has for him, and hiding to him that licensing under a free license is generally against his interests; something that can be avoided psychologically to a great degree if we require the rights holder to actively put a free license tag to the pictures on his web site.) The truth is simply that many rights holders (especially the professional ones) wouldn't and can't put, say, a clear CC tag on web sites simply because that is diametral to their fundamental interests. You are correct that what you describe is the way it is currently handled. But this process is incorrect and should be abandoned as soon as possible; it should be replaced by requesting people to put CC tags to the respective pictures on their web site to put an end to the unprofessional, unbearable, error-prone status quo that inherently seeds dishonesty. To license a picture to the public but sending the permission to a private entity instead of putting it besides the pictures is schizophrenic. --Rtc 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A permission allowing ANYONE (of course) to use the images for commercial/derivative would be valid just like any other permission sent to OTRS. The whole point with forwarding the letter to permissions@wikimedia.org is that they will verify that the permission is indeed free enough for use on commons. If it is not then we will have a clear answer. A free license is NOT required to be made public by the copyright holder but it must allow ANYONE to use it, this is how permissions for all other images work./Lokal_Profil 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A clarification is if the web site has a CC license on it. Anything else is without value. Please see the that the photos are obviously from the very context supposed to be released only for press purposes, and it is against the interests of the oranization to permit them to be used for anything else. It is undue to even ask for a free license—such a request can only be misunderstood and leads to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft. We should radically exclude all such pictures from commons, and we should discourage people to even write mails to such web sites asking for permission. (Trying to make people to put CC tags on their site is okay, but not a request for permission that is reflected only by a mail reply. That has too much the character of giving permission to one specific person or entity, while free licenses are always licensed to the public—only the act of putting a tag on one's web site gives one inherently the right intrinsic idea about that). Ceterum censeo formula esse delendam. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'am quite sure that commercial use is allowed. All we need to do is wait for details from Finnish Defence Forces. --Zxc 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, we need to wait until FDF puts a CC license tag on their web page, which won't happen. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is absolutely absurd. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is legally possible and valid to license an image by e-mail. Period. We wait for what the FDF says. --ThePeter 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not at all beyond a shadow of doubt that this is possible if the license is to be given to the public, and not merely to the person requesting permission resp. the project he is requesting for. --Rtc 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the license to be given to the public. If you license an image under GFDL to any one person, then this automatically implies that the public is free to use and modify the image. However, that does not make the public the adressee of the license. In fact, there is no such license that could be given to "the public" as such. --ThePeter 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there is. For example, in Germany, the famous 'Linux clause'. --Rtc 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the license to be given to the public. If you license an image under GFDL to any one person, then this automatically implies that the public is free to use and modify the image. However, that does not make the public the adressee of the license. In fact, there is no such license that could be given to "the public" as such. --ThePeter 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not at all beyond a shadow of doubt that this is possible if the license is to be given to the public, and not merely to the person requesting permission resp. the project he is requesting for. --Rtc 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is absolutely absurd. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is legally possible and valid to license an image by e-mail. Period. We wait for what the FDF says. --ThePeter 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, we need to wait until FDF puts a CC license tag on their web page, which won't happen. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All images taken by Finnish Defence Forces' photographers are free, this is known as many publications use them with the note "SA-kuva" (Finnish army picture). Perhaps not all images on the website are free, as some are for the website design but the normal photographs are, and have been always. --Pudeo 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it is used in many publications; the license permits press use. But not anything beyond that, such as marketing these pictures on themselves. Think about printing the picture on the back of a postcard and selling it. Think about selling posters with the images. Think about using hte picture for photomontage.--Rtc 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - wait for an answer. Period. Take your CC-rant up on the Village Pump. --Lhademmor 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - but i save all this Pictures in the german Wikipedia. --80.78.168.5 12:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep watch this -- High Contrast 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (I know IP's can't vote) - that does not mean you can print an image from mil.fi on 10,000 postcards and sell them, all it says is you can reproduce the material free of charge but it says nothing about derivative works or commercial use. I'd vote delete, were I a registered user. 130.230.4.13 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
* This is not a vote. --Iamunknown 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Atirador 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now and Delete if there is no reply or a negative reply. What a nonsensical discussion this is. Samulili 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now and Delete if the reply is negative. This is again an example of persons unfamiliar with the situation in one jurisdiction trying to apply the rules from another. A similar case was the deletion attempt of PD-Finland50. The FDF really allows the use of its published photographs without any restrictions, at least that is how it has been for decades. It can curtail the uses contrary to its wishes using the moral rights of the authors, which are unalienable in Finland, but it has not done so. --MPorciusCato 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they by «no restricions» mean that commercial use and derivative use is allowed, it shouldn't bee too hard for them to write it explicitly here.
- Nobody is suggesting that they must give up their moral rights. It is perfectly possible to grant a free license without giving up one's moral rights, as the CC licenses spefify. Kjetil r 11:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This discussion is a waste of time. -- Petri Krohn 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
* This is not a vote. --Iamunknown 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep--Darz Mol 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As I understand, 'to reproduce' does not mean the same as 'make derivative works' or 'use commercially'. --Jannex 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have sent a letter today. Please hold :) Samulili 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- And, any answer? --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No apparent reply from the Finnish government; no apparent derivative works and commercial usage allowances, so deleted. (→O - RLY?) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
March 25
[edit]copyrighted cartoon characters 84.133.80.217 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Manipulated version of [87]. Was speedy deleted by me before. Flominator 12:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio of http://www.howardlyon.com/images/paintings/page%203/Cave%20Troll%20Final%20Small.jpg
Instrument may not be authentic. Request for immedate deletion. 71.35.130.5 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep not a valid argument for deletion. --Rtc 08:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this violin was played more than 10 year by a one of the most popular violinists, after this time by a student from Itzhak Perlman. Into this instrument was the Vuillaume construction nr. The price was 110.000 € in march 2003. photographer -- Frinck51 11:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if User:71.35.130.5 was right, that wouldn't be a valid argument for deletion, but merely for correction of the description. --Rtc 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio (flickr author includes many copyrighted images without attribution Cmprince 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This particular photo by the author was placed in his 'Guys set'. I can usually tell the difference between fair/promo images & free use ones rather easily but this one is hard to tell. The author seems to have many pics taken by himself as well as some promo shots. I am well aware that certain users falsely label fair use photos as free (which I've reprted before) but this is a little more difficult to tell. Spellcast 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Angr: copyvio
derivative work (sort of intended, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vann Nath Whipping Men.jpg) Polarlys 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, as it was deleted yesterday. This is turning into a farce, see Image:Pict3808.jpg. Kjetil r 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not one license tag per user, please. Use {{PD-self}}, {{CC-PD}} or {{CC-BY}} instead. --Rtc 09:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is remarkably clear that noone has any right to dispute their status in any way whatsoever. Using one of the other templates will not guarantee against this. Valentinian (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course we are free to accept only reasonable licenses, and it is clearly not reasonable to do one's own license tag. What is insufficient about the tags listed above? You may put your personal remarks on the description page outside of the tag and you may even add your own "signature tag" or something similar in addition to one of the standard tags. It should really not be a problem to have one's personal mark with one's pictures and yet do not contribute to the license babylon. --Rtc 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is an anti-license, which simply means that nobody will have any right to make deletion nominations 10 years from now, should they - for one reason or another - doubt the PD-tag. Erik states that people are responsible for their own actions, but since this applies in all juristictions, doing so is merely being helpful. Valentinian (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why can't he use {{PD-self}} and state whatever he wants to state in an additional box or whatever? Others get it right, too. For example User:André Koehne/byme is a correct way to do it — using a generic template, yet having your personal imprint. Is that asking for too much? --Rtc 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could have asked him that question before you nominated his template for deletion. Valentinian (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If he changes the template accordingly, I will of course withdraw the deletion request. --Rtc 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could have asked him that question before you nominated his template for deletion. Valentinian (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course we are free to accept only reasonable licenses, and it is clearly not reasonable to do one's own license tag. What is insufficient about the tags listed above? You may put your personal remarks on the description page outside of the tag and you may even add your own "signature tag" or something similar in addition to one of the standard tags. It should really not be a problem to have one's personal mark with one's pictures and yet do not contribute to the license babylon. --Rtc 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as long as the pics end up in the right category why bother? Besides I also use my own template. --Lhademmor 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just asked EPO on the da:wiki if he could recommend a bot to change all the "By Griffen" templates to "PD-self" and add category "PD by Griffen" spelled like in the by Griffen template. Once this has been done, you can delete the licence. I just cant find the time or energy to change all this manually. G®iffen 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The user asked me to bot replace the tag with a standard tag. I did. So the template is no longer used/needed. --Gmaxwell 14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a screenshot of a piece of copyrighted software. PS2pcGAMER 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but the screenshot doesn't display anything that is eligible for copyright. --Rtc 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}} -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
was speedy delete: Uploader(LERK)'s request, and alternative image exists --> Image:Keisei-3000-2-3001.jpg
- Keep Alternatives are good. speedy deletion is correct only if they contain the same photo, not two different photos displaying the same content. --Rtc 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- kept
redundant---Image:Kobe church01s3200.jpg
- Keep Alternatives are good. speedy deletion is correct only if they contain the same photo, not two different photos displaying the same content. --Rtc 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- kept
Uploader(LERK)'s request, and alternative image exists --> Image:Keikyu-607-since-1994.jpg
- Keep Alternatives are good. speedy deletion is correct only if they contain the same photo, not two different photos displaying the same content. --Rtc 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- kept
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I already requested deletion of that template some time ago Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CNG. The arguments still apply, and the counter arguments à la "It's valuable for educational purposes" and "Very valuable" are really besides the point. FlagUploader's "The permission says 'you can use the images as long as...', not 'you can use the images on Wikipedia as long as...'" is also not a valid argument, because"you" "everyone" and because it is not explicit about what use is permitted; further the context of the mail request clearly talks about wikipedia and not about what would be use beyond some educational or scientific or press purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - once again just send a mail and ask for permission for everyone. If you get a no, then delete galore! --Lhademmor 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- been there, done that: [88] - They allow the use of their images under cc-by-sa and gfdl. --Flominator 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- They need to say so on their website then. The website has conflicting terms, "The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited."[89] Chatting per mail is not sufficient to give a license to the public (too dangerous that people misunderstand it as a request for a license for wikipedia or wikimedia projects)—really, almost all people simply don't understand what you are asking for even if you are explicit, they don't have to do with copyright issues each day or don't care. Copyright holders must actually add copyright statements and tags to their web sites directly! Only that ensures that they understand the nature of the license they are giving—they are giving it to the public, not to individual projects. It should be only fair for OTRS people to ask people to add license tags to their websites and not give some unclear reply by mail. --Rtc 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- They do NOT need to say so on their website. If an e-mail has been archived in OTRS, that most definately suffices. However, the ticket referenced above is about British/American spelling, and not about CNG's permission. I agree that the permission on Template talk:CNG is a bit thin. Siebrand 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, a mail to OTRS is not sufficient if they give are supposed to give a license to the public, not merely to one entity such as Wikimedia. This is especially true as only this act gives ordinary people the right idea about what is happening. --Rtc 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. If we have a permission on OTRS then we have all we need. What they do on their website is not our call. Try reading the friggin' policies before nominating a couple of hundreds of pictures for deletion! --Lhademmor 06:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- They do NOT need to say so on their website. If an e-mail has been archived in OTRS, that most definately suffices. However, the ticket referenced above is about British/American spelling, and not about CNG's permission. I agree that the permission on Template talk:CNG is a bit thin. Siebrand 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- They need to say so on their website then. The website has conflicting terms, "The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited."[89] Chatting per mail is not sufficient to give a license to the public (too dangerous that people misunderstand it as a request for a license for wikipedia or wikimedia projects)—really, almost all people simply don't understand what you are asking for even if you are explicit, they don't have to do with copyright issues each day or don't care. Copyright holders must actually add copyright statements and tags to their web sites directly! Only that ensures that they understand the nature of the license they are giving—they are giving it to the public, not to individual projects. It should be only fair for OTRS people to ask people to add license tags to their websites and not give some unclear reply by mail. --Rtc 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- been there, done that: [88] - They allow the use of their images under cc-by-sa and gfdl. --Flominator 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is not our call what they do on their web site. Commons is the one who wants to have pictures licensed freely. If we want to reach this goal, we can accept conly pictures from websites that have the license on it. I do not see a problem in accepting only such pictures except that such a requirement will avoid new and unveil many existing misunderstandings by rights holders about the nature of the license they are giving. It is not at all unreasonable to insist on the license on the website, because we have to make sure that we are not tricking the copyright holder into having the wrong idea about the license. It is our obligation to be honest to the rights holders; if he feels uncomfortable with the idea of putting the license on his website, then he has obviously not understood what the license is about and it is obviously neither his intention nor his interest to really license the pictures under a genuine free license. --Rtc 06:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If this template were deleted, then what would the consequences be for all the CNG images on the commons and wikipedia? Is it just a matter of proper (re)licensing or will we not be able to use them at all? --Steerpike 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- They can be relicensed, but you need to take the initiative! Without relicensing, they are not usable, see Resolution:Licensing policy --Rtc 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Flominator, the email you linked has nothing to do with permissions, could you check that out for us? Cary Bass demandez 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Try Ticket# 2006092710009217 - sorry my bad :( --Flominator 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yep that looks better ;)--Nilfanion 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. THis ticket licenses all images from the site both cc-by-sa-2.5 and GFDL. Siebrand 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Try Ticket# 2006092710009217 - sorry my bad :( --Flominator 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If it's a question of voting I vote to keep. Regarding the legal and policy questions I don't know much, but I hope there will be some way to keep all these images displayed on the commons and wikipedia articles. --Odysses 13:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Really I don't understand the problem, if the copyright holder of CNG site's images, send an e-mail in which he agree with free use of that images (providing only source attribution) why we have to delete all that images? I read They allow the use of their images under cc-by-sa and gfdl. It's right? Yes? So, where is the problem? CNG site is copyrighted? Is this the problem? They can apply copyright to text and to site apparence... it is their site and they can do what they want with it. Or I'm wrong? If he feels uncomfortable with the idea of putting the license on his website, then he has obviously not understood what the license is about and it is obviously neither his intention nor his interest to really license the pictures under a genuine free license. This is wrong a site isn't only pictures... it's text too. ELBorgo (sms) 14:45, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This case looks like copyright paranoia to me. If we have proof that the copyright owner has licensed the content under a free license, it really doesn't matter anymore what the owner's web site says. I really don't know who is supposed to benefit from such a strict approach. Sebmol 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn: Clarification received by Flominator, Ticket# 2006092710009217 --Rtc 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Bedankt voor uw reactie. Zoals we al op de pagina's in de fotogalerij vermelden, het is toegestaan om één van de getoonde foto's te gebruiken voor publicaties. Ten overvloede, en misschien ter verduidelijking, wensen we nog te vermelden dat bij gebruik als volgt bronvermelding dient plaats te vinden: « BRON: KONINKLIJKE MARINE" »." [emphasized by me] That means it may be used for publication purposes if credit is given. Publication purposes generally refers to contexts of journalistic or historic writings that talk about the event depicted on the picture. The words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found in the statement; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation. Further, it cannot be assumed that a web master is in the position to release rights. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Vorerst behalten. Ich habe den niederländischen User MarcoVD benachrichtigt, der die Lizenznachfrage damals abgewickelt hat. Ich hoffe, dass sich bald neues ergibt. Ich halte euch auf dem Laufenden. --W.wolny 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dafür war über ein Jahr Zeit. Wir haben es bereits damals vorerst behalten. Es wird sowieso einige Zeit dauern, bis gelöscht wird.--Rtc 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- The website clearly states: "Voor alle foto's geldt dat ze vrij mogen worden gebruikt, onder vermelding van "BRON: KONINKLIJKE MARINE"."—the preceding unsigned comment was added by DirkV (talk • contribs)
- Such arguments won't help you here, since it talks neither expressly of commercial use nor of derivative works. an argument would be to convince them to put a CC license on their web site for these pictures. --Rtc 08:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- They state the pictures can be freely used and don't mention any exception of anny kind, they only want them to be mentionend as the source. So what is the restriction that you object to?84.105.65.29 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "freely" and "used" can both mean a lot of things if left without qualification. You have to see the broader context, and we need to be critical when doing your interpretation. Don't take anything literal. That's a good advice in general. If they really mean a free license as we understand that here, you should have an easy way to ask them to replace their home-brew license by a standard CC license tag, and I will immediately cancel the deletion request the second the tag appears on their site. --Rtc 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- They state the pictures can be freely used and don't mention any exception of anny kind, they only want them to be mentionend as the source. So what is the restriction that you object to?84.105.65.29 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Such arguments won't help you here, since it talks neither expressly of commercial use nor of derivative works. an argument would be to convince them to put a CC license on their web site for these pictures. --Rtc 08:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Publication purposes only. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note, if anybody tries to convince them to license the content under a CC license, please make them understand that 1. CC is not a license itself, and 2. That most CC licenses are unfree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. I suggest to give people a link to http://creativecommons.org/license/, so they can choose freely a license according to their real intuition. This is really idiot proof. --Rtc 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note, if anybody tries to convince them to license the content under a CC license, please make them understand that 1. CC is not a license itself, and 2. That most CC licenses are unfree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Email received: Non derivative only. Forwarded to OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seems clear (see Ticket#: 2007032910012263), as it says “niet bewerken.” This discussion should be closed soon, and the images deleted. Also, this discussion and the Riksdag discussion show that the users saying things like “{{subst:Vk}}, 'free use' is a free license” should be ignored when deletion requests are closed. Free use is not a free license! Kjetil r 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted and redirected to {{Nonderivative}}: As a side note they explicitly disallowed use in combination with other stuff ("niet bewerken of monteren"). The images are thus not only unfree, but their use on Wiki[mp]edia is also a copyright violation. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In fact, I could not find a permission at all on this web site. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- they have changed Senate website in February 2007. Keep, with stipulation as in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SejmCopyright. Rules in both chambers of Polish Parliament are similiar. Julo 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. --Rtc 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- This situation is different from Sejm. We haven't actually got any permission text! Where it can be found and verified? Delete because it's unverifyable. A.J. 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not different. The law regarding both chambers of Polish Parliament is equivalent. In fact, webmaster of Senate website forgot to put informations about terms of use. Keep this template and add there "obsolete", as in Sejm-template. Julo 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc says otherwise, that on Sejm's site they forgot to put "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" phrase... So let's do not talk about what should be written, but what IS written. Another curious thing: Polish version of this template [90] mentions GFDL license! I'm going to have serius conversation with Ausir about that... A.J. 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I e-mailed them and asked about GFDL and they were OK with licensing all Senate images under GFDL, but sadly it was a long time ago, and I can't find the e-mail. Ausir 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc says otherwise, that on Sejm's site they forgot to put "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" phrase... So let's do not talk about what should be written, but what IS written. Another curious thing: Polish version of this template [90] mentions GFDL license! I'm going to have serius conversation with Ausir about that... A.J. 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not different. The law regarding both chambers of Polish Parliament is equivalent. In fact, webmaster of Senate website forgot to put informations about terms of use. Keep this template and add there "obsolete", as in Sejm-template. Julo 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: I actually did find it. Here's the entire correspondence:
- Witam,
- Jestem jednym z redaktorów Wikipedii, wolnej encyklopedii internetowej ( http://pl.wikipedia.org ). Piszę z pytaniem, czy możliwe byłoby wykorzystanie zdjęć senatorów ze strony Senatu w naszej encyklopedii? Wymagałoby to udostępnienia ich na licencji GNU FDL, która pozwala na ich dowolne użycie i rozpowszechnianie pod warunkiem podania ich autora/źródła (w tym wypadku byłby to link do strony Senatu).
- Z góry dziękuję za odpowiedź.
- Pozdrawiam,
- Paweł Dembowski
- Szanowny Panie,
- Kancelaria Senatu jest wlascicielem praw autorskich fotografii senatorow zamieszczanych na stronach www.senat.gov.pl. Nie zglaszamy zadnego sprzeciwu jesli ktos wykorzystuje nasze zdjecia czy informacje na swoich stronach (bardzo milo jest jesli zgodnie z dobrym obyczajem i prawem podaje zrodlo). Encyklopedie sa waznym i potrzebnym zrodlem informacji - tym bardziej wyrazamy zgode na publikowanie i udostepnianie zdjec senatorow ze strony Senatu.
- Serdecznie pozdrawiam
- Andrzej Andruszkiewicz
- Dzial Internetu
- Witam,
- Dziekuje bardzo za pozwolenie na uzycie zdjec w naszej encyklopedii. Zeby jednak sprawa byla calkiem jasna, musze dodac, ze cala tresc Wikipedii (w tym zdjecia) udostepniona musi byc na Licencji Wolnej Dokumentacji GNU ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL ) lub kompatybilnej z nia licencji, ktora pozwala na uzycie objetych nia tresci nie tylko w Wikipedii, ale takze na dowolne uzycie i rozpowszechnianie (rowniez komercyjne), pod warunkiem podania informacji o wlascicielach praw autorskich do danego zdjecia oraz pod warunkiem udostepnienia dziela, w ktorym objete ta licencja dziela bylyby uzyte rowniez na tej samej licencji. Dlatego tez nasza encyklopedia jest nie tylko darmowa, ale rowniez wolna. Czy zgadzacie sie wiec Panstwo rowniez na udostepnienie zdjec na licencji GNU, czy tylko na umieszczenie ich w Wikipedii? Jesli to drugie, to niestety nie bedziemy mogli ich uzyc.
- Z gory dziekuje za odpowiedz.
- Pozdrawiam,
- Pawel Dembowski
- Szanowny Panie,
- Udzielajac Panstwu zgode na uzycie fotografii bralismy pod uwage filozofie licencji GNU. Na wszelki wypadek, po Pana e-liscie, jeszcze raz skonsultowalem z prawnikiem te kwestie. Nie mamy zastrzezen by zdjecia byly udostepniane na licencji GNU.
- Pozdrawiam
- Andrzej Andruszkiewicz
- DI
In summary, I first asked if it would be OK for us to put the images from Senate website on Wikipedia under GFDL, the guy said that they are copyrighted by the Senate and that they do not object for them to be used by anyone anywhere as long as they are attributed to them, and especially in encyclopedia, I asked once again about GFDL, explaining the terms of the license and the possible commercial use of the photos, he answered that yes, they are aware of the GNU philosophy and that he consulted with a lawyer about it, and confirmed that they do release them under GFDL. When creating this template I mistakenly copied the Sejm one instead of putting GFDL in this one and didn't remember about it until now. Ausir 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn. --Rtc 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:PolishSenateCopyright replacing
[edit]As I know, there is a cooperation project of Senate of the Republic of Poland with Wikimedia Polska and template {{Polish Senate partnership}}. Therefore, in Commons is parallelly deprecated template {{PolishSenateCopyright}}, which should be deleted and repladced by {{Polish Senate partnership}}. Category:PolishSenateCopyright will be deleted with this template. 87.205.196.227 17:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The template is a valid license tag and is being used. We can not replace it with {{Polish Senate partnership}}, they serve different purposes. --Jarekt (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It's my own work. After contributing this image, I wondered if it's the copyvio for Wikimedia Foundation's logo-marks. Two in the image are wearing the badges that came from the complete logo-marks of Wikiquote or Commons. Is distributing this image under GFDL(or CC) copyvio? If it's copyvio, after this image is deleted, I will contribute it to Wikipedia as fairuse. --Kasuga 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the logos were copyrighted, which I doubt, then you couldn't use them under fair use either, since fair use is no blanket permission for everything that you don't have a license for. --Rtc 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, Rtc. If this image is judged as copyvio, I will redesign two that not use the logo-marks directly, like their eldest sister. --Kasuga 10:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, you could take the basic design elements from the logos (the blue arrows and red dot from the commons logo, blue dot and waves for wikiquote) and use these, without using the logos in their complete composition, as it is also done with the puzzle parts for wikipetan? --Rtc 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I could. I must admit my lack of creativity. I shouldn't have drawn the two sisters with the complete logos of Wikiprojects. --Kasuga 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The logos are protected by copyright. in the short term you could just white out the logos so people can edit in whatever they want.Geni 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and edited them out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Thank you for the job, Zscout370! I confirm that the image you edited is under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. By this, I think the copyright problem for the image have been solved. --Kasuga 09:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I confirm that the license is going to stay the same. Your quite welcome. Keep. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I confirm that the license is going to stay the same. Your quite welcome.
- I went ahead and edited them out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The logos are protected by copyright. in the short term you could just white out the logos so people can edit in whatever they want.Geni 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I could. I must admit my lack of creativity. I shouldn't have drawn the two sisters with the complete logos of Wikiprojects. --Kasuga 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, you could take the basic design elements from the logos (the blue arrows and red dot from the commons logo, blue dot and waves for wikiquote) and use these, without using the logos in their complete composition, as it is also done with the puzzle parts for wikipetan? --Rtc 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, Rtc. If this image is judged as copyvio, I will redesign two that not use the logo-marks directly, like their eldest sister. --Kasuga 10:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Keep, but expunge the old versions. Thanks again, Kasuga.--GunnarRene 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but delete all but the current version due to copyvio. --Aussie Evil 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but expunge the old versions. Nihonjoe 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but replace with new version without possible copyvios. RyGuy 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
keep, too bad for the commons-tan and new-tan :( they're less recognisable this way (actually, I might wouldn't have if I didn't see the original) Darkoneko 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think Commons tan should have a camera. Cary Bass demandez 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
She sure should have a camera. Deleted the old versions. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Confirmation was requested to permissions @ wikimedia.org. If it's really not public domain, it will have to go. If it's public domain, this will be kept. There's nothing further to discuss-- Drini 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've updated all images to reflect the release under the Creative Commons attribution 2.0 license, in accordance with a discussion with Secretaría de Medios Andrea Caldararo logged as Template:OTRS ticket. I've renamed the template to {{subst:cc-ar-presidency}}, which substitutes the license and attribution. —Pathoschild 22:35:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not subst the template but simply add: {{CC-AR-Presidency}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a press license, and it does not mention derivative work and commercial use. I also doubt that the webmaster is in the position to release any rights. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I dunno how you can interpret this as a press license? Use is permitted, read the email. Whether the webmaster is able to release rights is his call, not ours. --Lhademmor 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No; we are using the pictures and thus responsible, not the webmaster. --Rtc 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- We are not using the images by our own iniciative. We have an official permit to use the images, so there is nothing wrong using them as we have it. Thanos 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- We need the right to make derivative works. Kjetil r 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- No; we are using the pictures and thus responsible, not the webmaster. --Rtc 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We have a valid permission from the webmaster that also understands, what open source / contents means. It is totally irrelevant for us who gives the permission as long as it comes from an official e-mail address. Otherwise, how would you define "is in the position to release rights"? Is only the "Presidente de la Nación", the "Jefe de Gobierno", the Parliament in this position? That is not relevenat as long as we receive it from an official place. Theye have to know what they do. We can only help them to do the things correctly by advising how to license correctly. --ALE! ¿…? 11:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not irrelevant for us, we have the obligation of due diligence. I do not know who is in the position to release rights, but I know that it cannot be someone lower in the hirarchy such as a web master (how ridiculous is that). It doesn't matter whether he knows about open source. Many fallacies about free licenses stem from the fact that incorrect analogies to open source are drawn. Besides that my argument was that it does not mention derivative works and commercial use. We are responsible if we use the pictures, not the web master. --Rtc 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notice that it is your own speculation that the web master would not be allowed to decide this. It is the e-mail posted at the site for contact, he has been asked about releasing the images, and he has agreed to do so. This authorization is indeed made by the responsable of the site, not by a casual joker we found in a corridor if that's your concern. Thanos 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not irrelevant for us, we have the obligation of due diligence. I do not know who is in the position to release rights, but I know that it cannot be someone lower in the hirarchy such as a web master (how ridiculous is that). It doesn't matter whether he knows about open source. Many fallacies about free licenses stem from the fact that incorrect analogies to open source are drawn. Besides that my argument was that it does not mention derivative works and commercial use. We are responsible if we use the pictures, not the web master. --Rtc 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What do you pretend? A letter signed by the president of Argentina?. Regards, Loco085 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is legally covered. --Mariano 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- We need the right to make derivative works. Kjetil r 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete “public use” is not a free license! The images must be deleted, unless we can get a free license. It is no use “voting” keep, get a clear statement instead. Kjetil r 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The webmaster has been clearly told that the license would be in the terms of the GNU, with the proper links to all the sections that explain what is that all about. Wich means, he is aware about what would it mean if he said "yes". And he said "yes", wich means he does agree with all this. No reason to expect a "yes, comma, I allow derivative works and release content under a license compatible with GNU bla bla bla" if the question itself was asking that. As for the webmaster being able or not to do this... There are two possible asumptions: we can assume that he can, or that he can't. In the world of business, it's very common that the head chiefs hardly do any negociation by themselves, but transfer instead such capacity to others, lower in the hirarchy, allowing them to negociate and make deals and stuff. Legally, the part outside assumes that they are negociating with someone capable to negociate, but it's an asumption recognized by law. If something turns wrong, it's the part with a "fake" negociator (in this case, Presidencia de la Nación) who would have to deal with the cost of turning down the contract, the other part (us) is considered betrayed in it's good faith and not to blame. Legally, Wikipedia has been officialy authorized and is safe. On the other hand, we may assume that he can't, but to compensate the common state of things and denounce a negociator of acting in bad faith by making deals he may not be allowed to do, then we more than just an assumption: we need a clear indication that either the webmaster can not do this or that someone else is the one with the rights to do this. Thanos 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- He did not say "yes", he said "All the content of www.presidencia.gov.ar is for public use, and (if possible) I ask you to cite the source of the material", not refering in any way to the actual question. He also said "Well, speaking of GNU, I am also the webmaster and founder of www.softwarelibre.gov.ar.", but the free software movement's position on works of art, opinion, original research and such is that only non-commercial and non-derivative use needs to be permitted. --Rtc 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- So... you mean he has meant that the answer was "no", and we misunderstood him? Excuse the poor webmaster for not being a lawyer and not speak with all the due procedure, but that answer is affirmative. Thanos 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The webmaster perfectly understands, what free contents under GFDL means, because he says, that he is the webmaster and founder of www.softwarelibre.gov.ar". That means, that he knows that free use means also derivative use, etc.. --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- He did not say "yes", he said "All the content of www.presidencia.gov.ar is for public use, and (if possible) I ask you to cite the source of the material", not refering in any way to the actual question. He also said "Well, speaking of GNU, I am also the webmaster and founder of www.softwarelibre.gov.ar.", but the free software movement's position on works of art, opinion, original research and such is that only non-commercial and non-derivative use needs to be permitted. --Rtc 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why doesn't somebody write them an e-mail, asking explicitely if commercial use is allowed, and if the creation and redistribution of derivative works is allowed? Are you afraid of the answer? You can not reasonably believe that "All the content is for public use" is clear enough to claim that these things are allowed? Kjetil r 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Most people here think, that it is clear enough and the webmaster knew what he did. But if you have doubts, feel free to write an email to him. But please close the request until you have an answer. --ALE! ¿…? 07:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know Spanish, and because the website does not have a section in English, I don't want to write in English. Somebody who knows Spanish should write (I remind you that it is the users who want to keep that are responsible of “proving” that the license is free - and “the content is for public use” is not explicit enough) Kjetil r 07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- "I remind you that it is the users who want to keep that are responsible of “proving” that the license is free": I do not think so. We should assume good faith and that the webmaster kew what he did. Well, if anyone wants to write to the webmaster again. Go for it. I think it is unnecessary and a waste of time. --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good faith applies only to the intentions, not to the competence of people. --Rtc 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- As pointed, the "competence" is easily proved: the e-mail contacted is that of the webmaster, in charge of the site. If he can't give away the rights but does so anyway, with the things in the table we have now any court would assume good faith from our part. Thanos 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The competence is the copyright holder's, that is, the president's, not the webmaster's. The picture can only be licensed by the president or per procurationem by one of his agents. We can only claim good faith as long as no counter-argument has appeared, and by my very deletion request here that has happened. If the arguments I have given here are ignored, a claim of good faith cannot be held up anymore. Apart from that, we want pictures that are licensed genuinely under a free licensed, not pictures that might evade copyright enforcement by claims of good faith or similar tricks. --Rtc 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, ultimately the right may belong to the president, but that does not mean we must negociate with him. It is a universally accepted use that the hability to negociate and make deals is given to an "agent" of lower rank that deals with such stuff. And here, for all we know, for all we legally need to know, this agent is the webmaster. Our deal with him is enough. Yes, a counter-argument would invalidate this, but a strong counter-argument. So far, only suspicions have been given Thanos 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- A webmaster is not an agent of the president. Please be a little bit more realistic. Yes, only suspicions have been given, but they are objective and can be tested. --Rtc 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Legally, he is. Yes, he may be very low in the rank of importance of people working in the executive power of a country... but a web page also is. It does make sense that the webmaster is given the right to use the content of the page as he finds it more convenient. He has allowed free use, and asuming good faith (the juridic kind of good faith, not the use employed by users at Wikimedia) we are legally allowed to "trust" his competence and do what he allows in an archived permission to do. Thanos 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Legally, he is not. The webmaster has not been given any right whatsoever to use content, he has been given an order to create a web page out of given material and to put it on the web. Apart from that, we want pictures that are licensed genuinely under a free licensed, not pictures that might evade copyright enforcement by claims of good faith (in the juridic sense) or similar tricks. --Rtc 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- And the source of your statements about what he is and what he is not allowed to do is... (fill the space). Asuming good faith from the negociator sended to negociate with us is not a "trick" Thanos 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- What does the source of what I am saying matter as long as it is true what I am saying? Knowingly accepting permissions under alleged good faith from someone for whom we know that he cannot give them is a trick. --Rtc 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- So RTC, who should give the permission? The president himself? Don't be silly. So tell me who would be acceptable to give permission in your opinion? --ALE! ¿…?
- The president or an agent. The webmaster is not an agent. --rtc 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- So RTC, who should give the permission? The president himself? Don't be silly. So tell me who would be acceptable to give permission in your opinion? --ALE! ¿…?
- Actually, rtc, the source of any accusation (because it's rather more an accusation than a statement) is of utmost importance. I agree with Thanos that, assuming good faith, it is not by any means a delusion or deceive. By the way, has anybody at all sent the mail? - Julian's Rock (tell me) 15:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The source of a statement (which it is rather than an accusation) is irrelevant. It only matters whether the statement is true, and you can send a mail to them, telling them my "accusations" and asking them whether they are true, and you will see that they are. --rtc 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc, it seems to me that you are the only one having doubts. And BTW, how do you know that the webmaster can not act as an agent (as you call it) behalf of the president on these matters? --ALE! ¿…? 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lets stop talking about it. Simply check it and see it for yourself, ok? --rtc 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You go and check it! I do not have the doubts you have. --ALE! ¿…? 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have doubts: Doubts that what I am saying is true. So check it. I won't check it because that has caused other people to claim that my question was biased etc. in the past. Let's do it in a way that avoids such accusations of bias from the very beginning: You ask. --rtc 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nope and out. If somebody want's to ask. Go ahead. I'll do something else in the meanwhile. This is getting ridiculous. --ALE! ¿…? 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have doubts: Doubts that what I am saying is true. So check it. I won't check it because that has caused other people to claim that my question was biased etc. in the past. Let's do it in a way that avoids such accusations of bias from the very beginning: You ask. --rtc 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You go and check it! I do not have the doubts you have. --ALE! ¿…? 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lets stop talking about it. Simply check it and see it for yourself, ok? --rtc 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rtc, it seems to me that you are the only one having doubts. And BTW, how do you know that the webmaster can not act as an agent (as you call it) behalf of the president on these matters? --ALE! ¿…? 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The source of a statement (which it is rather than an accusation) is irrelevant. It only matters whether the statement is true, and you can send a mail to them, telling them my "accusations" and asking them whether they are true, and you will see that they are. --rtc 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, ultimately the right may belong to the president, but that does not mean we must negociate with him. It is a universally accepted use that the hability to negociate and make deals is given to an "agent" of lower rank that deals with such stuff. And here, for all we know, for all we legally need to know, this agent is the webmaster. Our deal with him is enough. Yes, a counter-argument would invalidate this, but a strong counter-argument. So far, only suspicions have been given Thanos 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The competence is the copyright holder's, that is, the president's, not the webmaster's. The picture can only be licensed by the president or per procurationem by one of his agents. We can only claim good faith as long as no counter-argument has appeared, and by my very deletion request here that has happened. If the arguments I have given here are ignored, a claim of good faith cannot be held up anymore. Apart from that, we want pictures that are licensed genuinely under a free licensed, not pictures that might evade copyright enforcement by claims of good faith or similar tricks. --Rtc 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- As pointed, the "competence" is easily proved: the e-mail contacted is that of the webmaster, in charge of the site. If he can't give away the rights but does so anyway, with the things in the table we have now any court would assume good faith from our part. Thanos 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI asked User:ALE if he could translate a couple of sentences into Spanish for me so that I could ask, but he responded with "Nice try". He is clearly not interested in finding out if the terms include commercial use and derivative works. Luckily, User:Loco085 will call them in a couple of days and ask. If the answer is positive, it should not be too hard for them to send a clear statement to OTRS. Kjetil r 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I told you, that you should at least give a link to the currently used template for these images and to the previous request for permission. That would be a fair handling especially for the case were the webmaster has changed. (Sometimes the successor does not know what the predecessor did.) And: I do not want to contact them again because I think that the permission is clear and that this persons knew what he did when he gave the permission. Period. --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why link to the template? If “public use” means what you pretend it does, he would simply say “sure, you may create derivative works and use them commercially.” You are obviously afraid of the answer because you declined to translate - your “nice try”-answer confirms that. Kjetil r 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just do not get it why you are so overkeen to delete this template and all the images when we have a perfectly fine permission. --ALE! ¿…? 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- This template has been listed under “unknown nature” at Commons:Copyright tags for a year now. Do you think it is unreasonable to check the terms of the permission more closely? If so, why is it listed as a “unknown nature” license tag? Kjetil r 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- We don't have a "perfectly fine permission". We have some unclear statement by a webmaster. --rtc 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just do not get it why you are so overkeen to delete this template and all the images when we have a perfectly fine permission. --ALE! ¿…? 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why link to the template? If “public use” means what you pretend it does, he would simply say “sure, you may create derivative works and use them commercially.” You are obviously afraid of the answer because you declined to translate - your “nice try”-answer confirms that. Kjetil r 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I told you, that you should at least give a link to the currently used template for these images and to the previous request for permission. That would be a fair handling especially for the case were the webmaster has changed. (Sometimes the successor does not know what the predecessor did.) And: I do not want to contact them again because I think that the permission is clear and that this persons knew what he did when he gave the permission. Period. --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good faith applies only to the intentions, not to the competence of people. --Rtc 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- "I remind you that it is the users who want to keep that are responsible of “proving” that the license is free": I do not think so. We should assume good faith and that the webmaster kew what he did. Well, if anyone wants to write to the webmaster again. Go for it. I think it is unnecessary and a waste of time. --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know Spanish, and because the website does not have a section in English, I don't want to write in English. Somebody who knows Spanish should write (I remind you that it is the users who want to keep that are responsible of “proving” that the license is free - and “the content is for public use” is not explicit enough) Kjetil r 07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Most people here think, that it is clear enough and the webmaster knew what he did. But if you have doubts, feel free to write an email to him. But please close the request until you have an answer. --ALE! ¿…? 07:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Where do you see any mention about a "press license"? The permission is very clear allowing "free use" of the pictures. The webmaster is the one who publishes the content of the web, obviously has editorial responsabilities, ergo we must assume he is able to give the permission. --Patricio Lorente 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Patricio, I think you are wrong: it says "uso público" ("public use"), not "uso libre" ("free use"). --Dodo 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The permission says «free use». Without any limitation. There is no mention of any "press licence". The permission is comunicated by the official in charge of the official site. --Roblespepe 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find the words "free use" anywhere, and even if, it wouldn't be clear enough. --rtc 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Roblespepe, I think you are wrong: it says "uso público" ("public use"), not "uso libre" ("free use"). --Dodo 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I would like to keep these pictures because they are truly worth, but the permission is quite weak. It was given by the technical guy that managed the presidence web server at that time and he was fired soon after giving such permission. Sadly, I do not see the permission formal enough to be taken seriously. Perhaps the best way is to ask again to confirm the permission in a more formal way Barcex 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- and he was fired soon after giving such permission: Is that an assumption by you or is it based on real knowledge. So please proof and share it. --ALE! ¿…? 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he was fired. I can witness that, since he's, more or less, a personal acquaintance. Technically, IIRC, his contract ended and was not renewed. However, he was not fired for giving us the permission for using AR-Presidency images, but for totally unrelated causes. Despite that, I have serious doubt about the validity of the authorization, since the webmaster has not (and never had) legal authority to release public property. Such authorization must be granted by the proper government official; in this particular case, the proper official is the Secretario de Medios de Comunicación (Secretary of Media), Mr. Enrique Raúl Albistur, or any of his deputies or executive officers down to the rank of Director. Cinabrium 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- and he was fired soon after giving such permission: Is that an assumption by you or is it based on real knowledge. So please proof and share it. --ALE! ¿…? 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete According to Commons:Email templates, "Only the copyright holder can give consent". The mail giving permission was sent by the webmaster of the website, and I doubt he is the real copyright holder of the contents. And I also think that "public use" is not enough: at es: we have seen lots of permission email like this, which have been revoked when we asked to use the "formal" email template. So I agree with Barcex: we should request the real copyright holder (not the webmaster) to give us permission using the email template. --Dodo 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Why are we voting this? Establishing whether the permission given complies with our rules is not a question of voting. We can vote that the Moon is cheese-made and that doesn't change the reality. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 08:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please close the request after we will have received the reply allowing us to act accordingly with delete or keep. --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The request is closed since the outcome does depend on what is confirmed. "public use" means "public domain" is not something that can be debated. Legal matters are not up for discussion. So the debate is over, we'll wait for confirmation and act according to it.-- Drini 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Where the information is incorporated in documents that are sold (regardless of the medium), the natural or legal person publishing the information must inform buyers, both before they pay any subscription or fee and each time they access the information taken from the ECB's website, that the information may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website" is a condition incompatible with commons licensing policy. If you wanted to sell a CD with these pictures on it, the seller had to inform the buyer beforehands that he can get these pictures for free on the website referd to. This asks for much more than just an attribution. Similar to the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, this is a condition that renders the license non-free. Besides that, the copyright[91], if read correctly within its broader context, clearly allows only press use and no commercial and derivative use beyond that. Further, the words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found there; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation of that license. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Once again stop that constant campaigning for CC or take it up at the Village Pump! But aside from that the license does indeed look confusing. --Lhademmor 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Lhademmor. Rtc, please note that the CC licenses raise as many objections to some, as those "evasion templates" raise objections to you. But further you are right. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Kph 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As long as republication and distribution , publication of derivative work, and commercial use of the work are allowed, a license is compatible with Commons:Licensing. Or am I missing something? Kjetil r 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you are missing something. However, sometimes licenses have serious flaws, such as "Where the information is incorporated in documents that are sold (regardless of the medium), the natural or legal person publishing the information must inform buyers, both before they pay any subscription or fee and each time they access the information taken from the ECB's website, that the information may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website" Such flaws are not fatal; that is, they don't deny the permission in a non-free way. But they do cause practical problems, and can make it very hard exercise a freedom in practice; commercial use here. Therefore, such licenses should be rejected. --Rtc 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. We could easily reproduce such images with free licenses. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Note to above: What makes you think the images can be reproduced? Surely that coins are copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What is the nominator saying? Speak plain English! --Chochopk 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Done - License states that if you publish the pictures on a DVD which you sell, you must tell the buyer that he can get the picture for free from their website - making the license unfree. Yonatan talk 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
REASON(bad quality) Mascobado 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ich schlage dieses Bild wegen seiner schlechten Qualität (bad quality) zur sofortigen Löschung (speedy deletion) vor. Es gibt bessere dieser Art und wird bessere geben (ich habe dieses Foto gemacht (I AM THE PHOTOGRAPHER), und erst nach dem Upload ist mir wieder eingefallen, daß unschöne Reflektionen das Foto unbrauchbar machen; in der Thumbnailanzeige fiel es nicht auf)--Mascobado 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Davon abgesehen, kann ich als Urheber und "Einsteller" nicht auf Schnellöschung bestehen?--Mascobado 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader immediately after upload, bad quality, unused. --GeorgHH 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Penguin of Suica
[edit]- Image:Suica card.JPG
- Image:Suica 2001 DEBUT.JPG
- Image:Suica Penguin Inflatable.jpg
- Image:JRE SUICA Penguin costume.jpg
They seem derivative works of Penguin of Suica. Japanese Wikipedia says the character is noted as "© Sakazaki Chiharu/East Japan Railway Company/dentsu".
--Kareha 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The argument is correct and valid. --Rtc 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--Kazutoko 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image:JRE SUICA Penguin costume.jpgの初版作成者です。既に同様の画像がアップロードされておりライセンスはクリアされているものと考えておりました。深くお詫び申し上げます。著作権の侵害の虞があるため、削除に同意いたします。--PRiMENON 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --Calvero 06:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteImage:Suica 2001 DEBUT.JPGの作成と投稿をした者です。Image:Suica card.JPGが投稿されていたのでこちらも投稿してよいのだと思っていました。著作権侵害の為、削除に合意します。--ジダネ 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment 依頼理由に同意。（こちらは投稿回数が50回未満）--Naohiro19 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete著作権侵害。--KENPEI 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. (削除処理しました。) - LERK (Talk / Contributions) 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. (
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- also Template:Money-EU
"reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro" There are three conditions in conflict with licensing policy: 1) an ideological one ("diametral to the image") 2) a restriction on the format of use ("format without relief") 3) nonderivative ("reproduction"). Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - seems a little suspicious. What the heck is a "format without relief"? --Lhademmor 12:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- 2D. Basicaly you can't make a 3D sculpture of the coin.Geni 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You wouldn't be able to make a 3D-sculpture out of only this one pic anyway I guess. --Lhademmor 12:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Correct. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- neutral Basically the aim of this kind of license is to avoid people making fake coins ;) So I feel that the restriction about "format" should be not a problem to us. On the other hand, the wording about the detrimental way to use a derivative work seems more fuzzy to me and may lead to more trouble. What are the restrictions about the pictural reproductions of USD coins for example? -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 14:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How is the image detrimental to the image of the euro? You can't make a 3D die out of a 2D image. And I take that the 3rd point means no alteration. Most of these images are straight copy from the source. --Chochopk 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, actually, if this licence implies that there is no possible derivative work, we should not keep the image as we want them to be freely reusable... -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep In my interpretation it's allowed to use such an image to display the coin in general but not to fake the existence of a particular one. I disagree with Rtc on the restriction to CC or comparable since that results again in one image uploaded multiple times to different Wikipediae. --32X 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Permissible licenses on Commons is not Rtc's idea. The fact that this deletion means additional work is not a valid argument against the stated reasons for deletion. — Ksero 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- 32X is not implying additional work. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- By "additional work", I was referring to "I disagree [...] since that results again in one image uploaded multiple times to different Wikipediae". His or her justification for disagreeing is not a valid argument in my opinion. — Ksero 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.ecb.int/bc/reproduction/html/index.en.html There's not problem at all in creating and offering images of coins (even notes)... as long as you don't reproduce anything that can be mistaken for real money (which is quite obvious) --LimoWreck 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read this. The reproduction rules you linked to only state the cases that are expressly forbidden. The pdf shows in what cases you are allowed to reproduce the design. And those rules are too restricted for the commons in my opinion. — Ksero 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The 'rules' state that you must attribute and defer to the European Central Bank when using these images. It asks only for credit. Which part of the 'rules' are too restrictive? --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply in my Delete-vote below — Ksero 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Images of the euro coins can not be altered in any way shape or form to begin with as is the case with most images of most circulating coinage in the world. The same priciples of image licensing that apply to other images can not be applied to those of the euro coinage. Detrimental in this case refers to defacing the euro coin image istelf. In other words, you can not alter the image in any way shape or form. This does not mean that you can't save it in a different file type. This means that when you save the image, it can't look any different from the original. In the course of saving to .gif format, there are always issues with pixilation, etc. This is not the same thing as defacing the image of the euro coin, and is therefore allowed. 'Non- dirivative' is assumed unless you superimpose the unaltered image of the euro coin atop someone's head for a fun photograph. All images of euro coins no matter the source are in the public domain and can be used for anything provided the text in the current license is present. --Theeuro 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "detrimental" also include using these images on an "The Euro Sucks"-web site? Also, if I take a picture of a few euro coins, I'm the copyright holder of that image. Thus it's obvious that not all images of euro coins are in the public domain. — Ksero 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Detrimental in this case refers to defacing the image of the euro coin. So one could not put a scratch into it intentionally without legal consequences. It is against international law to deface any coin. Regarding your picture: you can claim copyright over the picture, so long as appropriate attribution is made and the euro coin is not in any way altered- so the same rules apply to your photograph as they do to the images that are used here. All images of the euro coin are in the public domain. One thing must be clear... images of any and all money are in the public domain by design and definition. Rules apply for images of any and all money that do not apply to other images such as Dover's 1500 Pictures of Celtic Crosses. They are unique and can not be grouped into any categories that here exist. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply in my Delete-vote below — Ksero 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- When does the final tally of votes for or against occur so that a decision can be made about this? --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. I see no reason whatsoever to delete the euro images. —Nightstallion (?) 07:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Buy yourself glasses. I gave not one, not two, no, three reasons for deleting the images. --rtc 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I presume that Nightstallion doesn't consider the reasons you stated to be valid reasons to delete the images, and I agree. The images as held on the commons abide by all of the criteria set out in the licensing and are hence free for use by any person for any purpose, the licensing criteria for the commons. Bigbluefish 23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are not free to modify and they are not free to use for reproduction in a format without relief, and they are also not free to use diametral to the image of the euro. --rtc 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Bigbluefish, they are not free for "any purpose": namely, what rtc has already wrote in text twice. --Iamunknown 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are free to use for reproduction in a format without relief. The idea is that one can not make a reproduction of the coin in such a way that a 3 dimentional product is the result. By this standard, one would not be permitted to make a plaster cast of the coin. That is what is meant by 'releif'. I'm not sure where you are getting your interpretation of this policy from. It seems as though you are not understanding what these terms mean. '...provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro' means the image itself, the actual picture. It does not mean image in terms of what others think about it. However, if you want to put a red line through the coin, you can not. If you want to replace the portrait of King Albert II with that of Adolf Hitler, you can not. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the terms of use provided by the ECB in using images of the euro coins. This has to do with international law regarding the use of coinage worldwide. To what end are you trying to restrict the use of images of the euro coins? If this is your argument, then all images of all money regardless of nationality must be removed from commons. This problem will not be solved by having someone take pictures of the coins and then upload those pictures to commons, because the same restrictions will apply to those as well. The restrictions apply to all images of all coinage worldwide. Even coinage which is outdated and obsolete are governed by this law. For the purposes of what they are used for in Wikipedia, images of euro coins are allowed to be used. What is so difficult to understand, and what is this argument really about? --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply in my Delete-vote below — Ksero 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I presume that Nightstallion doesn't consider the reasons you stated to be valid reasons to delete the images, and I agree. The images as held on the commons abide by all of the criteria set out in the licensing and are hence free for use by any person for any purpose, the licensing criteria for the commons. Bigbluefish 23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Buy yourself glasses. I gave not one, not two, no, three reasons for deleting the images. --rtc 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide your opinion. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - these images are obviously not free for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. --Iamunknown 20:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- One can not 'derive' any images of any coins of any country unless the image of the actual coin remains intact. This is an international standard, governed by international law. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Stevy76 09:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide your opinion. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Ce modèle est trés utile !/this template is very useful! Mikani 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as has been said before, "provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro." is clearly not compatible with the Commons "images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose". — Ksero 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, Image in terms of the actual image, not image in terms of what people think about something or someone. The images can be used for anything by anyone. --Theeuro 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- (in response to previous comments): What international treaty(ies) are you referring to? The International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, and Protocol of 1929? In addition, if pictures of coins and banknotes must be unaltered, what about printing "SPECIMEN" across images of banknotes to signify that they aren't real banknotes (as required by the ECB with images of euro banknotes [92])?
- As for the meaning of "image", it might be appropriate to go to the source instead of quoting that simplified pamphlet/poster. From 2001/C 318/03:
Reproduction of all or part of the common face design of the euro coins is authorised without recourse to a specific procedure in the following cases:
- for photographs, drawings, paintings, films, images, and generally reproductions in flat format (without relief) provided they are in faithful likeness and are used in ways which do not damage or detract from the image of the euro;[...]
- I'd say that the word image in that paragraph refers to "image in terms of what people think about something or someone". Coincidentally, this is from the same text, which I think refutes TheEuro's "All images of the euro coin are in the public domain":
The copyright on the design of the common face of the euro coins belongs to the European Community represented by the Commission.
- Regarding other currencies, that depends on the country. See for example Wikipedia:Template:Money-US and the other at Wikipedia:Category:Currency_copyright_tags
- Regarding "For the purposes of what they are used for in Wikipedia, images of euro coins are allowed to be used", I agree. But let me again quote Commons:Licensing: "The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose"
- Also, let me clarify that deleting these images on the Commons doesn't mean that Wikipedia will be devoid of images of euro coins. It just means that images of euro coins will have to be uploaded to each wikipedia (once for each language), possibly with a fair use rationale (for the national side of euro coins). — Ksero 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that this was the case. Having said that, it does seem counter-productive to have to upload to each wikipedia.
- I'm not sure if you know this but I am employed by the EU as liaison between EBC and EC. It is my duty to provide images and specifications to the public via EC from ECB in the form of PDF files and then those are published in the OJ. It is my job to know what this language means. I was present when the text was written and as the liaison, my signature appears on this document. The particular term 'image' in the case in point refers to the actual image of the coins themselves. The euro has no image in terms of what people think, oficially speaking. Some people hate it others embrace it. Personal opinion and writing about personal opinion is not governed by the ECB. While the EU in general has become what we refer to as the 'union of red tape', it certainly hasn't begun imposing on the personal liberties of its citizens or those of other nationalities.
- The International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, and Protocol of 1929 is not as all what I am refering to. The euro coins are in the public domain. Their images are in the public domain. No single country or entity has any copyright or other image protection rights over those images aside from the restrictions set forth by the ECB, which is again enforced by international law. Printing SPECIMIN across banknotes does little to deter counterfeiting and if one can make a passible euro banknote simply by copying the image of one without SPECIMIN printed accross, then they deserve to spend the money. They have also circumvented no less than 1500 counter measures in place to prevent such things from happening. The coins are what people try to counterfeit the most.
- Is there a way to modify or include something within the Commons policy to seperate images of coins from other images? I think this is the only solution we have before us that would make everyone happy. Can Commons not simply add an addendum to their policy regarding such images? There is the concern that other images will be requested a special dispensation or suspension along these lines, but surely coinage and other monetary forms present a unique challenge to the existing policy. I'm not very content at all to accept the notion that what is allowed on Wikipedia is not allowed in Commons. My impression is that Wikipedia would rather have the images exist on Commons in the first place.
- I would shudder to think that these articles must go without images simply because a rule must be followed. You know if all the rules were followed the euro would never exist. Germany and Austria were prevented from joining any unions together in any form in 1946. That rule was ammended to allow for them to participate in both the EU and the EMU.
- The idea of conforming to a rule simply because said rule is written is not the expected practice of the creative people who contribute to Commons and/or Wikipedia.
- Can there be a middle ground to 'be bold' and change the policy? --Theeuro 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you are saying that these pictures are essentially {{Nonderivative}}. No, that can't be changed, and no exception can be made, see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. They have to be deleted. --rtc 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no real legal problem once the obvious legal warning is taken into account. Michelet-密是力 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- rtc, this is being ridiculous. Whatever the copyright warning, no licence will ever allow you to make conterfeit money. The objections you raise apply for any kind of currency, and the answer is the same anywhere: as long as reproduction is allowed, it can be used under a free licence, since no authorisation nor payment is needed to reproduce the currency, and you can use it in any kind of derivative work - provide, of course, you are not making conterfeit currency ! but then, this is not an "author's right" issue, but penal lay applied to false monney, of course. The copyright warning is perfectly correct as it is. Michelet-密是力 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Several brasilian website license templates
[edit]User:555 requested clarification of the licenses on the web pages one year ago (Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates). There is no clear result, which would only be to convince these organizations to use CC license tags on their web site (as done for Template:Agência Brasil). It must be assumed that these pictures are for press use only. The web sites especially do not expressly mention that derivative work and commercial use are permitted outside the narrow realm of use for press purposes --Rtc 04:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as per the site you link to, it's free use - and yes I saw your objection, but lets cut down on the deletionism and see if we can find a portugese admin who can clarify things first. --Lhademmor 12:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:555 is a portuguese admin, and he requested clarification of the licenses on the web pages one year ago (Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates). This is not deltionism, it is the result of one year of discussion, requests etc. all without result. it is the last resort, and things have to be brought to an end one today. Today is that day. --Rtc 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay then, Delete the Template:AgenciaCamaraBr since there doesn't seem to be a reply, but keep the others as pr. Arnomanes comment. And it's not this request that's deletionist - it's the fact that youve nomineret a few hundred pictures for deletion at one time. --Lhademmor 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What comment of Arnomane are you referring to? --Rtc 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay then,
- User:555 is a portuguese admin, and he requested clarification of the licenses on the web pages one year ago (Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates). This is not deltionism, it is the result of one year of discussion, requests etc. all without result. it is the last resort, and things have to be brought to an end one today. Today is that day. --Rtc 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please Keep these media files from now. I may try to contact the copyright holder again to try to get some clarifications (I have my reasons to think that senado.gov.br this year is more flexible to the freedom but I can't post it here) Lugusto • ※ 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep
(in portuguese)
Nos sites da Agência Senado, assim como da Agência Câmara, não se faz referência que o uso livre é somente para a imprensa. Diz apenas que o uso ou reprodução são permitidos, desde que citada a fonte, ou seja, que seja citado que aquela imagem provém da Agência Senado (ou Câmara); no caso da Agência Câmara, citar também o nome do fotógrafo.
Ou seja, os websites nem citam a imprensa; citam apenas a necessidade de dar o crédito à fonte (ou seja citar o nome da agência, e, quanto aplicável, do fotógrafo que originou a imagem)
- (in english)
- In the sites of the Agency Senate, as well as of the Agency Chamber, not reference is done that the free use is only for the press. It says barely that the use or reproduction they are permitted, since cited to spring, or be, that be cited that that image comes of the Agência Senado (or Câmara); in case of of the Agência Câmara, cite also the name of the photographer.
- Or it be, the websites neither cite the press; cite barely the need of give the credit to the spring (or is going to cite the name of the agency, and, as much as applicable, of the photographer that originated the image)
- AGÊNCIA SENADO
http://www.senado.gov.br/agencia/imagens.aspx
- (texto original em português); (Original text in Portuguese):
- Imagens autorizadas desde que citada a fonte: Agência Senado.
- (tradução para o inglês); (Translation for the English) :
- Images authorized since the source is cited: Agência Senado (Agency Senate).
- AGÊNCIA CÂMARA
http://www2.camara.gov.br/internet/bancoimagem
- (texto original em português); (Original text in Portuguese):
- O Banco de Imagens é um produto do Serviço Fotográfico (SEFOT - Secom).
- Reprodução permitida mediante citação do nome do fotógrafo e da fonte.
- Informações: (61) 3216-1818 e 3216-1816
- E-mail: sefot.secom@camara.gov.br
- (tradução para o inglês); (Translation for the English) :
- The Bank of Images is a product of the Photographic Service (SEFOT - Secom). Reproduction permitted if the name of the photographer and of the source are cited.
--chico 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All these governmental press agencies have the same policies and not rarely the same picture is published by all of them: Agência Câmara, Agência Senado, Presidência da República and Agência Brasil. Dantadd✉ 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
all kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template is too unclear, and you don't know whether they subsume commercial use and derivative work under "public domain". Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). Chances should not be too bad for this one. --Rtc 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Public domain is public domain, that is, you may do anything with it. - Andre Engels 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Public domain" is exactly often not w:public domain. See for example "Zwar ist eine scharfe Abgrenzung der in diesem Zusammenhang gebrauchten Begriffe PD, freeware und shareware aus der Literatur nicht eindeutig entnehmbar, und es wird ausgeführt, daß die ganze Entwicklung auf diesem Markt sich im Fluß befinde. Zweifelsfrei gemeinsam ist für die Autoren jedoch der Ausgangspunkt, daß PD zunächst eine unentgeltliche und frei verbreitete Software bezeichnet."[93], OLG Stuttgart, Urteil vom 22. Dezember 1993 (4 U 223/93) That is, you can assume about PD only that it permits copying and distributing (not making derivative works) without giving money to the author The actual use of the term is too broad. --Rtc 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted, the tag is unusable. The server seems to be permanently down, no verification is possible, & the tag has been used only on Image:Acorn atom zx1.jpg so far. Michelet-密是力 06:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
SVG available, image has been replaced on all articles. --Markus1983 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
no need to delete this version, which has slightly different colors. --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Relisted on 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Template:Sxc-warning violates Commons policy: It requires notification of the creator for commercial purposes. The template text states that you
- "Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image
- In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
- For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
- On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way."
Also:
- "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!"
That's not in accordance with Commons:Licensing:
- "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: (...)
- Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses".
Delete the template and all images referring to it. --Fb78 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this is intended to be a valid licence tag. Should be added to Category:Problem tags? William Avery 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- At one point the sxc license was different (more ambiguous) and for a time I think we allowed uploads. Later however the terms changed, and thus this tag was changed to note that any new sxc images are not allowed on commons (without further permission from the author). However some older uploads may still link to this tag, with a more ambiguous status. See Commons:Stock.xchng images for more details (which is where my knowledge is from). This tag in itself is fine, Keep as it correctly notes that sxc terms are not acceptable for commons uploads. Carl Lindberg 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- So we just claim that we assume the images were PD before the license changed? I don't feel very comfortable with this. I'd rather have explicit permissions by the original creators than just saying that "many uploaders to stock.xchng wish their work to be effectively public domain". How do we know this? How do we verify this in any individual case? It's an unstable license, and we're speculating too much about creators' intentions here. --Fb78 14:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- This template has already been deleted before by community consensus, but this time it might have a purpose. We claimed that the photographers' choice of "no restrictions" corresponds to {{copyrighted free use}}, since stock.xchng didn't have the right to impose additional restrictions on top of what the photographers had chosen. But it's true that we can't be sure of the creators' intentions. It would indeed be good to have permission for each and every image, but apparently stock.xchng is protecting rights to their database so much that it is close to impossible to contact the creators in mass. Most of the images will probably have to go. This is currently being discussed at the Village pump. --Para 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Under US law "no restrictions" wouldn't have been enough to make the images free enough for our purposes in any case... But its moot now for two important reasons: 1) The site changed long ago to remove that ambiguity, and again more recently to make it really obvious. 2) Even before the changes a quick look at their forums shows it's easy to find that many of their users expected the terms to be followed, so ethical behavior demands we follow them. --Gmaxwell 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until all images under this tag have been resolved, as per discussion at the VP (linked above). Kelly Martin 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The template isn't intended to support keeping the images, rather, it is just an honest statement of the images status until something is done with them. If the community decides to mass-delete these images, I can carry that out through the same process I used to tag them.. but only if that is the communities desire. --Gmaxwell 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{Noncommercial}}. See the line in all caps above in the problem description above. To relicense this photo under a free license, the image must be taken down from stock.xchng. Jesse Viviano 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine with me if we can get consensus for mass deletion of the existing files.. --Gmaxwell 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a common misconception with these seemingly one sided license agreements that a license is an attribute of the work, when in fact it's the agreement between the two parties sharing and using the work. The photographers have authorized stock.xchng to be their non-exclusive agent without any copyright transfer, so the authors can do whatever they want with their photos regardless of them also being hosted on stock.xchng. While some of the photos with this template may have to be deleted, there is no hurry to do that. No speedies! --Para 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right, we can get grants from the photographers.. but we don't have them yet.. So what we have here is equal someone mass uploading image they simply found on the web.. No acceptable license grant. My personal view is that we should keep the images tagged with the warning, speedy the images that are unused, and try to contact the copyright holders while we slow delete them in order from the least useful/unique to the most useful/unique. I'm just not opposed to mass deletion if thats what people want. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support Gmaxwell's opinion not only with words, see Category:Pictures by Michael Slonecker. Keep, but also keep removing this template by gathering licenses from authors. A.J. 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support Gmaxwell's opinion not only with words, see Category:Pictures by Michael Slonecker.
- Right, we can get grants from the photographers.. but we don't have them yet.. So what we have here is equal someone mass uploading image they simply found on the web.. No acceptable license grant. My personal view is that we should keep the images tagged with the warning, speedy the images that are unused, and try to contact the copyright holders while we slow delete them in order from the least useful/unique to the most useful/unique. I'm just not opposed to mass deletion if thats what people want. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{noncommercial}} -- actually the licence there is even more restrictive than noncommercial (free porn and all), but it all comes to the same result. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support phasing these images out. I would say that we delete everything that is unused, and try to find replacements for the others, such that they can be deleted after a certain timespan. I would say that this timespan will be 3 months, and that after those months we delete them all, in use or not. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly Support this idea. 3 months will give us more than enough time to find replacements for the most-used images. They're not free, and they have to go.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree too but I think we should start a wikiproject or something of the sort trying to contact the owners of different sxc.hu pictures. There are about 800 and a lot of them are probably from the same authors. So far I have a 100% success rate asking people for permission for their sxc.hu photos and there are some really beautiful photos from there. We should, of course, not accept any new photos from sxc.hu without a permission. Yonatan talk 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I don't disagree with contacting people but .. 100% out of what? I haven't gotten 100%, nor has enwiki. --Gmaxwell 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, I suppose I misrepresented my figures. I had meant to say 100% out of what in my last comment but apparently I forgot to; I've contacted about 10 up until now but I think we should be able to keep at least 50% of the sxc.hu images if we work to contact them. Yonatan talk 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I don't disagree with contacting people but .. 100% out of what? I haven't gotten 100%, nor has enwiki. --Gmaxwell 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree too but I think we should start a wikiproject or something of the sort trying to contact the owners of different sxc.hu pictures. There are about 800 and a lot of them are probably from the same authors. So far I have a 100% success rate asking people for permission for their sxc.hu photos and there are some really beautiful photos from there. We should, of course, not accept any new photos from sxc.hu without a permission. Yonatan talk 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This template should be replaced with one that says something to the effect of "we believe that this image was intended to be public domain, but we do not have verification from the author", try to contact the authors, and then delete anything we can't get permission for. The current text is very confusing, especially because it often appears with a {{pd-self}} kind of tag. Brighterorange 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- But we know for a fact that more than a few of the authors don't intend the work to be public domain. I have no issue with changing the template, but we should not make it inaccurate. --Gmaxwell 11:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly
- Question Why does this template remain on images that are freely licensed, even after they've been checked and are ok? I find this stupid and annoying. Pengo 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't if the permission has been verified. No such images seem to exist though, none with PermissionOTRS or PermissionOTRS-ID templates. Where are they? --Para 10:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- When we have recieved a free license from the copyright holder we should probably remove all mention of SXC unless the copyright holder wants us to keep a one. --Gmaxwell 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- SXC's incompatible license doesn't apply to those images anymore, so there is no reason to make things harder for reusers by denying them direct access to the source, author and their other work unless the author requests a specific way of crediting and linking. Otherwise we would also have to remove all source links from other images for which we have acquired a license different from the source page, and not just SXC ones. We should instead encourage people who also host their files outside Commons to include a link on the image page here, so that people can easily find all the information, discussion and contact data related to the file. --Para 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the author makes a release it should be no different than tham uploading it here. Are the images I've submitted "harder for reusers" because we're not providing some outside source? The link back to SXC is confusing because it make it look as those SXC is an acceptable source. :( --Gmaxwell 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is: it's not possible to contact people through Commons if they have contributed indirectly, unless an external source is provided. The external source is the first point of contact for all such files. We currently have files from SXC with two kinds of descriptions: SXC link and an OTRS template, or SXC link and an obnoxious template that is being reduced. Having people take example of either of those is not a problem. The Foundation could of course step up and start forwarding contact requests through OTRS, but that would weaken the position that the WMF is not an intermediary for any of the media hosted here. --Para 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most commons users haven't set email addresses and we don't require them to do so, but last I heard the commons community rejected this notion. In any case could start asking SXC users if we can post their email addresses. ... So is it okay if I just start speedying any newly uploaded image from SXC that don't have an OTRS template? --Gmaxwell 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is: it's not possible to contact people through Commons if they have contributed indirectly, unless an external source is provided. The external source is the first point of contact for all such files. We currently have files from SXC with two kinds of descriptions: SXC link and an OTRS template, or SXC link and an obnoxious template that is being reduced. Having people take example of either of those is not a problem. The Foundation could of course step up and start forwarding contact requests through OTRS, but that would weaken the position that the WMF is not an intermediary for any of the media hosted here. --Para 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the author makes a release it should be no different than tham uploading it here. Are the images I've submitted "harder for reusers" because we're not providing some outside source? The link back to SXC is confusing because it make it look as those SXC is an acceptable source. :( --Gmaxwell 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- SXC's incompatible license doesn't apply to those images anymore, so there is no reason to make things harder for reusers by denying them direct access to the source, author and their other work unless the author requests a specific way of crediting and linking. Otherwise we would also have to remove all source links from other images for which we have acquired a license different from the source page, and not just SXC ones. We should instead encourage people who also host their files outside Commons to include a link on the image page here, so that people can easily find all the information, discussion and contact data related to the file. --Para 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- When we have recieved a free license from the copyright holder we should probably remove all mention of SXC unless the copyright holder wants us to keep a one. --Gmaxwell 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OF NOTE: The en. featured picture [94] carries this tag TheDJ 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? I have deleted the images using this template that were not used anywhere, at least as reported by BadOldOnes, and being in the first 200 of the category. Currently more than 800 images carry this template and according to the license, we are not allowed to relicense them, which is what we are doing. I propose that we set a date (say 1 July 2007) when the images will be deleted, so that local communities have the possibility to exchange the images that are currently used. I also encourage Commons users to tag SXC images as {{Superseded}} where possible, as this will warn local communities through CommonsTicker about available alternatives. Siebrand 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have been trying to replace some of these images, but there is resistance to doing so. I think we should just plan on deleting them at our earliest convenience. The amount of time it is going to take to convince people to replace them is simply not worth it. --DavidShankbone 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not drag an issue like this on for ages. That is why I proposed 1 July as the last day the images will be available. Siebrand 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why not June 1st? I don't really think much will be achieved by July. Most editors on the Pedias don't really understand these issues until the image is no more. I don't think it is a big deal either way, but sooner rather than later seems better to me.
- 1 July because then anyone who does want to take pro-active action before deletion has the time to take care of all the 800 or so images involved. If we delete them in a week, it would be a really hard job. So let's make it final: these images will be deleted on 1 July 2007. I'll change the template. Siebrand 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why not June 1st? I don't really think much will be achieved by July. Most editors on the Pedias don't really understand these issues until the image is no more. I don't think it is a big deal either way, but sooner rather than later seems better to me.
- I agree that we should not drag an issue like this on for ages. That is why I proposed 1 July as the last day the images will be available. Siebrand 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Process
[edit]Should we remove the SXC tag from images that have an OTRS tag or other release information (not {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, which apparently was incorrectly stuck to many of the SXC images)? What do we do to avoid overzealous deletion of images sourced from SXC which have in fact been properly licensed? And in a related vein, what can we do to find those SXC images which still need permission, so we can email the creators? grendel|khan 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think we indeed need to remove the warning template and add an OTRS reference if an image is properly licensed by the autor. You can use the bad old ones, as descriptions are completely shown. Siebrand 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the photographer's request concerning this image at User talk:172.202.143.206#Image:Bridge string thru body.jpg. Thanks! — Jeff G. 05:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the photographer's request concerning this image and perhaps more at User talk:80.142.168.222#sxc. Thanks! — Jeff G. 06:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Metal movable type edit.jpg is still marked with the sxc tag, but as a rotated/cropped version of the above image, it should probably be retagged too. Carl Lindberg 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Image should Stay!
[edit]You may use image: In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones. -
- Thank you for your input. Obviously you have not read the above discussion. Siebrand 06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which image were you writing about? None of the images in Category:Four Seasons Hotel Hong Kong appear to qualify. Thanks! — Jeff G. 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion closed. Images will be deleted on July 1st, 2007 (see comment of Admin Siebrand above.) --ALE! ¿…? 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"peuvent être reproduites"—reproduction is not modification. The permission statement[95], if read correctly within its broader context, clearly allows only press use and no commercial and derivative use beyond that. Further, the words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found there; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation of that statement. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 05:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We need 20th century pictures. Kph 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether we need them, that is only secondary, if at all. It is relevant only whether they are correctly licensed under a free license, compliant to commons licensing policy. This is not the case here. --Rtc 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- We definitely need 20th century pictures, but only as long as they are freely licensed. Kjetil r 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - find a French admin, send a mail and ask for clarification. --Lhademmor 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - please find a French admin, send a mail, and ask for clarification. But unless we have a free license, the template must be deleted. Kjetil r 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly your statement shows that "libres de droit" cannot be taken as a free license per se and is often understood in different meanings: copyleft is something entirely different. It contraints derivative works not to add additional restrictions to the license. CC-BY-NC-SA is well a copyleft license, but it doesn't permit commercial use and is thus not genuinely free. On the other hand, CC-BY is a non-copyleft, free license. If you understand "libres de droit" as copyleft and not as a free license, how do other people understand it? We cannot know without clarification. --Rtc 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well i took it to be similar to the "CC-BY Attribution" license, as the French govt seemed to have waived their rights. "libres de droit" is sufficiently generous for us to assume, in all good faith, that no other restrictions exist, at least until further clarification has been obtained.Raoulduke47 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Take the initiative! Without clarification, these pictures have to be deleted, see Resolution:Licensing policy. Good faith concers intentions of commons users, not commons copyright policy. --Rtc 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It is the users wanting to keep that are responsible for getting an unambiguous statement from the copyright holder. We do not assume things about free licenses. Kjetil r 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've sent a message to the French ministry. Waiting for the answer. Raoulduke47 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well i took it to be similar to the "CC-BY Attribution" license, as the French govt seemed to have waived their rights. "libres de droit" is sufficiently generous for us to assume, in all good faith, that no other restrictions exist, at least until further clarification has been obtained.Raoulduke47 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly your statement shows that "libres de droit" cannot be taken as a free license per se and is often understood in different meanings: copyleft is something entirely different. It contraints derivative works not to add additional restrictions to the license. CC-BY-NC-SA is well a copyleft license, but it doesn't permit commercial use and is thus not genuinely free. On the other hand, CC-BY is a non-copyleft, free license. If you understand "libres de droit" as copyleft and not as a free license, how do other people understand it? We cannot know without clarification. --Rtc 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- "libres de droit" is not at all ambiguous. It is 100% clear that the images are free of all rights. Contrary to the nominator's statement, there is nothing at all that says anything about only allowing press use. I urge him to clarify what he means when he says that. Andrew Levine 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have now sent them an email asking for clarification. Kjetil r 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh? So it isn 't up to the users who want to keep anymore? I hope you're more coherent in your emails than in your atittude here, Kjetil, or they're not likely to understand you. Raoulduke47 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you refer to the fact that you have sent them an email? I have to admit that I didn't notice that when I sent mine. Kjetil r 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (by the way, I am a user who want to keep - but only as long as we get a free license)
- Well, if you hadn't seen it then that's OK. Maybe sending two emails is a good way of avoiding any misunderstanding? My correspondence so far can be seen here. - Raoulduke47 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you refer to the fact that you have sent them an email? I have to admit that I didn't notice that when I sent mine. Kjetil r 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (by the way, I am a user who want to keep - but only as long as we get a free license)
- Oh? So it isn 't up to the users who want to keep anymore? I hope you're more coherent in your emails than in your atittude here, Kjetil, or they're not likely to understand you. Raoulduke47 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
*
Keep -- "libres de droit" means "free of all rights", that is Public domain. Rama 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are so sure about that, why not go ahead and check whether it's actually true, by sending them an email, telling them about the concerns and asking them for a comment? --Rtc 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to understand your logic. I am quite certain that the weak interaction involves exchanges of W and Z bosons, and I do not pester the CERN with mails asking for them to comment; actually, the more certain I am, the less likely I am to ask for comments. Rama 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then your false understanding also applies to the realm of science. Scientific theories are not certain, and any belief that they are certain, or probable, or become more certain or more probable over time is ideological. In fact, the less certain a scientific theory is, the better it is, since it makes more precise predictions then. ("It will be raining sometime in the future" is almost certain – in contrast to "It will be raining tomorrow") Science works by inventing new theories and comparing them to existing theories by experiment and logical analysis, not by becoming less likely to ask reality for comments because we are more certain. My logic is that subjective certainity cannot in any way establish the truth of something, because truth is objective. If you are so certain about your claim, it should be no problem for you to expose it to a severe test if someone asks for it; a test that could show it to be wrong if it were wrong. If you are right, you have nothing to loose. I understand your logic, and it is certainly used a lot, but it is wrong. It is called irrationalism. --Rtc 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- You fail to take into account that both in the "realm of science" and in everyday life, their is something called "time". Of which I have little to waste in pointless and pedantic quibbles. Rama 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then cease them. --Rtc 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weren't you writing e-mails to check whether electrons actually exist and what planet this is ? You might have been all wrong all along ! It could have changed in a heartbeat ! RUN ! Rama 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of electrons and planets cannot be tested by writing emails. It is correct that I might have been wrong all along; and yes, it could have changed in a heartbeat. That doesn't mean that it actually will change in a heartbeat, though. Although there is no certainity involved in scientific theories, that does not mean that it is wrong to accept them as true. It also doesn't mean that I should run. --Rtc 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weren't you writing e-mails to check whether electrons actually exist and what planet this is ? You might have been all wrong all along ! It could have changed in a heartbeat ! RUN ! Rama 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then cease them. --Rtc 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- You fail to take into account that both in the "realm of science" and in everyday life, their is something called "time". Of which I have little to waste in pointless and pedantic quibbles. Rama 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then your false understanding also applies to the realm of science. Scientific theories are not certain, and any belief that they are certain, or probable, or become more certain or more probable over time is ideological. In fact, the less certain a scientific theory is, the better it is, since it makes more precise predictions then. ("It will be raining sometime in the future" is almost certain – in contrast to "It will be raining tomorrow") Science works by inventing new theories and comparing them to existing theories by experiment and logical analysis, not by becoming less likely to ask reality for comments because we are more certain. My logic is that subjective certainity cannot in any way establish the truth of something, because truth is objective. If you are so certain about your claim, it should be no problem for you to expose it to a severe test if someone asks for it; a test that could show it to be wrong if it were wrong. If you are right, you have nothing to loose. I understand your logic, and it is certainly used a lot, but it is wrong. It is called irrationalism. --Rtc 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to understand your logic. I am quite certain that the weak interaction involves exchanges of W and Z bosons, and I do not pester the CERN with mails asking for them to comment; actually, the more certain I am, the less likely I am to ask for comments. Rama 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are so sure about that, why not go ahead and check whether it's actually true, by sending them an email, telling them about the concerns and asking them for a comment? --Rtc 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Andrew Levine. The statement "libres de droit" is here very clear. Svartkell 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Voting will be ignored here. If you are so sure about that "libres de droit" is a clear as you claim, why don't you go ahead and check whether your position's actually true, by sending them an email, telling them about the concerns and asking them for a comment? Are you afraid of the truth? --Rtc 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because one (maybe two) such e-mails have already been sent? /Lokal_Profil 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- And what was the reply? --Rtc 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The answer is "toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite". Much though i disapprove of Rtc's arrogant attitude, i'm afraid in this case he is correct, and these photos will have to go.Raoulduke47 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for you efforts. --Rtc 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The answer is "toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite". Much though i disapprove of Rtc's arrogant attitude, i'm afraid in this case he is correct, and these photos will have to go.Raoulduke47 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- And what was the reply? --Rtc 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because one (maybe two) such e-mails have already been sent? /Lokal_Profil 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Voting will be ignored here. If you are so sure about that "libres de droit" is a clear as you claim, why don't you go ahead and check whether your position's actually true, by sending them an email, telling them about the concerns and asking them for a comment? Are you afraid of the truth? --Rtc 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite disagrees with Commons licence. --moyogo 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- delete please compare the copyright notice of the Ministry's web site: Les reproductions à but commercial ou publicitaires ne seront, sauf exceptions, pas autorisées. which means "The reproduction for commercial purpose is apart from exceptions not allowed".--Wiggum 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. This text applies to everything but graphics, photos and videos. See the first lines of the section, they say "contact us". Moreover, the text on this page supersedes this general note. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete «toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite» : It's clear! no commercial use .--Cloclob € 14:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. But not its modifications without its significate. Libertad y Saber 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: "Les photographies de ces expositions sont libres de droit à l'étranger". This means that the pictures are not "libres de droit" in France. Thus, they're not free enough. Dantadd✉ 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, this is because in French law, there is no such thing as "libre de droit": some author's rights ("droits moraux" - moral rights) are irrevocable and... perpetual (even beyond the 70 year limit), despite any contract (s)he may sign. Strictly speaking, this also means that artistical work by French people published on Commons will never be as free as the attached GFDL or CC license would claim it is. Another headache for the bold one. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it's only specifying. Obviously in France too (French Ministery's file), I think. --Libertad y Saber 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete if the latest answer of the Ministry is accurate. I won't comment the policy itself, but I find it appalling that ministry employees should be so inconsistent and apparently ignorant of the meaning of what they write themselves. Rama 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's my opinion too. This is a clear contradiciton with the "Libre de droits" sentence. I doubt the veracity of the answer given to Raoulduke47. It would be worth giving it another try by contacting directly the "service photographique du ministère des Affaires étrangères" (Foreign Affair Photograph Department). My 2 cents. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does the work of the US-Gov can be use for commercial use without restrictions?--Cloclob € 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant in this discussion. Siebrand 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, «toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite». See Commons:Licensing and our requirements. If you disagree with the deletion, please get a official permission with an explicit statement regarding the license, send it to OTRS and contact me. I’ll restore the photos in this case. You should do this before creating individual templates and uploading files anyway. --Polarlys 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged" "Reproduction" does not mean "Modification", and it also does not mean "for other than personal purposes". To me, this seems to be clearly at most a press license. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press license that does not expressly permit derivative work and commercial use. A case very similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:SPDFraktion, for example. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- but please explain what it is you want to use the images for, that you think is not allowed? / Fred Chess 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- derivative work and commercial use are not permitted. What is incorrect about my argument that you vote for keep? --Rtc 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- I'd say expect good faith (or something like that) - if they say "Bilderna [...] är fria att använda (the pictures [...] are free to use) then we have to expect that it includes derivative use. No point in imagining worst case scenario. And wether you want to campaign for CC-only is irrelevant - then we'd probably have to delete ~70% of the database! --Lhademmor 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright law is no place for good faith. --Rtc 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright law is no place for unclear statements either. --Lhademmor 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, and that's why I requested deletion. --Rtc 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright law is no place for unclear statements either. --Lhademmor 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright law is no place for good faith. --Rtc 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep by Lhademmor. I don't see the point in the CC crusade. This project is based on the GFDL, not CC. Valentinian (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am fine with GFDL, or any other "release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license", too. --Rtc 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- KeepPer above. Wouldn't it be better to discuss RTCs worries somewhere elese then on the 15 odd templates he has nominated for deletion during the last 48hours? /Lokal_Profil 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment what about writing to the Riksdag asking if they allow commercial use and derivative works? Kjetil r 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get a clear statement that allows commercial use and derivative works. Commons:Licensing states that:
- Republication and distribution must be allowed
- Publication of derivative work must be allowed
- Commercial use of the work must be allowed
- "Bilderna är fria att använda" == "The images are free to use". We can not be sure if publication of derivative works and commercial use is allowed. Kjetil r 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've now written to the Riksdag asking them to specify if they allow commercial use and derivative works. I'd say keep the template until we get a clear answer or a reasonable time has passed. /Lokal_Profil 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We will of course keep the template for a reasonable amount of time, waiting for a reply. Kjetil r 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lokal-Profil and Kjetil if you know how the law works for these things, you'll know that sv:PUL prohibits unrestricted commercial use, and that's not something the Riksdag can change. The derivative work thing is also an illusion, since the only possible derivative use of the image would be to distort it (if you can be specific about a different kind of derivative work, please be; Rtc displayed his inability to be so earlier), and such distortions are also prohibited by the Swedish law as it would either violate the moral right or be defamatory. So even if the images are as free as they can get, the Riksdag will probably tell you that their commercial and derivative use are restricted. Again, I'm not sure what commercial use is intended here (newspaper, T-shirt, advert for Coca-Cola?), and if you can formulate something more specific than Rtc is able to, I'm sure it would be easier to confirm the commercial possibilities... because we can be quite sure that the Riksdag doesn't allow the use of an image for a purpose where it puts the subject in a defamatory situation, or in a way that may appear that the person supports or endorses a brand or company -- not primarily because of copyright restrictions but because the law prohibits it (public domain as it is known in the U.S. doesn't exist in the same way in the EU). Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I might be wrong on the details. / Fred Chess 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We will of course keep the template for a reasonable amount of time, waiting for a reply. Kjetil r 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cropping and changing the color balance are two examples of a legitimate need for permission to make and redistribute derivative works. Kjetil r 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kjetil. / Fred Chess 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- An example of commersial use which is not defamatory but would need a commercial license would be the equivalent of en:baseball cards but with swedish politicians instead (I know not very likely). I assumed that protection against defamatory use always applied. Anyhow you are probably right that even if riksdagen agrees they will probably want these restrictions (which are compatible with Commons licensing) to be pointed out in the template. Anyhow I'll wait for a reply from their PR department. /Lokal_Profil 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kjetil. / Fred Chess 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cropping and changing the color balance are two examples of a legitimate need for permission to make and redistribute derivative works. Kjetil r 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Commercial use and defamatory use of depicated persons must be permitted copyright-wise, such that I am not sued twice (once for violation of coypright and once for violation of personality rights) when I am using the picture defamatorily. You are right that most modification is prohibited by personality rights anyway, but that is not a reason to accept double-restriction by copyright law. A valid and personality-rights-wise legal use for derivative work would be the creation of caricature. (Cropping and changing the color balance are really already permitted for a press license.) A controversial commercial use would be to print posters and postcards with the photo and selling them, or to use the picture as the title of one of the major periodicals. The photographer certainly wouldn't like not to see no money for such use. --Rtc 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over the term "defamatory use" here. Firstly, caricatures would be considered (free speech protected) satire which, prima facie, would not be considered defamatory. The right to take legal action against actual defamation in the legal sense of the word can never be waived by a licence, no matter what your jurisdiction is, and such use is not permitted for CC- or GFDL-licensed or public domain works either.
Suggesting that a work isn't free if it can't be used to violate laws against defamation is as absurd as suggesting a work isn't free if you can't legally create a false advertisement or child pornography with the work as a backdrop. The responsibility for all such legal aspects of the work must reside with those who publish modified works.
Our only concern, then, is to ensure the legality of derivatives from a copyright law point of view. The licence in question here certainly permits commercial use (again, obviously not including false claims of endorsements or false advertising, or other illegal works which can never be permitted by licence). The only possible reservation one might have is that modifications may not be allowed. However, the choice of the word "användas" (used) rather than "spridas" (distributed) or "publiceras" (published) suggests a permission broad enough that the copyright holder would hardly have a legal leg to stand on in claiming that a reasonable interpretation should not include use in derivative works.
—LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Copyright and personality rights are independent from each other. A copyright license waives the restrictions imposed upon by copyright; but you can well double-protect your personality rights by copyright restrictions on the picture by introducing as a copyright restriction that you loose the right to use as soon as you violate personality rights! In case someone uses the picuture defamatorily (and nowhere did I say that caricature is defaming, it was merely an example of derivative work that goes beyond cropping and changing color), he has to face court twice; once for violating personality rights and once for violating copyrights; and the damages he has to pay are even higher. A free license is supposed to protect users from this double punishment by not adding such double-protections by copyright. Generally, you think too much about "when is the use politically correct", which is hardly an issue about copyright, and you think not enough about "when does the original photographer have financial interests in the use of the picture or derivative works thereof, because it is not used anymore for the purpose for which the buyer paid." (And I have given as an example poster/postcard use and creating a caricature—this was meant concerning financial interests of the original photographer, not concerning personality rights!) Of course, "used" is an ambiguous term and it can mean anything; thus, clarification is badly needed. --Rtc 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification would of course be beneficial, but the notion that a statement that a work may be "used freely" needs clarification badly because its intent could somehow be interpreted as prohibiting certain uses so as to supplement personality rights seems far-fetched to say the least. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't far-fetched, but realistic. You must see the issues from the photographer's perspective, not from the perspective of getting good pictures for commons. --Rtc 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather look at it from a legal perspective, and from a legal perspective, it is far-fetched that "used freely" should mean that it may not be used freely. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Legally, "x" rather seldom means that x. --Rtc 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather look at it from a legal perspective, and from a legal perspective, it is far-fetched that "used freely" should mean that it may not be used freely. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't far-fetched, but realistic. You must see the issues from the photographer's perspective, not from the perspective of getting good pictures for commons. --Rtc 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification would of course be beneficial, but the notion that a statement that a work may be "used freely" needs clarification badly because its intent could somehow be interpreted as prohibiting certain uses so as to supplement personality rights seems far-fetched to say the least. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Got a reply back from Riksdagen's informational uni saying
Håller med dig om att det är otydligt skrivet. Vi kommer att uppdatera webbtexterna om bildrättigheter. Bilderna på talmannen, ledamöterna och riksdagen är fria att använda i sammanhang där riksdagen och riksdagens arbete beskrivs. Bilderna får inte användas för kommersiellt bruk. Reproduktion i reklam och marknadsföring är inte tillåten. Med vänlig hälsning Catherine Svedelid Informationsenheten Sveriges riksdag
- Which freely translated becomes: The text describing how the images may be used will be updated. The images are free for use in context mentioning the Riksdag and the work of the riksdag. The images may not be used commersially. Reproduction in advertisment and marketing is not allowed.
- So I guess that's it /Lokal_Profil 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Experimentum crucis successful; conjecture corroborated. --Rtc 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete based on that. Given that the previous (irrevocable) statement did not exclude any particular uses in granting free use, we could probably continue to use the images safely, but since the licensing statement was not very clear and has now been changed to a more precise and less permitting one (which is different from, say, someone attempting to retract an unambiguous CC-licence), I think we ought to respect that. Of course, this also means deleting all images from the official Riksdag website. Look out for images tagged as {{Members of the Riksdag}} and other images in Category:Members of the Riksdag which are not from that website. (Neither the template name nor the category name make it clear that they exist for source and licensing purposes. I've personally put several images of members of the Riksdag from other sources in the category manually.) I guess we'll have to have a wikiträff with cameras at Riksdagshuset... —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some links to free images which might help replace some of these images when orphaning:
- Thomas Bodström: Image:Thomas Bodström.jpg
- Göran Hägglund: Image:Goran hagglund 2006 election gothenburg.jpg, Image:Allians för Sverige.jpg
- Gunnar Hökmark: Image:Israel manifestation, Stockholm, 2006-08-20 01.jpg
- Lars Leijonborg: Image:Lars lejonborg 2006 election gothenburg img1of2.jpg, Image:Allians för Sverige.jpg
- Fredrik Malm: Image:Fredrik Malm - 2006-06-03 (gabbe).jpg, Image:Fredrik Malm - 2006-06-03 (Jon Åslund).jpg, Image:Mandagsrorelsen.jpg
- Maud Olofsson: Image:Allians för Sverige.jpg
- Göran Persson: see Category:Göran Persson
- Fredrik Reinfeldt: Image:Allians för Sverige.jpg, Image:Fredrik Reinfeldt 2003-10-27.jpg
- Bo ("Bosse") Ringholm: Image:Bosse ringholm sep2006.jpg
- Björn von Sydow: Image:Björn von Sydow and William Cohen.jpg, Image:Donald Rumsfeld and Björn von Sydow.jpg
- —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some links to free images which might help replace some of these images when orphaning:
- And some more:
- Johan Forssell: Image:Johan Forssell, 2006 08 11.jpg
- Nina Larsson: Image:Nina Larsson LUF.jpg
- There are more images of Lars Leijonborg at Category:Lars Leijonborg
- Pär Nuder: Image:Pär Nuder 2004-11-01.jpg
- There are more images of Maud Olofsson at Category:Maud Olofsson
- Leif Pagrotsky: Image:Leif Pagrotsky 26-10-2005.jpg (may be unfree)
- Mona Sahlin: Image:Mona sahlin 2006 election gothenburg.jpg
- Thomas Östros: Image:Crown Princess Victoria and Thomas Östros in Aichi, Japan.jpg
- And some more:
- Also note that Image:Swds2.jpg incorporates Image:Nyamko Sabuni.jpg. There are also a number of images from regeringen.se which are tagged as copyrighted free use, without the Members of the Riksdag tag, but which are probably covered by the same licensing terms. It should be pretty to find these if the riksdagen.se images are deleted first.
- Again, even if the template and images tagged with it are deleted, please keep Category:Members of the Riksdag. In the now unlikely event that the images are kept, the template should categorise tagged images as Category:Images from riksdagen.se (or something to that effect), which should be a subcategory of Category:Image sources, to prevent overcategorisation of tagged images belonging in a more specific category and to separate subject categorisation from source categorisation.
- —LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can't that be done anyway independently of whether the template is kept or not? It would be an easy way of finding out which images are not effected and make substitutions easier. /Lokal_Profil 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Riksdagen has now updated the information on their webpage to clarify the situation. the wording is identical to that in the e-mail. /Lokal_Profil 12:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can't that be done anyway independently of whether the template is kept or not? It would be an easy way of finding out which images are not effected and make substitutions easier. /Lokal_Profil 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- —LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Change template to match the new copyright restrictions of the Riksdag, similar to Template:Norden.org which says that the image were once free but are no more. Of course, our free derivatives are still free. The same goes for the Riksdag pictures - they're not free on riksdagen.se anymore, but they were earlier. Fortunately, we copied them all back then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- These pictures have not changed their copyright status. There are no "new copyright restrictions." The mail was a clarification of the copyright status, not a change of it. Thus, the pictures are not compliant to COM:L and must hence be deleted. --Rtc 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted, reason: „Bilderna på talmannen, ledamöterna och riksdagen är fria att använda i sammanhang där riksdagen och riksdagens arbete beskrivs. Bilderna får inte anändas för kommersiellt bruk. Reproduktion i reklam och marknadsföring är inte tillåten.“ (Translation: „The text describing how the images may be used will be updated. The images are free for use in context mentioning the Riksdag and the work of the riksdag. The images may not be used commersially. Reproduction in advertisment and marketing is not allowed.“ That’s not compatible with our (and every other project’s) guidelines, see Commons:Licensing. Derivative work and commercial use must be allowed. I’ll replace some photos on sv.wikipedia.org before I start the deletion. Sorry guys, someone has to do it. --Polarlys 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"All materials on this web site (IRFCA.org), including but not limited to the text, documents, images, multimedia (sound, video, etc.), data files, computer programs, artwork, and site design, are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or republished in whole or part without permission from the copyright owners. All rights reserved."[96] --Rtc 10:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and also the images that transclude it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Coat gaertner. --Rtc 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- 113 images in total. Discussion has been silent for 6 weeks at the linked. Siebrand 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Images tagged nld. Will be deleted as no license in a week. Uploaders have been informed. Siebrand 12:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This seems to be a press license, commercial use and derivative work not being permitted expressly. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Please note that the most majority of media files using this template as license don't have mention to sources (neither mentioning a web source neither mentioning a book, magazine, newspaper, whatever). I think that only the statment of this tag isn't sufficient as a source. Lugusto • ※ 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
template replaced with {{speedydelete}} (there is no proof for that license to be accetable in Commons) --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Besides that I doubt that this goes beyond press use, and that it permits commercial use and derivative works, it requires that "the image is not used with an intent to insult MORS and/or Slovenian Armed Forces." This is an ideological condition contradicting commons licensing policy. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Your CC-advise should be taken to the Village Pump, not here! But besides then the template does indeed look non-free. --Lhademmor 12:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Permission for CC-use on OTRS Kameraad Pjotr 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This seems to be a press license, commercial use and derivative work not being permitted expressly. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Please note that the most majority of media files using this template as license don't have mention to sources (neither mentioning a web source neither mentioning a book, magazine, newspaper, whatever). I think that only the statment of this tag isn't sufficient as a source. Lugusto • ※ 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
template replaced with {{speedydelete}} (there is no proof for that license to be accetable in Commons) --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a free map. The same applies to Image:Cartina-Umbria-Bocca Serriola.JPG. Dantadd✉ 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The image came from wikitravel.it project, and I Modify it by adding evidence for 'Bocca di Forli' place. I do not see the problem. --Mario1952 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio to me. --ALE! ¿…? 07:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The card is a product of the US Government, however the photograph (almost certainly) isn't. I know I could have just nsd tagged this and waited for a week. However, I'm listing this as a full up deletion request for two reasons: Firstly, its conceivable that this one is free. Secondly, when closing this debate (as delete); please contact a en.wikipedia admin to restore the image there and get them to retag the image as fair use.--Nilfanion 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image is PD: COM:L#Iraq. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm proof? Source? There's two reasons to be suspicious. Firstly, 2003 isn't 5 years ago yet; its possible it was published in that narrow period. The second (and rather more important), this could well be an AP photo (or similar), after all they are easier to come by in the west.--Nilfanion 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This should never have been put in for deletion. Instead, there MIGHT be an issue where instead of PD it should be marked as Fair Use. So the correct tag if you dispute it would be: {{Wrong-license}}. Frankly, it really seems like it is public domain. I've searched the Internet and have found the only mention of copyrights on the playing cards are the Jokers, which have an image of the HOYLE® Joker which is copyright The United States Playing Card Company. The images of the playing cards have been reproduced (for profit as well as for fair uses) thousands of times throughout the world. I would love if I had the copyright of this image for it would be easy for me to start sending letters around the world demanding payment for the use of this image. I would be rich. Since there is no report anywhere of anyone having done so, it really seems unlikely that this is the case. Please consider either removing the deletion tag or at least replacing it with the {{Wrong-license}} tag. There isn't any doubt that even if this isn't public domain (I think it is, though) that it is, without doubt, fair use. I would change the tag myself but I'm unsure about Wikipedia policy whether I have the right to do so or if it takes an administrator. I urge the person who put the tag there to change it or remove it. Fanra 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read my initial statement. Remember this is on Commons not Wikipedia and Commons does not accept fair use. I opened this request specifically to make sure the closing admin ensures the image is uploaded on en.wikipedia as fair use if this is deleted. The PD is questionable because of the photo not the card, it is not known who the photographer was.--Nilfanion 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I got it wrong. I did think that perhaps it should be put on Wikipedia and not Commons. Isn't it correct to move it to wikipedia instead of deleting it? Or is there no way to do that other than deleting it first? Fanra 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess if Commons demands that all sources be positively verified that you make a good case since we can't confirm 100% that the photo is PD. It is true, however that thousands (no exaggeration) of publications around the world have used the image and for profit companies have used it to make playing cards, all without any notice that can be found of any complaints of copyright issues, other than the Joker image. Fanra 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Current {{PD-Iraq}} applies to the photo. -- Cat chi? 08:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I refer to the provisional English translation by User:Sekicho (Template talk:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP). There is no indiciation that derivative work is allowed. It contains the significant clarification in its conclusion "Reprinting is permitted as outlined above." and reprinting does not mean modifying. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan(MLIT) says 'No restriction on use', so it is allowed to make derivative work. We only have to mark as "National Land Image Information (Color Aerial Photography), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport." when using it. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- We do not accept licenses unless they expressly permit commercial reuse and derivative works. Is there evidence that this license does so?
- Votings not based on argument (ie., replies to mails asking for clarification) cannot be accepted. "use" does not mean "commercial use" and also does not "derivative work". --Rtc 10:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- We do not accept licenses unless they expressly permit commercial reuse and derivative works. Is there evidence that this license does so?
- Keep In the first reply from the Ministry (see ja:Template‐ノート:国土情報航空写真), they stated "それが商用・非商用は問いません。また画像の加工は行っていただきましても問題ございません。切り出しや文字の挿入などご自由にお使いください。", translating into "This applies regardless of commercial use or non commercial use. And it doesn't matter you modify them. Feel free to crop, embed texts, etc."--Kareha 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work goes way beyond cropping or embedding words. It means for example erasing part of the picture and replacing it by a fictional future state of the city. Please ask them whether they permit only editorial use or whether they permit real commercial use (say, for example, some application such as google earth). If they in fact want to to so, please ask them kindly to use a Creative Commons license, such that it is easy for us to see the terms of use and for them to know whcih rights they release. --rtc 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (1) Cropping and embedding are just examples and not all what they permitted. The 2(3) of the official term of use says "Our land information and the results of editing and modifying them can be reprinted and quoted, in condition of the attribution properly shown...". (2) Is it valid allowing "not real commercial usage" and not allowing "real commercial usage" at the same time? (3) Unfortunately, in my understanding, creative commons licenses have no authority in Japan yet, though your suggestion sounds sweet....--Kareha 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Find creative commons licenses for japan local law at [97] --rtc 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work goes way beyond cropping or embedding words. It means for example erasing part of the picture and replacing it by a fictional future state of the city. Please ask them whether they permit only editorial use or whether they permit real commercial use (say, for example, some application such as google earth). If they in fact want to to so, please ask them kindly to use a Creative Commons license, such that it is easy for us to see the terms of use and for them to know whcih rights they release. --rtc 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The license agreement do not forbid both derivatives and commercial uses, and the reply from the Ministry backs that up. Article 4 of the license says that the purpose and the method of using the work is left to the user. So what's the problem here? To Rtc: I ask you not to be so CC-centric. The spirit of the Commons is to create a repository of freely-usable media, including but not limited to CC-licensed. Why persist on CC? --Asahiko 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "free licenses" are only those for which derivative works and commercial reuse are expressly permitted; this license does not expressly permit derivative works, so it is not free and has no place on Commons. --Iamunknown 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. The license explicitly mentions derivative works, and asks the user to give attribution when using modified versions. Roughly speaking, I believe this is basically the same as cc-by. Uh, do we need to translate the license to English? --Asahiko 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would help; I am informed only by the translation of e-mail transcripts at Template talk:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP which do not expressly mention derivative works. --Iamunknown 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we shouldn't base our discussion on what is merely a correspondence between a Wikimedian and the Ministry... The original license is what you find at http://w3land.mlit.go.jp/WebGIS/ FYI. Please give me some time (several days?) on this, as I am not accustomed to translating formal legal documents. They sound like Latin to me. --Asahiko 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry this is taking time. (Real life sucks, doesn't it?) If any of you guys want to help with the translation, it's taking place at User:Asahiko/MLIT. It'll be moved to the appropriate place when done, probably the talk page of the template or the noinclude of the template itself. --Asahiko 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we shouldn't base our discussion on what is merely a correspondence between a Wikimedian and the Ministry... The original license is what you find at http://w3land.mlit.go.jp/WebGIS/ FYI. Please give me some time (several days?) on this, as I am not accustomed to translating formal legal documents. They sound like Latin to me. --Asahiko 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would help; I am informed only by the translation of e-mail transcripts at Template talk:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP which do not expressly mention derivative works. --Iamunknown 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. The license explicitly mentions derivative works, and asks the user to give attribution when using modified versions. Roughly speaking, I believe this is basically the same as cc-by. Uh, do we need to translate the license to English? --Asahiko 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Jnn says: I forgot to write my reason. According to this, they permit redestribution. —Translated by Asahiko
- いま問題になっているのは、改変を認めているかということと、商用利用は認められているかということですね。English: The issue here is whether they allow modification and commercial use.--Asahiko 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 日本語: 解説ありがとうございます。改変、商用利用については国土情報利用約款の免責を見れば利用者の判断と責任に委ねられており制限は設けられていないと思います。これをどう解釈するかによっても変わってきますが・・・--Jnn 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Allows both commercial use and derivative works while requiring attribution. They explain what "derivative works" are as an extra. -- Cat chi? 08:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The permission does not clearly state that derivative work and commercial use is permitted. With reasonable interpretation, this seems to be a press license. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 'ni derechos reservados' - 'no rights reserved'. Seems clear enough to me. - Andre Engels 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That can mean a lot of things, really. Why don't they use {{CC-PD}} if they mean it that way? --Rtc 08:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It says that has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. [[User:Cesarhache|César [[User Talk:Cesarhache|δισκυσιων]]]] 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, and I claim that this interpretation is incorrect. --Rtc 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep El bart089 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AugustoRomero 00:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Battroid 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Their e-mail explicitly says that all materials are in the public domain. However, the link on the template now redirects, and the new presidential site uses a CC México By-Nc-Nd 2.5 license. Maybe it's no longer the case that new releases are PD? Rebelguys2 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You must not believe that this indicates a license change. It does not—the pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time. The term "public domain" is used alot in this sense. It is basically used by ordniary people if there is some use permitted to anyone without asking, not if all use, including commercial use and derivative work is permitted to anyone without asking. So these pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time. Thanks for your research, though. --rtc 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that the images were ever actually PD, just that the e-mail claimed so, but OK, whatever. I don't think a CC license was always used to license all of these images "all the time," either. Rebelguys2 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. But I assume that the intention of the rights holder has anways been NC-ND. --rtc 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no. You can't really assume that degree of freedom, either. Rebelguys2 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- What "degree of freedom" are you talking about? The pictures have always been NC-ND, not public domain in the legal sense of the term. They now clarified it. --rtc 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot "assume" someone's "intention" here. The CC license is applicable to the items published on the current site. You haven't provided any evidence, though, that any rights have been released to older images, save for a vague "dominio y uso público." I think it's quite a jump to assume that we should interpret that as NC-ND, since the new notice only applies to current materials. Don't worry about it, as in either case, the images aren't free enough. Don't forget that NC-ND licenses are too restrictive for use here. Rebelguys2 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who claimed that "Maybe it's no longer the case that new releases are PD" This would imply that the older images are even PD, not only NC-ND, so I pointed out that you can see them at most as NC-ND. But if you now even think that no rights at all have been released for the older images, I certainly don't want to dispute that. As you pointed out correctly, it wouldn't make a difference anyway, since NC-ND is not compliant to COM:L, either. --rtc 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, based on the e-mail and no other information. Hence the "maybe." If there's a CC license slapped on the new webpage, why would I possibly doubt its current NC-ND status? I never disagreed with your original argument for deletion. Rather, I disagreed, and still disagree, with your interpretation of the CC NC-ND as a blanket license for everything the president's webpage has ever released, which had absolutely no basis and wasn't based on anything but your speculation. Rebelguys2 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is not my interpretation. you misunderstood what I was trying to say. --rtc 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there's any evidence the images have always been NC-ND, I'd like to see it. Rebelguys2 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- You still misunderstand me. I did not intend to claim that this is so. --rtc 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- "So these pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time." "But I assume that the intention of the rights holder has anways been NC-ND." OK. Rebelguys2 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that is right, but you must see the context. I only said that because I assumed you were claiming they would be even PD. So you must read itas "So these pictures have been at most By-Nc-Nd all the time" and "always been NC-ND, if at all" --rtc 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- And you have no evidence for that... Rebelguys2 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You fail to understand what I am saying. --rtc 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- And you have no evidence for that... Rebelguys2 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that is right, but you must see the context. I only said that because I assumed you were claiming they would be even PD. So you must read itas "So these pictures have been at most By-Nc-Nd all the time" and "always been NC-ND, if at all" --rtc 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- "So these pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time." "But I assume that the intention of the rights holder has anways been NC-ND." OK. Rebelguys2 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- You still misunderstand me. I did not intend to claim that this is so. --rtc 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there's any evidence the images have always been NC-ND, I'd like to see it. Rebelguys2 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is not my interpretation. you misunderstood what I was trying to say. --rtc 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, based on the e-mail and no other information. Hence the "maybe." If there's a CC license slapped on the new webpage, why would I possibly doubt its current NC-ND status? I never disagreed with your original argument for deletion. Rather, I disagreed, and still disagree, with your interpretation of the CC NC-ND as a blanket license for everything the president's webpage has ever released, which had absolutely no basis and wasn't based on anything but your speculation. Rebelguys2 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who claimed that "Maybe it's no longer the case that new releases are PD" This would imply that the older images are even PD, not only NC-ND, so I pointed out that you can see them at most as NC-ND. But if you now even think that no rights at all have been released for the older images, I certainly don't want to dispute that. As you pointed out correctly, it wouldn't make a difference anyway, since NC-ND is not compliant to COM:L, either. --rtc 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot "assume" someone's "intention" here. The CC license is applicable to the items published on the current site. You haven't provided any evidence, though, that any rights have been released to older images, save for a vague "dominio y uso público." I think it's quite a jump to assume that we should interpret that as NC-ND, since the new notice only applies to current materials. Don't worry about it, as in either case, the images aren't free enough. Don't forget that NC-ND licenses are too restrictive for use here. Rebelguys2 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- What "degree of freedom" are you talking about? The pictures have always been NC-ND, not public domain in the legal sense of the term. They now clarified it. --rtc 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no. You can't really assume that degree of freedom, either. Rebelguys2 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. But I assume that the intention of the rights holder has anways been NC-ND. --rtc 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that the images were ever actually PD, just that the e-mail claimed so, but OK, whatever. I don't think a CC license was always used to license all of these images "all the time," either. Rebelguys2 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You must not believe that this indicates a license change. It does not—the pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time. The term "public domain" is used alot in this sense. It is basically used by ordniary people if there is some use permitted to anyone without asking, not if all use, including commercial use and derivative work is permitted to anyone without asking. So these pictures have been By-Nc-Nd all the time. Thanks for your research, though. --rtc 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The mail says information publiched on www.fuente.presidencia.gob.mx is of public use and domain so there are not licenses nor rights reserved.
- The email was sent 11 Aug 2004, while [98] last edited 21 April 2006 . Images after this date should be deleted, while image beteen may be or not public domain. Platonides 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The license is a clarification, not a change. The pictures from before 21 April 2006 were as restricted as those from thereafter. --rtc 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just contacted the presidencia office and asked them to confirm at OTRS the copyright status. It seems the content now on the site is NOT PD, so we probably will have to delete images from presidencia uploaded from now on.
Althought content from the subdomain fuente.presidencia was public domain, as confirmed on the letter, that does not mean all content from presidencia.gob.mx was public domain, so we need to be extra careful and double check images that already have the tag.
We're waiting at OTRS reply from presidencia and if images and text are no longer PD, we will have to modify this template and new images from the site will have to be removed as unfree.
However images uploaded before april 2006, AND properly sourced to the fuente.presidencia subdomain are indeed public domain. -- Drini 17:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- They are not. They were never intended to be public domain. The license has been clarified, not changed. --rtc 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If you access the presidency's page: http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/tecnologia/ you will find that there's a link at the bottom which reads Creative Commons México By-Nc-Nd 2.5. If you access it, you'll be taken to http://www.creativecommons.org.mx/deeds/by-nc-nd_mx.html, this site clearle stipulates that any image whith that tag can be copied and distributed freely with non-commercial purpose and an atribution is required. Lmbrjk 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- By-NC-ND is stricly forbidden on Commons. --rtc 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Alien life form 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept NRR is equavalent to PD in practice. -- Cat chi? 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
and all images from this user. This user just spammed a lot of pages. There is a serious doubt about his images. Yann 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all of them. They appear to be Out of Scope promotional material. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them "out of scope", as they'd be fine illustrations for articles on CGI. But the source site only says "All rights reserved", not GFDL/CC. --Davepape 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all of them. they are not clasified in the right way, many are repeated under diferent names. many miss category.-LadyofHats 11:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
kept (not out of scope) --ALE! ¿…? 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"This image was produced by the Brazillian Navy. The Navy's Public Relations Service states that all the images from the Navy's website are not elegible for copyrights, since that the source is cited." Law defines what's eligible for copyright, not the Brazillian Navy. But the intention is quite obvious, they really mean that copying is not disallowed if the source is stated. copying does not mean modifying. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 06:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep https://www.mar.mil.br/menu_h/fotos/fotos.htm > As imagens apresentadas não estão sujeitas a Direitos Autorais. Entretanto, se utilizadas, solicita-se citar como fonte o "Centro de Comunicação Social da Marinha". (These images aren't subject to copyrights but please make a mention to the source). Please note: this statment is only for images at mar.mil.br/menu_h/fotos galleries, not for the entire website. Lugusto • ※ 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If ordinary people speak about copyright, they usually refer to copying, not to commercial use or derivative work, which are perceived to be outside of the scope of copyright. Thus "These images aren't subject to copyrights" = "these images may be copied" We need the words "derivative work" and "commercial use" explicitly, anything else is simply too ambiguous, and the context suggests that it's about press use. --Rtc 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to guess what "ordinary people" are thinking or not. It is well stated that no one can claim copyright on those images. So, Keep PatríciaR msg 11:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to guess what "ordinary people" are thinking or not. It is well stated that no one can claim copyright on those images. So,
- If ordinary people speak about copyright, they usually refer to copying, not to commercial use or derivative work, which are perceived to be outside of the scope of copyright. Thus "These images aren't subject to copyrights" = "these images may be copied" We need the words "derivative work" and "commercial use" explicitly, anything else is simply too ambiguous, and the context suggests that it's about press use. --Rtc 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They own their material, and may liberate if they want. --Tonyjeff 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This template is used for one picture only; and I doubt that this picture is eligible for copyright, because it looks like a completely computer-generated picture that is result of a automatic analysis, not of human creativity. --Rtc 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This template is used for Image:Narve_fredag_kl12.png and Image:Temp_normal_norway.jpg, both of them most likely completely computer-generated. -- Atluxity 13:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- CommentWe might want to upload photographies from their site in the future, so that is not really a good reason for deletion. The permission says “All material on our site is available for public domain, including figures and photos without byline. We only require that you state met.no as the source.” This is a bit confusing, as “public domain” does not require attribution. I will write them and ask them to clarify it, and if possible put a copyleft notice on their site. Kjetil r 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Apparently verified by OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, agree with Bryan, and there will most likely be more uploads. Cnyborg 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I supect that the English translation was added by the user forwarding the e-mail to OTRS. The Norwegian text says "kan du uten videre benytte". In any case, I have now written to met.no asking for clarification (see User:Kjetil r/met.no). Kjetil r 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I might add that the two pictures mentioned are not automaticly generated. Both are result of much human labour, one in analyzing the storm situation, the other in analyzing the climatology of Norway. I intend to use several maps like this in the future. Unless, of course, they should be forbidden to use. GAD
- how much human labour has been put into something is not a criterion for copyright. --Rtc 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm a little confused. First the picture is not «eligible for copyright, because it looks like a completely computer-generated picture that is result of a automatic analysis, not of human creativity», and next adding human labour is of no help. I don't get this. No intentions of polemic, I'm just a newbie to the Wikipedia copyright system.GAD 27 March 2007
- Creativity and labour are two entirely different things. Creativity can involve labour, but it doesn't have to; labour can be creative, but it doesn't have to. --Rtc 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm a little confused. First the picture is not «eligible for copyright, because it looks like a completely computer-generated picture that is result of a automatic analysis, not of human creativity», and next adding human labour is of no help. I don't get this. No intentions of polemic, I'm just a newbie to the Wikipedia copyright system.GAD 27 March 2007
- how much human labour has been put into something is not a criterion for copyright. --Rtc 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now received a reply from met.no. Their "informasjonsdirektør" (I don't know how to translate it properly) says the current text of the template reflects their licensing terms. However, she would like to ask the CEO for a final confirmation as soon as he is available. She will contact me again as soon as she has spoken to the CEO. I will forward the e-mails to OTRS when she contacts me again. Kjetil r 10:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
seems to be ok -> kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"for any purpose" was invented by the template creator and cannot be found in the cited permission; this is a subjective, uncritical interpretation of that statement. Derivative work and commercial use is not expressly mentioned. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's explicitly stated here! Still, the wording should still reflect what is exactly said on that page. (→zelzany - framed) 19:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon? Where does it say, "for any purpose"? All I see is "The Department of Transportation has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute department information found here without obligation to the department". That doesn't expressly include commercial reuse and resale and derivative works, and thus is not free. Delete --Iamunknown 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon? Where does it say, "for any purpose"? All I see is "The Department of Transportation has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute department information found here without obligation to the department". That doesn't expressly include commercial reuse and resale and derivative works, and thus is not free.
deleted, copyright statement is way to weak --ALE! ¿…? 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Image should be deleted because it is an incorrect representation of the molecule. In particular, it mixes different chemical structure drawing styles. There are several more appropriate representations, of which the first is the best. I have added {{Duplicate}} tags on the rest. --Rifleman 82 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
wildundleise_Yang.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Firenze.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg){kind=link}
_transparent_background.png){kind=link}
_transparent_background.png#Summary){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-donatedsrb_f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[18]](http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/6176/putinez1.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8823/putinderivativefq4.png){kind=link}
wildundleise_Yang.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
wildundleise_Yang.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
wildundleise_Yang.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jlin/signs/canada/Nova_Scotia/Trans-Canada.gif){kind=link}
Bragg.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=4731666#Image:Puppet3.jpeg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_refueling.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Cricket_world_cup_trophy.jpg&oldid=99270372){kind=link}
![[51]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image%3AWorld+Cup+Trophy.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:G8_2006_leaders_3.jpg&diff=4761249&oldid=4761235){kind=link}
![[56]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Junkers_Ju87.jpg&diff=next&oldid=5145061){kind=link}
![[61]](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Parup_2006/LC_04-005-Junkers-JU-87-Stuka-dive2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Firenze.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Firenze.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Firenze.jpg){kind=link}
_Firenze.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg){kind=link}
_Rentweinsdorf6.jpg){kind=link}
![[94]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pangong_lake_by_martinl.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose again deletion, keep these files --Ragimiri 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All these three should be kept, since there are no policy nor style guideline for the chemical structures. Anyone can choose the one they like. --Calvero 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Calvero. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anethole.svg (first image) is incorrect because of the linear C-O-CH3 bonds. They should be bent. --Rifleman 82 14:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
not a copyright issue, please add an appropriate comment on the description page --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work is not expressly mentioned. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Template reads:
- "The copyright holder of this file (http://www.entomart.be/) allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed . Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."
- I would say this permits derivative works. --|EPO| 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately what the template says doesn't match what the source website says. The source doesn't mention derivative works, just commercial and non-commercial use. Yonatan talk 11:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - shouldn't be deleted because of lack of clarification. Someone send a mail. --Lhademmor 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can send an e-mail just as well as we can (and there certainly is enough time as deletion requests aren't closed all that quickly) but if derivative work isn't mentioned then it isn't allowed here. Yonatan talk 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope it will be kept as this picture shows the only real Paracorymbia fulva on Commons until now. So long...--Konrad Lackerbeck 12:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can send an e-mail just as well as we can (and there certainly is enough time as deletion requests aren't closed all that quickly) but if derivative work isn't mentioned then it isn't allowed here. Yonatan talk 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep i created this template, i had enough worried this Webmaster to ask him to change this licence, he just ask this caption © Entomart, he didnt refuse derivative work. he wish to be informed in case of commercial use. I agree this is a home-brew licence requiring attribution, not a clear CC. And this is why i made a spécial template. If you consider it 's not enough free, make what you want Jeffdelonge 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does he wish to be informed or does he require to be informed? Could you please try to convince him to use one of the standard CC licenses on his website? --Rtc 08:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, he wish to be informed, my work with this webmaster was on this point because initially he required to be be informed. Jeffdelonge 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The CC licenses require attribution so it'd pretty much be the same. He doesn't have to use a CC license, he can instead give permission for derivative use. Of course this permission has to be sent to OTRS (if it isn't on the website itself). Yonatan talk 08:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- This home brew licence by default permit derivative work but a point may be difficult : he requires ¢ Entomart caption in case of commercial use, what about derivative work: caption ¢ Entomart + ¢ derivative work author ? Only on this point this licence differs from CC-By, is it a real problem ? Jeffdelonge 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- In contrast to home-brew licenses, the creative commons licenses are explicit --Rtc 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- While we should prefer creative commons licenses (btw, as I'm sure you know, we don't accept any cc 3.0 licenses on commons yet), if somebody prefers to create his own license, it is also acceptable as of right now. Yonatan talk 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If commons doesn't introduce obstacles to the use of home-brew licenses, a stating a mere "preference" will be toothless, and it'll contribute to the license babylon, which is counterproductive. We should accept only standard licenses, and others only after discussion on COM:VP, in exceptional cases where there are real arguments why a standard license cannot be used. We should be more bold not to accept some pictures even if they are technically free or at least can be read one way or another as being free. --Rtc 09:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is your opinion. You are welcome to open up a discussion that will lead to the disallowing of home-brew licenses. Yonatan talk 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If commons doesn't introduce obstacles to the use of home-brew licenses, a stating a mere "preference" will be toothless, and it'll contribute to the license babylon, which is counterproductive. We should accept only standard licenses, and others only after discussion on COM:VP, in exceptional cases where there are real arguments why a standard license cannot be used. We should be more bold not to accept some pictures even if they are technically free or at least can be read one way or another as being free. --Rtc 09:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- While we should prefer creative commons licenses (btw, as I'm sure you know, we don't accept any cc 3.0 licenses on commons yet), if somebody prefers to create his own license, it is also acceptable as of right now. Yonatan talk 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- In contrast to home-brew licenses, the creative commons licenses are explicit --Rtc 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but the truth is that about any home-brew license at all does have serious defects (not stating explicitly what is permitted) that need to be resolved independent from whether we accept them or not. --Rtc 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ...use for any purpose includes derivative works. This should be clear to everybody. Does it? --Ikiwaner 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"The Árni Magnússon Institute is an academic research institution that houses the manuscripts and documents that the Danish government delivered to the Icelanders according to an agreement made between Denmark and Iceland in 1971, concerning the return of Icelandic manuscripts from Danish libraries. The Institute also keeps other resources on Icelandic culture: other manuscripts that it has acquired, as well as recordings of folkloric material."[99] The institute does not own the copyright on the material, it is only the proprietor of the physical manuscripts and documents. Thus it cannot grant permission. (Even if it could, commercial use and derivative work are not expressly mentioned. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe 90% of the manuscripts are PD-old anyway, but try to mail them since it's possible that people may have transferred the rights. --Lhademmor 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they are PD-old, then they should be labelled so, and the template should go, or at least be changed accordingly to be a special instance of PD-old that contains additional information, such as registration number etc, if the archive provides something like this (as LOC does, for example). --Rtc 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Helios89 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
tag deleted, image kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the site info there is a copyright on the picture of the Euro coin. At the time I retrieved the picture from the website, I thought that all pictures of Euro coins are by themselves just copyrighted by the ECB. Since this is not the case, I think we have to delete this coin. Gugganij 12:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"All rights reserved. Reproduction without reference to source prohibited." [100] Talks of reproduction, not of modification. It is also no positive permission, ie., it does not imply that reproduction with referece to the source is permitted. Use logic. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - at least until someone compares the Polish and English versions of the license, or contact the Sejm to ask for clarification.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Lhademmor (talk • contribs)
- I have asked User:WarX for help ([101]). Kjetil r 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Afaik it was self-invented by site admin, there are differences between polish and english text, someone from pl.wiki is negotiating release on normal license--WarX 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There's another problem. While English version is possibly NonDerivative type, in 2007 (circa February) Polish text of the license was changed to NonCommercial: see now and previous versions. This was discussed earlier on Polish Wikipedia ground: as WarX said someone tried to contact Sejm official, but since then we haven't got any response. So either this tempate (and photos using it) will be kept or not, tempate text should be changed to include both original and changed license and any further uploading of Sejm photos should be prohibited, unless, of course, those negotiations are successful. Tough luck. A.J. 11:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but change text of the template, because it is valid for pictures uploaded before February 2007 (before changing the license). Since February it is non-commercial only, not accepted in Commons. Julo 12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. --Rtc 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{noncommercial}} then? That will be a sad day for Polish Wikipedia. A.J. 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the redirect can't be avoided here. However, I don't think it would be a sad day at all. It would encourage people to take out their cameras and make genuinely free ones. After all, we want to create free content, not collect it on the web. How about creating a photo project on polish wikipedia where people can ask for specific images? For example if I live in A and want a picture of a person or place in far away B, I could ask there whether someone lives in B and could make such a photo. --Rtc 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Julo pointed on my talk page, Non-Commercial condition does not apply to already uploaded media.., so I reverted my non-commercial template inclusion and placed a warning that explains that situation. A.J. 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what about derivative works? Did they ever mention that? Kjetil r 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The two versions differ only with one word: niekomercyjne (noncommercial). A.J. 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So it did/does not mention derivative works? We'll have to redirect it to {{nonderivative}} then. Kjetil r 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it required by some Commons policy, that license must include exactly the phrase "derivative works"? A.J. 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly the phrase "even commercially", exactly the phrase "derivative works" and exactly the phrase "for any purpose" or anything that is equally explicit: "In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: * Republication and distribution must be allowed * Publication of derivative work must be allowed * Commercial use of the work must be allowed" COM:L. Licenses are permissions to do something that is forbidden by copyright law otherwise, and such permissions are valid only if they are explicit. --Rtc 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it required by some Commons policy, that license must include exactly the phrase "derivative works"? A.J. 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So it did/does not mention derivative works? We'll have to redirect it to {{nonderivative}} then. Kjetil r 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The two versions differ only with one word: niekomercyjne (noncommercial). A.J. 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what about derivative works? Did they ever mention that? Kjetil r 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. So yes, Non-commercial applies to already uploaded media. --Rtc 10:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Julo pointed on my talk page, Non-Commercial condition does not apply to already uploaded media.., so I reverted my non-commercial template inclusion and placed a warning that explains that situation. A.J. 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the redirect can't be avoided here. However, I don't think it would be a sad day at all. It would encourage people to take out their cameras and make genuinely free ones. After all, we want to create free content, not collect it on the web. How about creating a photo project on polish wikipedia where people can ask for specific images? For example if I live in A and want a picture of a person or place in far away B, I could ask there whether someone lives in B and could make such a photo. --Rtc 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{noncommercial}} then? That will be a sad day for Polish Wikipedia. A.J. 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. --Rtc 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I searched through my e-mail archive and found a message that says:
- Witam!
- Dziękuję za informację. Z mojej strony nie ma żadnych zastrzeżeń co do publikacji tych treści.
- Z poważaniem,
- Hanna Mierzejewska (pos4246 at sejm.pl)
- (Translation: "Thanks for the information, as for me, I have no objection in regard to publication of these contents")
but sadly I can't find the message she was replying to, and I can't remember what I asked about, specifically. Ausir 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, the both chambers of Polish Parliament must work under the same laws. After today's information direct from Polish Senate - see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PolishSenateCopyright - we should use the same rules here, i.e. GFDL for newly uploaded files, and keep this SejmCopyright template as obsolete. Julo 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is private matter, not a public one. The licensing of pictures is not a matter of law; it is a matter of private contracts. --Rtc 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete First of all admin of Sejm's website has NEVER been the copyright owner of MP's photos. This has now been clarified as they say that non commercial use is allowed for all the content apart from what is separately copyrighted. I would think that all the MP's photos were taken by some photographers, somewhere (maybe at their place of residence) who actually own the copyright and not by the Sejm's website admin who has "released" them into the public domain. This is a guess, but I also think that MP's don't have to consent to have their mugshots released into PD before they take the post ;). So we have wrongly assumed (in good faith, although it was quite clear that it was too good to be true) that admin has had the copyright, which he never did. Well now we can just delete all those photos, and send our own photographers to take some new ones.... --Robek 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Although the tag is obsolete now, the license was valid before, so it isn't really an issue if people simply don't upload anymore of those images. Da Man2 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
template kept. However, it is necessary to delete all images which were uploaded after January 2007. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:SejmCopyright renomination
[edit]This discussion affects all images in Category:SejmCopyright. On Commons we only allow files which are available under an irrevocable free licence. To avoid problems, such as with this template, we generally require that permission to be explicit. Up until 2006 the Sejm website stated that materials on the site were available for use or copying, so long as the source was indicated. This is problematic, as it doesn't explicitly allow for derivative or commercial works. Then in 2007, they changed this to non-commercial use, which obviously indicates that they never intended for commercial usage of their materials, and are making that clear. In essence they have revoked their usage allowance which was available up until 2007. The copyright as of today on the Sejm website have all but reverted back to the 2006 conditions. Again they don't explicitly allow for derivative and commercial usage, and as can be seen by the 2007, their terms are clearly revocable. The vagueness of the terms are akin to Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites, which led the deletion of {{Kremlin.ru}} (which was reinstated upon receiving clear permission under a free licence). I suggest leaving this discussion open for a month, in order to give time for the Sejm to be contacted, and for clear, explicit permission under a free licence to be obtained. russavia (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Precisely their copyright notice stated (numbers are mine): Zezwala się na używanie1, kopiowanie2 oraz wykorzystanie3 materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia., which literally means: It is allowed to use1, copy2 and utilize3 materials from the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. In polish there is a difference in meaning between words: używanie (verb: używać = to use) and wykorzystywanie (verb: wykorzystywać = to utilize), where the latter describe more extensive action than a simple re-use. For me, as a polish speaking person, "wykorzystywać" almost directly points to any possible usage. The second translation of this word ("wykorzystywać") is "to exploit", which kind of reflects its intended "seriousness" and a scale far beyond the "re-use without modifications/derivatives and commercial purposes". For me this copyright statement is valid and equal to the similar: {{Copyrighted free use}}. Masur (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as Masur wrote above. Julo (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually the copyright note on Sejm page has been recently changed and it actually allows any use and re-use of pictures except otherwise stated. The copyright notice is for all materials on current Sejm page and its older versions, starting from 1995. The change of copyright notice was forced by Ministry of Administration which is actually cleaning up copyright notices of state institiutions, accoridng to the Law of access to public information, which made free all public information in Poland. See: [102]. I think that the text of template should be changed according to this page. Polimerek (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Masur, thank you for your comments, especially your clarification of "wykorzystywanie". It is this that is problematic, for it isn't explicit in directly stating any possible usage. As you say, it "almost directly points" to such usage, but unfortunately, this isn't adequate for Commons. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Evasion license tags, and comments from Rtc there are relevant here. In particular, "These tags are all problematic, since they are over-optimistic personal interpretation of unclear statements from websites, done by some commons users." We have a responsibility to not only our projects, but also re-users of our hosted content, that materials is free to use "by anyone, for any purpose". I'd really suggest contacting them to get a clear and explicit licence, as we can't leave it open to our interpretation. :( russavia (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I can only understand the Google translation of it, but what I see does not indicate derivatives would be allowed. I think that if the wording is ambiguous to native speakers we should delete due to COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, we Poles are really sorry that there is no exact and direct translation of a word "wykorzystywać", which would literally reflect its wider than "to use" meaning ;) Please note (per Polimerek above) the current copyright notice. It again confirms the previous status and again uses the word "wykorzystywanie", but also explicitily stresses that it is something different than merely copying, this time by a phrase: Zezwala się na wykorzystywanie1 (w tym kopiowanie2) materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie to nie dotyczy jedynie elementów odrębnie zastrzeżonych.; meaning: It is allowed to utilize1 (including copying2) materials contained on the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. This permission does not cover elements, which are separately indicated as restricted. And here, again as in previous version of this copyright notice, there is a clean separation of words "wykorzystywanie" and "kopiowanie" (previously it was "wykorzystywanie", "używanie" and "kopiowanie"), which points to this wider sense of a verb "wykorzystywać", beyond a mere "re-use". It is true that it isn't explicitily stated that derivatives or commercial works are allowed, but this is only because a word "wykorzystywanie" has this wide meaning. In polish once you say "wykorzystaj", you mean "use it as you wish"; otherwise you would rather say "użyj". That's why english verbs like: to abuse, to exploit, to take advantage, to utilize - all are translated as "wykorzystywać". So, I really don't know how we (polish speaking Commons contributors) are able to reassure you (non-polish speaking "commonists"), that when our Sejm says "wykorzystywać" it is fine with Commons licensing policy. We do really know what it's all about and have pure intentions ;) Masur (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the way you say "we, the Poles", Masur. I happen to be a Pole, too, and I do not agree with a word you have written above. To me, this is a mere interpretation of what the Chancellery put on the website that is here to defend the thousands of images that people have been so thoroughly uploading to Commons over the years (which I appreciate greatly) — but I also think that we need to apply the same rules to the Chancellery of the Sejm that we applied to all the other institutions that had their images deleted from Commons before. I think that this situation is a perfect opportunity to get the copyright status of the images clear once and for all, and I would like to see someone contact the Chancellery about it. (The Polish Wikimedia chapter would be my first guess here.) odder (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also The Great Polish-English Dictionary, Wiedza Powszechna" State Publishing House, edition fifth, Warszawa 1980, vol. II, ISBN 83-214-0107-4 (page 600) to understand more meanings of the word "wykorzystać". Julo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, we Poles are really sorry that there is no exact and direct translation of a word "wykorzystywać", which would literally reflect its wider than "to use" meaning ;) Please note (per Polimerek above) the current copyright notice. It again confirms the previous status and again uses the word "wykorzystywanie", but also explicitily stresses that it is something different than merely copying, this time by a phrase: Zezwala się na wykorzystywanie1 (w tym kopiowanie2) materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie to nie dotyczy jedynie elementów odrębnie zastrzeżonych.; meaning: It is allowed to utilize1 (including copying2) materials contained on the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. This permission does not cover elements, which are separately indicated as restricted. And here, again as in previous version of this copyright notice, there is a clean separation of words "wykorzystywanie" and "kopiowanie" (previously it was "wykorzystywanie", "używanie" and "kopiowanie"), which points to this wider sense of a verb "wykorzystywać", beyond a mere "re-use". It is true that it isn't explicitily stated that derivatives or commercial works are allowed, but this is only because a word "wykorzystywanie" has this wide meaning. In polish once you say "wykorzystaj", you mean "use it as you wish"; otherwise you would rather say "użyj". That's why english verbs like: to abuse, to exploit, to take advantage, to utilize - all are translated as "wykorzystywać". So, I really don't know how we (polish speaking Commons contributors) are able to reassure you (non-polish speaking "commonists"), that when our Sejm says "wykorzystywać" it is fine with Commons licensing policy. We do really know what it's all about and have pure intentions ;) Masur (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Putting aside the subject of the Chancellery of the Sejm ever being the owner of the copyright to these images (which we cannot be sure of), there is no clear indication that these images can be used for commercial purposes. On the contrary, the Chancellery has given a clear sign that it did not wish the images to be used for commercial purposes, and it would perfectly align with the beliefs of the other branches of power in Poland that their content cannot be used for commercial purposes (e.g. the beliefs of the Chancellery of the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc.). In other words, in the current state this is a delete for me until we get a clear permission from the Chancellery of the Sejm that they agree for the images to be used for commercial purposes. odder (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Question the Chancellery has given a clear sign - where? Masur (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unsure Personally, I'm in favour of keeping, but I won't argue against deletion anymore; although meaning of "wykorzystywać" seems straightforward to any Polish native-speaker, one can easly produce an legal "newspeak" argument that, fot example, re-selling is not "wykorzystywać" (National Bank of Poland already did similar work and stated that Polish money do not belong to "official documents, materials, signs and symbols" from {{PD-Polishsymbol}}). Lack of clear re-use law for public information means any public instutution (Sejm, President, etc.) puts statemets (often written by a clerk not competent in copyright law) which do not necessary have legal validity. A.J. (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)- Question Has there been any progress with this? Has anyone contacted the Sejm for clear and explicit unrevocable licencing? russavia (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. As a Polish citizen, it breaks my heart to see almost 700 pictures of Polish politicians (most of them of former members of the Sejm) gone from Wikimedia Commons, and, by extension, from hundreds of articles & pages on our wikis; it is also probably one of the toughest decisions I had to make as an administrator on this project over the years, especially due to the number of pictures that will be affected by this decision. However, seeing that this request for deletion has been lying open for more than two months, and not obtaining new comments since late November 2012, I think it's due time to reach a conclusion here.
As a Pole, I am aware how hard it is to receive a definite and explicit answer to copyright-related questions from our governmental institutions; there are tonnes of examples, including the well-publicised case of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage back in 2007, the case of the Chancellery of the President not agreeing to release their video of a speech made by the President where he wished a happy birthday on the tenth anniversary of the Polish Wikipedia, or the case of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs releasing parts of their Flickr stream under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs licence (while keeping the rest under full copyright).
This situation only proves the point that Polish government (and, in this case, also the lower chamber of the Parliament), despite its assurances of openness ("What is developed with public funds is the property of the public, hence also of those who want to use it in a way they choose themselves."), is not, in its majority, aware of how free licencing and public domain works, even though these subjects are no longer as little-known as they were when this template was created back in 2004.
Wikimedia Commons has previously witnessed mass deletions of files uploaded with similarly unclear licencing tags; I believe that the deletion of pictures marked with {{Kremlin.ru}}, linked by Russavia above, is one of the most known examples.
We do sometimes delete such images because, as the biggest repository of free media files on the Internet, as someone rightly pointed out, we decided not only to care about possible usage of the files in an educational environment, but also about any usage at all, including a commercial one, to match the free licence used by Wikipedia in its beginnings (the GFDL; we didn't use CC-BY-SA 3.0 when our policies were first adopted).
Commons:Licensing, which is considered an official policy of this project (and might also be considered as one of its core pillars), defines that an acceptable licence has to (1) "specifically and irrevocably allow anyone to use the material for any purpose" and that (2) "simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient." What is more, a licence is deemed free when it is also (3) perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.
A careful study of the copyright notice available at the official website of the Chancellery of the Sejm and its history—available in the deletion request above—shows that it does not meet any of these three criteria. The copyright notice in question was changed at least twice: from a general one to non-commercial, and then back again; it also does not explicitly mention that the images available on the website of the Sejm can be used for commercial purposes, neither does it specifically allow creation of derivative works.
Taking all of the above in mind, I am going to delete the 668 images tagged with this template, starting around 19:00 (UTC). Being aware that this means removing images from 3,824 pages around the wikis, I can only hope that our community will stand up to the task, and replace the deleted images with free ones wherever possible. It is also my hope that one day, we can get a clear permission not only from the Chancellery of the Sejm, but also from the other institutions which Polish Wikimedians have uncessfully been trying to reach to with request for releasing their content under a free licence.
odder (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reopening. I think you forgot to apply relevant Polish law, namely art. 4 subsec. 2) of the Polish copyright law, which excludes all sort of official material out of being subject of copyright law, that excludes application bogus licenses published on various government websites. This template should be converted to indicate the stated license (for bookeeping and future discussion) but otherwise it has a similar effect like Template:PD-Polishsymbol (this template should be improved or other should be provided for art. 4 cases). Second, Kancelaria Sejmu cannot be subject of any copyright law and acts as a normal statio fisci. It can only manage some rights in the name of the Skarb Państwa. « Saper // @talk » 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you are aware, Saper, that such an interpretation of article 4 of the Polish copyright law would mean a total change of how images coming from all kinds of state offices (governmental, parliametary, and judicial) are treated not only on Wikimedia Commons, but also simply under the Polish law.
- As far as I am aware, the current defition of official material (the article in question states that Copyright shall not cover: (...) official documents, materials, logos and symbols) does not include photographs and other works that are not strictly documents, logos and symbols—though one can argue that, for instance, pictures of banknotes do fall under the term "material"—and this has been a stance taken by the various offices and agencies that I mentioned above over the years (including the National Bank of Poland, the Chancellery of the President, and even the Chancellery of the Sejm). And even though the Chancellery itself is not a legal entity under the Polish law, they claim that they can hold copyright to works simply by acquiring it from other legal entities (or natural persons). odder (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- We are not interested in the "official stance" but in the interpretation based on law. Copyright exceptions under article 4 are pretty strong and have a clear goal to protect recipients of official material from any kind of copyright claims. Official material may be part of the public information, where public offices are obliged to provide to interested parties (as per Consititution and Freedom of Information Act) and it is understandable that if public office is mandated to disseminate some materials they cannot violate copyright law while executing FOIA law. There are numerous attempts to limit access to official material (charging fees, claiming copyright or other intellectual property), but so far there are only specific limits to distribution of official material (that do not apply here, like state secrets and some exceptions in the FOIA law). Just because various officials make non-binding claims against the text and the spirit of article 4 of the copyright law it does not mean they are the correct interpretation. The comment you have linked to is correct; Kancelaria Sejmu manages some part of Skarb Państwa rights in a limited manner; in fact, the comment says that Kancelaria acquires copyrights from third parties by the means of employment ("nabycia przez pracodawcę praw do utworu pracowniczego") or by copyright assignment ("bądź na podstawie umowy o przeniesienie autorskich praw majątkowych"). Please take note that licensing is explicitly not mentioned here. This comment also confirms that Kancelaria Sejmu cannot claim copyright on its own (it acts only on behalf of Skarb Państwa in a limited manner), so that the blanket copyright license is simply bogus ("nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet"). If there is any issue between the copyright holder regarding any official material published by Kancelaria Sejmu in its official capacity, it is to be resolved between those entities. Just like you are not requesting a proof from federal agency of the United States Government that the author of the material is indeed somebody employed by them. Copyright law in article 4 gives a pretty strong level of certainty for re-users of the official material, that those issues do not affect the re-use, irrelevant whether it is commerical, non-commercial or under CC licence like Commmons does. « Saper // @talk » 21:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing this very interesting background information, Saper, it's appreciated (though I don't really think that the Freedom of Information Act can actually influence copyright status of government-made works). Let me remind you, however, that what you wrote above is merely your interpretation of article 4 of the copyright law; I believe I have proven that it is not shared by any of the institutions mentioned previously. However, we cannot really tell who's right here, and it is also my belief that we are not the body that should decide that.
- We are not interested in the "official stance" but in the interpretation based on law. Copyright exceptions under article 4 are pretty strong and have a clear goal to protect recipients of official material from any kind of copyright claims. Official material may be part of the public information, where public offices are obliged to provide to interested parties (as per Consititution and Freedom of Information Act) and it is understandable that if public office is mandated to disseminate some materials they cannot violate copyright law while executing FOIA law. There are numerous attempts to limit access to official material (charging fees, claiming copyright or other intellectual property), but so far there are only specific limits to distribution of official material (that do not apply here, like state secrets and some exceptions in the FOIA law). Just because various officials make non-binding claims against the text and the spirit of article 4 of the copyright law it does not mean they are the correct interpretation. The comment you have linked to is correct; Kancelaria Sejmu manages some part of Skarb Państwa rights in a limited manner; in fact, the comment says that Kancelaria acquires copyrights from third parties by the means of employment ("nabycia przez pracodawcę praw do utworu pracowniczego") or by copyright assignment ("bądź na podstawie umowy o przeniesienie autorskich praw majątkowych"). Please take note that licensing is explicitly not mentioned here. This comment also confirms that Kancelaria Sejmu cannot claim copyright on its own (it acts only on behalf of Skarb Państwa in a limited manner), so that the blanket copyright license is simply bogus ("nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet"). If there is any issue between the copyright holder regarding any official material published by Kancelaria Sejmu in its official capacity, it is to be resolved between those entities. Just like you are not requesting a proof from federal agency of the United States Government that the author of the material is indeed somebody employed by them. Copyright law in article 4 gives a pretty strong level of certainty for re-users of the official material, that those issues do not affect the re-use, irrelevant whether it is commerical, non-commercial or under CC licence like Commmons does. « Saper // @talk » 21:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the current defition of official material (the article in question states that Copyright shall not cover: (...) official documents, materials, logos and symbols) does not include photographs and other works that are not strictly documents, logos and symbols—though one can argue that, for instance, pictures of banknotes do fall under the term "material"—and this has been a stance taken by the various offices and agencies that I mentioned above over the years (including the National Bank of Poland, the Chancellery of the President, and even the Chancellery of the Sejm). And even though the Chancellery itself is not a legal entity under the Polish law, they claim that they can hold copyright to works simply by acquiring it from other legal entities (or natural persons). odder (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You claim that the images fall under article 4, and hence cannot be copyrighted as official materials or documents, but the institution that publishes them apparently does not agree with that opinion by publishing a copyright note on their website. (And I do not feel knowledgeable enough to judge its validity, I am merely stating a fact.) Since your comment does not change anything about the copyright status of the pictures tagged with {{SejmCopyright}} — we still do not have any evidence on whether they can be used for commercial purposes, and whether one can create derivative works of them — I believe that the reasons for deletion I cited in my original closing comment stand true.
- Just as with the Kremlin pictures I referred to, I believe the images from the Sejm website should stay deleted until there is an explicit permission to use them for commercial purposes, or an explicit statement that they do not fall under copyright and are in the public domain; until that time, I guess we should assume that they do fall under the copyright of the Chancellery of the Sejm (who might have acquired it "by means of employment or copyright assignment"). odder (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I am the nominator of the images/template for deletion, I can only support, given current information, the delete close by Odder. The desire to keep valuable images can never override the copyright requirements of this project. Unless there is a clear release, under COM:PRP we need to delete these images. I should also note that Art 4 P2 of Polish copyright law is analogous to the Russian example; which saw those images being deleted until the acquisition of a clear release. I wish someone would contact the Sejm and get such release, but we can't leave such discussions open forever on the project. russavia (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't read Polish, so I cannot comment on specific subtleties of the Polish law, but, as Russavia points out, Art 4 (2) appears to be very similar to laws in many other countries that makes certain official documents free of copyright. Our reading of such laws, and the case law we have seen on them, does not extend that freedom to ordinary photographs which happen to be published by the government. It is clear that there is significant doubt as to whether these images are free or not, therefore COM:PRP must be applied. It is up to those who would keep these images to prove beyond that doubt that they may be kept, and I don't see that here -- far from it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing again per Russavia and Jim; I believe that the points I raised in my original closing comment still stand true. I would also like to express my thanks to Jim for reminding us all about the weight and importance of the precautionary principle, which I am now applying to the images in question. odder (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I formally object to the express mode of this request. I only figured out today that there discussion continues and after 2 days it is closed again. This is not a consensus what we are having here and there is no search for a solution and a proper discussion on legal issues. « Saper // @talk » 08:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong formal objection for forcing per decision its own minority opinion expressed earlier in the same discussion, and mass deletion of ten thousands times linked files without explicit consensus, and against the large number of other opposition votes! --Alan ffm (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep this in perspective, please. Odder closed this discussion on February 3rd after it had been open for discussion for more than two months. His closing rationale was put forth at significant length and considered all sides of the argument.
It was then reopened, out of process. Rather than simply closing the discussion and removing the post-closing comments, as required by policy, odder, Russavia, and I allowed the discussion to continue. No new arguments were put forth. Those of us with significant Commons experience have heard these arguments before -- they have come up for almost every country that puts its laws and official documents in the Public Domain. Commons position and precedent is clear -- photographs of the sort under discussion here are not laws or official documents with the meaning of similar exceptions in most countries. Licenses must explicitly allow commercial use and derivative works, both of which are at issue here.
Please also note that DRs are not votes, they are discussions. The closing Admin, if he or she has good reason, must close a DR according to his reading of the situation even if it is against the wishes of all of the other participants. In this case the Delete side of this argument has at least four highly experienced editors with around half a million Commons actions among them. To be sure, the Keep side also has several experienced editors, but their points seem to have been addressed, at least to my satisfaction.
Finally, please remember our Precautionary Principle -- it is up to those who would keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that an image is freely licensed according to our requirements. Whatever you say about this discussion, it is clear that there are significant doubts about the status of these images.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As Alan ffm wrote: I formally object, too. For me here is no doubts that Sejm alows everybody to make everything with the materials of their site. Only their authorship must be produced. So it is a free license, such a Copyrighted free use. I am of the opinion that it is clear for everybody who knows Polish legal lenguage... To be on the safe site and dosn't argue (from time to time) with persons who don't understand Polish and Polish law nuances I propose to transfer all such files to Polish Wikipedia. There is best place to consider the nuances of Polish copyright law in the native language for all Poles. Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- +1 - This is different situatuon as the Polish Parliament explicitly allows any use and re-use of the pictures only under conditions of proper attribiuton. Even CC-BY licence does not put it more clearly. Read for example legal code of CC-BY. It also does not clearly allow commercial use. It just allow any use and re-use. Moreover in many jurisdictions all copyright licences are revocable (including Poland) and the non-revocable claim has no any legal meaning. So, both Odder's arguments: revocability and no clear statement of commercial use hit also CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licences in many jursdictions. So, should we delete all the files marked "CC-BY" and "CC-BY-SA" in countries where non-revocable licences are not allowed?? Polimerek (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously creating a bit of consternation with Polish Wikipedia editors, and rightly so, but the distress is being directed at the wrong people; i.e. the various organs of Polish government for not being open to the concept of free licences. This is the same consternation that Russian Wikipedia editors had when all of the Kremlin.ru images were deleted some years ago. Honestly, the Polish Wikipedia community, and perhaps Wikimedia Poland, need to lobby the various Polish government departments to embrace Creative Commons licencing; it simply needs dedicated editors to do this lobbying, and to do so in the right way. With Polish government, we have the "The Law on Access to Public Information" (Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) which Polish citizens can use to their advantage -- this law basically dictates that government department have 14 days to respond to requests from the public -- User:Odder is knowledgeable on this aspect, given that he contacted the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs at my suggestion after I unsuccessfully asked for them to relicence an image on their flickr stream -- this is still in progress. After the Kremlin images were deleted a few years ago, I wrote to the Kremlin and requested that they relicence their materials under a CC licence. This is the result. I have left a copy of the letter that I wrote to the Kremlin at en:User:Russavia/letter -- as you can see, it outlines the issues, and why their images are important to us. I have offered to help Polish Wikipedians to write up a similar request to the Sejm, but sadly, none has taken me up on that offer. So I am stating again for the record, that if Polish Wikipedians wish to work with me on a draft letter to the Sejm, which can be provided to them in both English and Polish, I am more than happy to assist with this, because like everyone above I too recognise the importance of the images to our articles -- we need to make the Sejm aware of this. I sincerely hope that I do get contacted by some of you guys to do this, but if I'm not I would be disappointed. Also, note, that getting one organ of government to CC licence their materials can have a knock-on affect, as seen by Template:Premier.gov.ru and Template:Government.ru after the granting of CC licence by Kremlin. Please guys,get in touch with me. russavia (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It hardly make any sense, because the current copyright clause on Sejm web page is already an effect of pushing it to follow the mentioned law by us, Coalition for Open Education and Foundation "ePaństwo". And this statement is absolutely clear to anybody able to speak Polish and understand the legal language except Odder. In fact the deletion was made by him without any legal advice or discussion with anybody who has some knowledge about copyright law in Poland. Electron is professional lawyer, I am involved in Polish copyright law issues for years, also for advocating for changes. The same applies to Saper. Bu who cares... Odder POV is more important than the opinion of anybody else... I doesn't make sense to advocate for change of the Sejm clause - because it already allows for any use and reuse. It is obvious for anybody speaking Polish except Odder. So, should we ask Sejm officials to change the statement to make Odder happy? It is ridiculous. Maybe I will talk on Thursday with someone from Ministry of Administration and Digitsation about it [103] - but for sure - informally, because in fact there is nothing to change here from legal POV. This is not Polish goverment fault, that such kind of discussions on Commons tends to be crazy. Read again this discussion and show which - exact legal issues were in fact discussed... There was rather silly discussion of the meaning of simple word "wykorzystywanie" and then empty words of Odder that he "examined the clause". I would like to see more detailed results of his "examination" constructively discussed by other people having at least basic knowledge about Polish copyright law before such a harsh action was taken. I am 100% sure it was wrong over interpretation by Odder + missunderstanding the language by you and Jim. Morever I (and Saper) are pissed off with the situation because such a wild action weakness our negotiation situation in Poland. Who can take seriously a project which mass delete its own content without any good reason, although it advocated before to change the copyright note of Sejm web page??? Polimerek (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have followed some of what is occurring surrounding this issue, both on Commons and on WikiPL-l, and I am dismayed at the amount of bad faith flying around, and the number of personal attacks that are occurring against editors on this project, and by editors who should know better. As it stands now, the images are deleted, they will stay deleted, and until such time as people start discussing this DR in such a way that the discussion is entirely on the issues, rather than on editors, I really can't be bothered discussing any further the issues which existed with the "licencing" (I would not have nominated them otherwise); everything was clearly explained in the nomination, and in the close, and it is all within Commons' licencing policy (especially the irrevocable part which everyone seems to have totally forgotten about). If anyone wishes to request undeletion, COM:UNDEL is that way. End of discussion from me on this matter, until people stop with personal attacks on others. russavia (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Funny how you fail to address any of Polimerek's points. tsca (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note that normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights. That's the principal law. See {{PD-Polishsymbol}} for details. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used without prior authorisation of the ECB."[104] is not explicit enough, although the condition seems to be refering to criminal law, not to copyright. Commercial use? Derivative works? Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, commercial use is OK, but derivative works is arguable (the authorisation is only for "reproduction", which does not cover transformations). IMHO, though, the need for a "derivative wokr" is pointless in that case. Michelet-密是力 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Dutch translation (http://www.ecb.int/bc/reproduction/html/index.nl.html) is about the reproduction of the metal coin itself. I think this disclaimer is not the right one to discuss, it is about coin-reproduction, not about use of pictures. Michiel1972 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright of banknote is owned by ECB, as written in the template's text, but use of banknote's image is totally free (commercial use allowed too) at condition that banknote cannot be confused whit a real one (so you have to write specimen). Derivative works aren't allowed, because in the documents in word reproduction is included minor modification to the banknote apparence. Example: if a take a EURO banknote's image and write on it LUDO instead of EURO, I'm doing a counterfaited banknote, so why care about copyright? I think we can keep this images, because we have to illustrate how banknote are, and we don't need to make derivative works with it. But if Commons requires that derivative have to be allowed... we have to delete. But think that in that case all the wikipedias can upload the images on their servers under the Exemption Doctrine Policy, because i think that EURO banknotes are in the fact licensed as cc-by-nd. All these words are IMHO... ELBorgo (sms) 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If the ECB says we cannot modify the images, then we cannot host it here. On en.wikipedia, maybe. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright of banknote is owned by ECB, as written in the template's text, but use of banknote's image is totally free (commercial use allowed too) at condition that banknote cannot be confused whit a real one (so you have to write specimen). Derivative works aren't allowed, because in the documents in word reproduction is included minor modification to the banknote apparence. Example: if a take a EURO banknote's image and write on it LUDO instead of EURO, I'm doing a counterfaited banknote, so why care about copyright? I think we can keep this images, because we have to illustrate how banknote are, and we don't need to make derivative works with it. But if Commons requires that derivative have to be allowed... we have to delete. But think that in that case all the wikipedias can upload the images on their servers under the Exemption Doctrine Policy, because i think that EURO banknotes are in the fact licensed as cc-by-nd. All these words are IMHO... ELBorgo (sms) 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I also read the Disclaimer and Copyright page for the ECB. The first point, while the ECB asks to be credited, it says the information must be produced accurately. I do not know if this means we cannot modify anything or not, but we can look into this. They do allow commercial use, since they said that if we plan on charging people to see the medium, such as a DVD version, they are notified by us they can see the information for free at the website of the ECB. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a non-derivative license and will be deleted as such. --|EPO| da: 14:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The permission from Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk is absent any clarity. The person replying did not understand what a free license means. He even criticized commercial web sites. No doubt he wouldn't want his pictures being used on commercial web sites. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- When you look at their website, you will see the following declaration : "Please help yourself to the photos on our pages, they are freely available. If you need more detailed photos send us an email and we will return the required specimens. It takes only a few minutes to make a more detailed version of the photo". (bolding by me). [105]. They are clearly very cooperative in this respect. They don't put any restrictions (such as non-commercial) on the word "freely". JoJan 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- "freely available" means "without any fee". It does not mean for commercial purposes etc. Further clarification is necessary. Do not discuss about how something should be interpreted in your opinion, but test which interpretation is actually correct. --Rtc 10:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as there is no consensus for deletion. --|EPO| da: 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Translation "Using, copying and reusing materials from internet service of Polish President is allowed if their source is indicated." (Template talk:PolishPresidentCopyright) is unclear and does not indicate clearly of derivative work and commeercial use is allowed. Perhaps a polish speaking user can check the original and translate it more accurately. The words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found on the web site; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation of the copyright statement. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - please note that it says re-using, copying and reproducing[106] - I would interpret "reuse" as including derivative works. But if not then contact the website and ask (in Polish of course). --Lhademmor 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that re-using means simply that the content that is used on this page may also be used again on other pages—using the unchanged picture in a different context, not the parts of the picture to make a derivative picture. Since "copying" and "reproducing" have the same meaning, I do not see why "re-using" shouldn't mean the same, too. --Rtc 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete re-use, copy and reproduce != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete “re-use, copy and reproduce” is not clear enough. We need the explicit right to make derivative works and to use images commercially. Kjetil r 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Ssolbergj 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep with respecting this restriction: This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever. Mathiasrex 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --WarX 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I see that deletion trolls are very active this week!
- Why the plural? I only see one
- Keep Galileo01 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I don't see any reason to delete it.
- Hello Polish friends, I see that the message of the deletion request of the template reached your wikipedia. Please note that this is not a poll but a discussion. arguments—real arguments—are relevant here; no votes. --Rtc 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above arguments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any arguments above that would imply the pictures to be kept. --Rtc 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I see them, above and below, and agree with them. And I don't agree with your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are no arguments, these are merely conflicting positions. Fortunately, someone is already testing which one is correct, by sending them an email and asking. Let's see what the reply is. --Rtc 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Provided that we will actually get the reply. I still haven't heard from them. :( --Botev 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are no arguments, these are merely conflicting positions. Fortunately, someone is already testing which one is correct, by sending them an email and asking. Let's see what the reply is. --Rtc 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I see them, above and below, and agree with them. And I don't agree with your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any arguments above that would imply the pictures to be kept. --Rtc 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever. means: This permission apply to those elements the rights to which are not reserved, and to no graphic design elements, which may be modified in any way whatsoever. PawełS 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That graphic design elements may not be modified does not imply that anything else may be modified. Nowhere it is positively stated that pictures may be used for commercial purposes (postcards, posters) or derivative work (caricature) without paying an additional free to the photographer. Why don't they use a creative commons license? --Rtc 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- , (...) , is
intrusion(inclusion PawełS 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)), which can be skipped. PawełS 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)- I do not understand at all what you are trying to say. --Rtc 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- , and to no graphic design elements, is inclusion. which may be modified in any way whatsoever apply to both those elements the rights to which are not reserved, and no graphic design elements. PawełS 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The statement reads to me "which may not be modified in any way whatsoever" (emphasized by me). --Rtc 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- , and to no graphic design elements, is inclusion. which may be modified in any way whatsoever apply to both those elements the rights to which are not reserved, and no graphic design elements. PawełS 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- , (...) , is
- Keep oh, come on, this template makes opportunity to release good photos. Yarl.pl talk 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The reason to delete it is the fact that it doesn't specifically allow derivative works, losing good photos isn't a good argument against deletion. Maybe some of you can contact the Polish President's office and get a better permission and send it to OTRS? That'd solve the problem. Yonatan talk 08:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As I understand my mother-language, we can use photographs made by president's personell and published on this website in any way and any purpose, except graphic-design of the website. This discussion here seems to be a copyright-paranoia syndrome. Julo 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it says we can use it in any way for any purpose then I don't see a problem with it, but does it literally say that? Yonatan talk 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that we couldn't use these pictures legally in principle, but I am saying that they have not been released under a free license compliant to COM:L. Free license means a lot more than merely legality. --Rtc 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it says in any way and for any purpose, that includes commercial use and derivative works so I don't see the problem (that is, IF it says that). Yonatan talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be skeptical about that. You better do not rely on general statements for which, when written, people often do not even think of that it could include derivative work or commercial use. why doesn't anyone simply ask? --Rtc 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it says in any way and for any purpose, that includes commercial use and derivative works so I don't see the problem (that is, IF it says that). Yonatan talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that we couldn't use these pictures legally in principle, but I am saying that they have not been released under a free license compliant to COM:L. Free license means a lot more than merely legality. --Rtc 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
In Polish we read here: Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w serwisie internetowym Prezydenta RP, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie nie dotyczy jedynie elementów zastrzeżonych oraz elementów graficznych, które nie mogą być też modyfikowane w jakikolwiek sposób. Literally in first sentence we have permission to use, copy and "utilization" (meanig "using in any way and any purpose") materials from the President's website, if the source (website) is given. Next sentence says about the exceptions ("zezwolenie nie dotyczy jedynie = "permission does not regard [or 'refer', 'concern'] only"): "reserved elements" and "graphic elements" of website. Those "reserved" elements you should understand as - for instance - quotations from encyclopedias; it is mentioned in the sentence above: (...) Encyklopedii PWN w trzech tomach oraz Nowej encyklopedii powszechnej PWN (Copyright(r) by Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN S.A. Warszawa 1999, Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Graphic elements you should understand as graphic design, using Mr. President's signature, "BIP" logo, shading white/red flag etc.
- If it says we can use it in any way for any purpose then I don't see a problem with it, but does it literally say that? Yonatan talk 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The admin closing this discussion should more or less disregard all the keep votes that are not backed by real arguments. It should not be too hard to ask the office of the Polish President if they can clarify the license - see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Solveig Fiske.jpg for a similar discussion. Kjetil r 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have striked out unargumented "votes". By the way, IMHO asking any officials for official opinion seems to be like don Kichote's trip... Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Polish version: Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w serwisie internetowym Prezydenta RP, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia [107]. Używanie: using, kopiowanie: copying, wykorzystywanie: utilizing, exploiting. I cannot see any possibility, that licensor giving such a broad-meaning terms could possibly want to exclude commercial and derivative usage... So Keep. A.J. 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please ask them. Check whether something for what you cannot see any possibility might nevertheless actually be true.--Rtc 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why should I? The above text is clear enough. We don't usually ask our uploaders if they really REALLY with hand on heart want to release their work on GFDL/CC/whatever. However, recent discussion on COM:AN/U shows, that maybe we should... NOTE: If the consensus settles on asking president's office for explanation, the more official way we take (through Wikimedia Poland?), the more chance we actually get any response. A.J. 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should because the above text is not clear enough. In contrast, GFDL/CC are explicit; they are explicit about commercial use and they are explicit about deriviative work. I assume you won't get the permission to use these pictures, no matter how 'official' the request is being done. Besides that, the request is not for wikimedia poland to be able to use the picture, but for anyone, which should be reflected in a change of their licensing terms directed at more explicitness and clarity; a request should not be directed at a mere reply by mail. The public is the licensor, not the person mailing them. The best way to do this is to ask them to use a CC license. --Rtc 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why should I? The above text is clear enough. We don't usually ask our uploaders if they really REALLY with hand on heart want to release their work on GFDL/CC/whatever. However, recent discussion on COM:AN/U shows, that maybe we should... NOTE: If the consensus settles on asking president's office for explanation, the more official way we take (through Wikimedia Poland?), the more chance we actually get any response. A.J. 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please ask them. Check whether something for what you cannot see any possibility might nevertheless actually be true.--Rtc 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, it is not clear enogh ONLY for persons, who do not speak Polish. For me it is quite clear.
According "ask them": I don't believe in any response from officials. We asked them in November for official definition about shades of red and white in Polish emblems, but no reply.
I really don't understand people, who believe in PD-USGov, but do not accept parallel rules in other countries... Julo 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)- There are no parallel rules in any country. PD-USGov is unique. --Rtc 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't fight with words. Paralell does not mean identical. Every country is unique, but many rules are paralell. Julo 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I do not fight with words. I am not claiming that there are no identical rules in any country, but that there are no parallel rules in any country. In the meaning of the word 'parallel' exactly as you intend to use it here. --Rtc 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't fight with words. Paralell does not mean identical. Every country is unique, but many rules are paralell. Julo 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are no parallel rules in any country. PD-USGov is unique. --Rtc 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - "używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie" looks clear enough to me - while it doesn't explicitly say that it can be modified, I'd say it is implied by using both "używanie" (using) and "wykorzystywanie" (using, utilizing, exploiting). Ausir 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I claim that it is not implied and that your consequence is not true here. --Rtc 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have just sent an e-mail asking them whether we can use the pictures on the GNU license. Let us see if they will answer. --Botev 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I claim that your claim is bad faithed and disruptive to this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What an utterly bad faith, transparent claim, Piotrus. I suggest you read w:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith; hopefully you will then realize how utterly bad faith and disruptive your claim is. --Iamunknown 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)- Re-reading my comment, I really am ashamed of what I said. Sorry, Iamunknown 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
* this is not a voting. --Botev 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Serdelll 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - rtc, Eugene and Kjetil have got it down, derivative works and commercial reuse are not expressly permitted, thus we don't assume that we have those rights. --Iamunknown 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I am reading the English copy of the copyright notice. There is a statement after what is pasted onto that template that reads: "This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever." I believe that, until clarified, makes the images unfree. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photographs are not "graphic design elements" and the note explicitly mentions the elements that cannot be modified, which clearly implies that the others can. Therefore no reason to delete the tag. Wojsyl 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Becouse: "The President of the Republic of Poland allows it to be used for any purpose" Krzysiu Jarzyna ☎ 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any reason to delete this template. It is OK. --Ala z 11:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any reason, "The President of the Republic of Poland allows it to be used for any purpose". Hmmm? M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Szumyk 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I told many times on Polish Wiki. This is not a voting! Herr Kriss 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the text of the permission is clear and explicit, there is no doubt as to the intentions of the license giver. // tsca [re] 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The text of permission is clear and explicit.Andros64 07:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyright statement is unclear if the works can be commercially distributed and derivative works can be made out of them. Because of this, the template has been deleted. (→O - RLY?) 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have rstored the template and have put a redirect to {{copyvio}} --ALE! ¿…? 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I’ll help deleting them, over 350 files. :-( --Polarlys 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This request was closed by User:O and all files were deleted. They were restored by User:Tsca. We are waiting for an official response from the Chancellery of the President of Poland right now. … --Polarlys 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Any progress? Do we know which Wikimedian sent the email? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- An email was sent by user:Jeff G..
- Also, Wikimedia Polska has sent an official inquiry (traditional mail) to the Chancellery. I'll inform the Commons community as soon as we receive a reply. // tsca [re] 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011893 See also the template’s talk page. --Polarlys 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
kept, the licensing on the official site changed to a GFDL statement. --Polarlys 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Which roughly translates to that they may be used for various purposes without special permission." which "various purposes"? I don't understand the original text, but since the permission for modification is not mentioned, it looked suspicious enough. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Icelandic text is: "Á þessari síðu eru sett fram nokkur kort sem heimilt er að nota í ýmsum tilgangi, án sérstaks leyfis frá stofnuninni. Fleiri kort munu bætast við á næstunni. Smelltu á kortið og þú færð upp stærri mynd." This means literally: "On this page are several maps which are allowed to be used for various purposes, without getting a special permission from the institution. More maps will be added presently. Click on the map and you get a larger image." This is indeed too vague a licence for Commons. Haukurth 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete as the permission for "various purposes" is somwhat unclear. --|EPO| da: 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete "various purposes" is unclear / weak --ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is not a copyright license (which the archive cannot grant, because it is not copyright holder), but a copyfraud clause for pictures with expired copyright, for which the archive demands credit. For those pictures with copyright protection, one must, of course, additionally get permission from the rights holder: "The user must assume any and all responsibility for obtaining appropriate permission for use or assurance of adherence to copyright restriction."[108] If the picture's copyright has expired, one can use {{PD-art}} instead of this tag anyway. (Besides: Even if it were a license, it talks of 'reproduction', which does not mean modification. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license.)--Rtc 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ^
- Delete but check which photos can be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but only after the images are dealt with. The English Wikipedia has deleted the template for the same reason. The template was deleted, but not dealing with the images has caused problems. Royalbroil 15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- roughly 250 to 300 photos have to be checked. Sigh! Please help! --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have gone through all the images below Image:Boeing 377.jpg (not inclusive) on the what links here list. All below that file should be deleted (if that is the outcome of this discussion), as they are not public domain in the U.S. (taken before January 1, 1923). I have marked all of the images that I uploaded below that file for deletion as a {{copyvio}}, and I have removed the images from the English Wikipedia. I will do more when I have more time. Royalbroil 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am up to Image:Tri-motor Fokker.jpg. Royalbroil 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I went through the entire list. I changed every image from before January 1, 1923 to {{PD-US}}. All of the remaining images that link to the template were taken after January 1, 1923, or have no date posted at their source at the Florida Photographic Collection. In addition, I marked each remaining image that I uploaded for speedy deletion as copyvio. All of the images that I uploaded were racecars, except for one image of a racing pilot woman. Please delete these images, ALE!, and do not warn me on my talk page since I am aware of their status. I don't think there's anything more that I can do to help you since I'm a non-admin. Royalbroil 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I definitivly did not write anything on your talk page, so I do not knwo what you are talking abot (See: [109]). --ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was alerting you to the progress that I had made on the images, since you had requested help. I know that you didn't leave a message on my talk page! Royalbroil 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, some small missunderstanding. --ALE! ¿…? 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was alerting you to the progress that I had made on the images, since you had requested help. I know that you didn't leave a message on my talk page! Royalbroil 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I definitivly did not write anything on your talk page, so I do not knwo what you are talking abot (See: [109]). --ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I went through the entire list. I changed every image from before January 1, 1923 to {{PD-US}}. All of the remaining images that link to the template were taken after January 1, 1923, or have no date posted at their source at the Florida Photographic Collection. In addition, I marked each remaining image that I uploaded for speedy deletion as copyvio. All of the images that I uploaded were racecars, except for one image of a racing pilot woman. Please delete these images, ALE!, and do not warn me on my talk page since I am aware of their status. I don't think there's anything more that I can do to help you since I'm a non-admin. Royalbroil 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am up to Image:Tri-motor Fokker.jpg. Royalbroil 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So, we still have about 250 photos there. Some Admin with a lot of time ;-) should now check them and delete directly those that can not be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of this was D! E! L! E! T! E! (→O - RLY?) 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work and commercial use is not expressly permitted; it talks of reproduction and reprinting. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). I think chances are not bad to succeed to do convince the website to do this here. --Rtc 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep do not be ridiculus, the copyright notice allows any use that is obviously includes commercial and modification. Should we delete all the licenses that does not explicitly allow redistribution on Sunday by white postal pigeons? Alex Bakharev 11:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- no, "any use" does not necessarily include commercial and modification. Use is often understood concerning the context of the use, not concerning whether you make money out of it or whether you may make modifications. Why don't you talk to them, perhaps you can convince them to place a CC license tag on their web site. Why should they not if they do want to release the pictures in the way you claim? It's really not a big matter to ask. --Rtc 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Any" does include commercial use and modification. "Any" is inclusive of everything. Messedrocker 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- no, "any use" does not necessarily include commercial and modification. Use is often understood concerning the context of the use, not concerning whether you make money out of it or whether you may make modifications. Why don't you talk to them, perhaps you can convince them to place a CC license tag on their web site. Why should they not if they do want to release the pictures in the way you claim? It's really not a big matter to ask. --Rtc 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Any news, articles and photos, created by MosNews.Com staff, are public domain freeware since the moment of original publication, so please feel free to help yourself, if you find any item on this website (including this very copyright notice) worth a reprint elsewhere. MaxSem 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Any news, articles and photos, created by MosNews.Com staff, are public domain freeware since the moment of original publication" And freeware is not public domain. Attribution, which they request, is not public domain. Public domain means a lot of different things to people. Without qualification it can mean anything and nothing. --Rtc 11:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is about you may freely reprint and redistribute them, in full or in part, in any form you find suitable, including, but not limited to, websites, printed and broadcast media? Alex Spade 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work and commercial use is not expressly permitted. --Rtc 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Der.works - in full or in part, in any form you find suitable. Alex Spade 23:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work and commercial use is not expressly permitted. --Rtc 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- What is about you may freely reprint and redistribute them, in full or in part, in any form you find suitable, including, but not limited to, websites, printed and broadcast media? Alex Spade 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Any news, articles and photos, created by MosNews.Com staff, are public domain freeware since the moment of original publication" And freeware is not public domain. Attribution, which they request, is not public domain. Public domain means a lot of different things to people. Without qualification it can mean anything and nothing. --Rtc 11:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete you may freely reprint and redistribute them, in full or in part != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- in any form you find suitable Alex Spade 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless if this is kept,we need to check the images tagged with this license and see if they actually are from MosNews, since I have seen photos from the AP, BelTA and Lenta.ru, just to name a few, on the site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)If I read it correctly, the "in full or in part" means that we are able to crop the photos, since we are using part of a photograph taken by MosNews. Plus, regardless if they even make everything into the public domain, they still have what it is called "moral rights," which means we still have to credit the source and the authors. We do that for every image to check and make sure materials are in the public domain. Keep. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)- Derivative work goes way beyond cropping the photos. COM:L says that all modification must be permitted, as far as copyright is concerned, not some modification. Can I use these photos in advertisements, for printing postcards or posters, and for creating caricatures, without paying money to the photographer (I am not saying that this use is legal automatically concerning personality rights; these are independent and usually the photographer has nothing to do with them—assume that I have appropriate permission from all persons displayed). --Rtc 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep MosNews don't worry about it. Sidik iz PTU 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why should it be deleted ?--MZM-MSYK 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Darz Mol 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A ridiculous interpretation of legal by the nom: in normal societies all what is not forbidden is permitted, not vice versa. Mikkalai 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right. And for works, copyright law forbids anything except what is expressly permitted by the rights holder. So there is nothing wrong here.--rtc 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll email MosNews and ask them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- email sent. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Email bounced, so I could not get a clarification to use the license. Delete for now. We can always restore photos once we get the license clarified. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mosnews is offline.[110] But perhaps someone could try to ask Anton Nossik (the brain behind it) at his weblog --Hardscarf 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Email bounced, so I could not get a clarification to use the license.
- email sent. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll email MosNews and ask them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right. And for works, copyright law forbids anything except what is expressly permitted by the rights holder. So there is nothing wrong here.--rtc 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as users above --Orlovic (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per MaxSem M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, derivative work and commercial use is not expressly permitted. --Polarlys 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not as difficult as this thread suggests. So here is a very basic guide to relevant parts of Danish copyright laws:
1/ Money is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is an amateur or professional and it doesn't matter whether the publisher is commercial or non-profit, the rules are the same.
2/ The photographer (and not the copyright holder) has to be credited no matter who owns the copyright to the picture - even if the photographer is dead. The Danish National Union of Journalists regularly send bills to media who has legally published a picture but forgotten to credit the photographer).
3/ When a photographer allows the publication of a picture that includes publication • in one particular media • on one particular occasion All other uses (on multiple platforms, more than one time, in more than one title, by a third person or storing in an archive/retrieval system (including on a computer hard disk)) must be specifically agreed upon between the photographer and the person/organisation to whom he/she hands over all or part of the copyright.
4/ If a picture has been (legally) edited then the editor retains some copyright protection in relation to the edited version of the picture.
5/ Any form of 'intellectual work' including pictures can be quoted - but this is a bit tricky, because it requires that it is not the motif in the original picture that- in itself - is the reason for the quotation, but, typically, that the original publication of the picture or its context has had some consequence which is the rationale for the (visual) quotation. Furthermore, both the visual presentation and the accompanying text must make it clear where the picture is from and why it is quoted. Usually the courts accept that a minor part of a work can be quoted but it depends on both the form and the size of the original work.
6/ The question of distortion or 'derivatives' of a picture has nothing to do with criminal law (quite an exotic suggestion - no, it's purely a matter for civil law). It relates to the old (and almost universal) codex 'droits morale' (moral rights) which is completely separated from copyright. The rights according to 'droits morale' a/ cannot be sold or transferred in any other way by the photographer, and b/ protects the integrity of the photographer by making it illegal to alter or use a photograph in a way that is contrary to the photographers original intentions.
In conclusion: If Folketinget has acquired the right to allow others to publish a picture, then you can publish it (within the limitations, if any, in the agreement between the photographer and Folketinget), as long as you remember to credit the photographer and do not violate his/her moral rights. However, such an agreement does not absolve you, the publisher, from responsibility so you have to be certain that the agreement gives you the right to publication in the way you intent.
Notes: A/ The full (Danish) text of the law is here: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12014 B/ I have used the words 'photographer' and 'photograph' extensively (as they are the focus of the discussion here), but it would be more correct to say 'creator' and 'work' as the law applies to all forms of intellectual and artistic works.
(Reopened on July 30th, 2007 by ALE! ¿…?)
Derivative work and commercial use isn't expressly permitted, so it seems that this is a license for publication purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about actually reading the text? "De billeder vi bruger på ft.dk er enten fotograferet af Folketingets ansatte eller af professionelle fotografer, hvor vi har betalt ekstra for muligheden for at lægge billederne ud til fri benyttelse." = "The pictures we use on ft.dk are either photographed by employees of Parliament or by professional photographers where we [=ft.dk / Parliament] have paied extra money to allow the pictures to be used freely." And you claim that commercial use is not allowed. That is exactly why ft.dk paid off these photographers. Valentinian (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I claim that it is true. --Rtc 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that was the case, they wouldn't have used the words "lægge ud". I don't see the reason for this request either. --Pred 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Valentian, do you claim that “fri benyttelse” implies the right to make derivative works? Kjetil r 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- True, but it is still ambiguous IMO. I'll send dthem an e-mail later today. Kjetil r 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Valentinian has got a point. Rtc, why are you so hooked on deleting haft the repostery? --Lhademmor 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which point do you see in what Valentinian writes? Rtc 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have now written to Folketinget asking if commercial use is allowed, and if one can make derivative works. It is written in conservative Norwegian, which should be easily understood by Danes. See User:Kjetil r/folketinget. Kjetil r 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it says 'any' use it allowed. Why the need to get any more explicit? - Andre Engels 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, such thoughts have to be banished at all means. It is keeping trouble away from the copyright holder to demand from him that he states the terms clearly. Since, in case he doesn't intend the license as broad as you read it, he can well have a lot of drawbacks from that. If he intends it to be as broad, then it should be no problem for him to state that unambiguously and give users of his works the safetry they need. It is honest and not rude to demand licensing terms to be stated clearly; it is in the rights holder's as well as the user's interest (except, perhaps, in the collectionist's who don't care about the actual intentions of the rights holder, but only about satisfying their endless greed for more pictures from other people's sites). --Rtc 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Asking a copyright holder to say that their images are free of copyright issues even for defamatory purposes (which is effectively what this is) is a contradiction in terms. Defamatory actions against individuals are outlawed in the Danish criminal code § 267 [111] so let's assume that a Dane states that an image of a living person may be used completely unrestricted. In that case, I would argue that giving such a permit might in itself be a violation the criminal code's § 136, art. 1 [112] which forbids anyone from encouraging others to commit criminal actions. Distinguishing these two aspects as you demand [113] is simply not a possibility under Scandinavian law, and I would expect that German law also forbids encouraging criminal activities. If not, please inform me of any jurisdiction in which it is not an offence to encourage crime. However, asking somebody: "May we use this image for any purpose including commercial use, modification and derivative works, while naturally understanding that we are also bound by the criminal code", is a request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself. Unless we have this clarification, somebody will have to analyse American law extremely carefully. If libel/defamation and encouraging crime, as I expect, are both criminal offences under U.S. law, won't we then have to delete all images of all living people from the Commons? Provided this is the case, it might be an idea to ask if any such attitude is what this project needs? Valentinian (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The standard requests people file to copyright holders can indeed very easily give the impression I stated above and copyright law does not exist in a vacuum. Suppose a copyright holder has tried to release an image as CC but somebody questions this and e-mails him: "Do you really mean that we may use your images for all intents and purposes?" The copyright holder can't give a positive reply without compromising himself, however this is what Commons effectively demands. If he replies "I hereby confirm that I release ... .jpg under CC" then he'll be fine. If he answers "sure, do what you want with it" he might put himself in harm's way. Which is why many copyright holders will try to cover their own bases by stating something like; "you can't use my work for anything illegal". But to stay clear of this problem we'd effectively have to send out emails stating something like "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than "yes" since you may incriminate yourself by doing so. The photographer's legal bases would be covered by such a message, but I sincerely doubt that anybody would reply positively to such a mail. Valentinian (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I do not think that a CC license needs ever to be questioned, if it was stated by the author on his web page and there are no other indications that there is something wrong with it (for example, if he sold exclusive licenses and hence may not be legally entitled to license the work anymore)—it is the author's responsibility to read and understand the license he grants, really. Second, it is simply wrong that an answer such as "sure, do what you want with it" is in any way problematic. Whether you are complying with criminal law is completely your issue, not the author's; he cannot exempt you from your duties. It is out of scope of questions about copyright. Third, I do not believe that "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than 'yes' since you may incriminate yourself by doing so." is a correct way at all to do it, but, as I already said, "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions". This asks the author to clarify the terms and conditions on his web site, not to give you any problematic reply at all. --Rtc 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I had something like this in my version of the licensing template already for ages. The relevant passage translates roughly to "I permit anyone to use the picture according to the free licence/s X. This permission refers only to copyright. Personality rights, competition law, trademark law and other laws remain unaffected. However, I know that in general, I cannot additionally sue for copyright violation if the work is used in conflict with such or other interests I have [that refers to the licensor's religious, political, ethical or material interests]." --Rtc 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I created the template, and had the original email conversation. It seemed quite clear to me that there were no restrictions to the use of the images. Thue 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- See the reply from Høyer below, he is supposed to get back to me with a clarification. If it was quite clear, no clarification would be needed, right? (I have not received further emails from him) Kjetil r 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
til: Kjetil Ree vedr.: Brug af billeder Tak for din mail. Jeg skal have snakket med et par kollegaer om en præcisering af betingelserne for brugen af billeder på ft.dk. Jeg vender tilbage med et svar om kort tid. p.v.a. Folketingets webmaster Benny Høyer 27. marts 207
I have now received an answer from folketinget:
Tak for din påmindelse. Jeg har fået aftale følgende formulering emd koppegaer i vores kommunikationsafdeling: "Ophavsretten til tekst og billeder på Folketingets hjemmesider tilhører Folketinget. Materialet kan dog frit benyttes og gengives med klar kildeangivelse, men må ikke gøres til genstand for selvstændig kommerciel udnyttelse eller for direkte forvanskning." Jeg håber formuleringen dækker de supplerende spørgsmål du havde. pva. Folketingets webmaster Benny Høyer 9. maj 2007
Kjetil r 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The key phrase is that they do not allow "selvstændig" (stand-alone?) commercial use. Seems like a mass deletion? :( --|EPO| 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, based on the above all images should be deleted. But Folketinget cannot have that that intention. Let me just contact them and ask them to reconsider... Thue 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- They said in reply to my email that they would reconsider, but haven't gotten back to me yet. Still waiting... Thue 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, this would be much simpler if we would not allow licenses that do not expressly permit unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. I think that this is an invalid license, but am willing to wait until we got confirmation on its validity. --Iamunknown 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- What would have been easier was if legal traditions hadn't developed as differently as they did on the two sides of the Atlantic. In Denmark, every child knows that defamation of others is outlawed, but people mix up which law this is specified in, for one thing, because our country isn't the lawyers' paradise that the U.S. is. In addition, people are afraid that if they give a "you may use it for everything" permission, that they put themselves in harm's way legally should somebody misuse the material. Given a Danish cultural background, it is very difficult interpreting unlimited requests as anything but a "may I break the law with this image?"-request. What people need to do is to add very clearly a clarification of a type that "We naturally recognize that other laws may apply regarding against inappropriate use of your image(s), but this request has nothing to do with this issue, only the copyright status of the image(s)." Or something along those lines. Valentinian (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point (and one I would not have come up with by myself!). That said, many restrictions may apply to the use of an image that are separate from copyright (personality rights, trademarks, laws against fraud). But I was under the impression that the license Www.folketinget.dk puts their images under was restrictive in terms of copyright, based upon the above e-mail conversation; are these images not under copyright restrictions? --Iamunknown 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that the original photographer(s) give(s) a toss about these images. A previous email from the same person stated that the images were either taken by Folketinget staff or by professional photographers that had been paid off specifically to allow unrestricted use. I've had my own photo taken that way when I stood as a candidate years ago, and I know from one MP that e.g. Venstre paid one photographer a large amount so he couldn't later cite any rights nomatter what Venstre did with his photos of our candidates to parliament. From what I read here, it is obvious that Folketinget made a similar arrangement. The current mail reads directly: (quote) "The copyright to text and images on the webpages of Folketinget belongs to Folketinget. Materials may however be freely used and reprinted given a clear indication of source, but they may not be the objects of stand-alone commercial use or complete corruption [of their content]." (unquote) The one caveat about modification beyond recognition would be a violation of moral rights anyway (and Folketinget is concerned about not accidentally sanctioning something completely bizzare / criminal which would look bad on Parliament). Forgive me for going just a tad over the line: the sender of the email is saying between the lines that he doesn't wish to lose his own job just in case he is talking to a complete crackpot that then does something insane and then cites Folketinget's e-mail as "documentation" that it was legal for the offender to smear all of Parliament. Had I been in his position and not been a Wikipedian (so I knew what the purpose of the request actually was about) I would have replied with something almost identical. Wikipedia's "modification" clause sounds very innocent but it is extremely problematic in a Scandinavian context because people believe that you're asking for permission to break the laws about defamation of others, and that's part of the criminal code. If you were saying that you were asking for permission to correct technical errors, nobody would care. Newspapers do this all the time.
- As I see it, the issue needing clarification here is stand-alone commercial exploitation, but the core of the underlying problem is that the average Dane will confuse at least two laws, and that the notion of "public domain" is next to unknown in Scandinavia. For decades, the standard practice has been to pay off the photographer (he is happy, and you'll never hear from him again) and to release the image "to the press" meaning that the press may use it free of charge. This consequently gives a politician some sort of control over which image(s) his local newspaper actually uses of him. These press releases are considered stock footage sent to those that ask for a photo of a given person or object. The normal caveat is that corruption of logos (and sometimes images) may be specifically denied. If a later user of the material is then stupid enough to do something criminal (read: insulting) with the image, he/she would be charged with breaking the criminal code regarding this issue. Denmark doesn't normally use the U.S. practice of suing people for X different violations at the same time. Instead the public prosecutor will charge a person with the offence giving the highest penalty, unless of course the case is very complex e.g. a politician committing a ton of offences against the public - he would be tried with a selection of charges. Valentinian (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Status report? Did Thue contact webmaster again? Do we agree that permission is not complying with Commons policies? --|EPO| 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I see it the template (and images) should all be deleted. --Broadbeer 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have gotten a few replies, and it seems very likely that the images will be available under an acceptable license. I am still talking to them to determine which license that will be, or rather waiting for them to respond to my questions. They are extremely slow :(. But please don't delete the images before I have finished talking to them. Thue 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- If it really seems likely images will be released under an acceptable license I agree we should give it a chance. Even though the images' current copyright status on Commons are somewhat unclear. But if a free license is realistic we should keep it. Just too bad they're that slow. --|EPO| 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not very good to keep them too long, but if we delete them now and they are going to released soon it would be a VERY big work to upload them again (or undo deletion). --Broadbeer 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thue, I'm actually impressed that you keep contacting them eventhough the webmaster must be pissed with Wikipedia by now. If you haven't mentioned it already, the Dutch Parliament has allowed the use of a series of photos of its cabinet under GFDL (en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch government), so Folketinget might find that interesting. #2) That Wikipedia recognizes that Danish law still applies against illegal (smearing) use, and that the request merely concerns copyright. This entire Wikilawyering against press images is just counterproductive. Wikipedia rejects a ton of European images that nobody even questions are intended for gratis mass distribution, using a very rigid interpretation of what a free image is. Yet, nobody even questions the use of a ton of U.S. government images that are very likely covered by copyright outside of the U.S. Same deal with the PD-art images; PD is the U.S. and Germany, but no-no for many other Wikipedias. Not to mention how ridiculous it felt when I had to lecture a Danish politician who wanted his press image to be used on his Wikipedia article that he most likely doesn't have the right to release an image he paid for, since Wikipedia's interpretation of U.S. law doesn't care about Danish practice regarding commissioned works. And judging from my inbox, I'll have to reject a similar image tomorrow. Valentinian (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep As per the above discussion. --Alien life form 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I think I have the right to pissed, because they originally told me that I could use the images without restrictions. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- update: I finally got a reply today (the long wait has only been because of their slowness). They refuse to waive the "no stand-alone commercial use" clause. I replied with a final plea for them to consider for example a CC attribution-sharealike license, but I have asked that before, so one might consider the issue closed already. However, I sometimes get the idea that they really do not read what I actually write, so there is a small chance that my suggested has not registered up unil now, but by a miracle will now... Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, any updates? --Iamunknown 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you do keep it, I request you rename it to something more easily understandable, like "PD-Folketinget", or "CC-Folketinget" or something. The current template name says NOTHING beyond the site that it's taken from — It's not a licence tag! 68.39.174.238 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —Angr 20:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I updated the license tag, as the permission is NonCommercial and NonDerviative. --Kjetil r 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If it is really non commercial and non derivative then it has to be deleted. Therefore I reopened the deletion request. --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, lets delete them. / Fred J 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being - The matter is still being investigate by User:Thue, he has previously stated that the process is very slow but that he beleives the images will be released under an adequate license. We should await this process before doing any deletion. --Morten LJ 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- If we are to keep them it would be nice with an update as we haven't seen any since June 17. --Broadbeer 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I asked him for an update. His reply on my talk page was that he can't get in contact with them right now as they all gone for the summer. He is still optimistic for a free license.
- But until a free license has been confirmed we should not accept any more uploads. --|EPO| da: 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I finally got a reply. It was a "no" to remove the "no stand-alone commercial redistribution". As such the images would have to be deleted :(. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Would someone care to explain what "Complete corruption" is supposed to mean? 68.39.174.238 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was translated from Danish "direkte forvanskning" by User:Valentinian. "Direkte forvanskning" means something like "directly made difficult," but it is hard to translate it correctly into English. Kjetil r 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remember that pictures/portraits of a person is not allowed in a commercial ad without a model release (in most countries). --Bongoman 08:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as the license does not allow unrestricted commercial use. If no new arguments for keeping are made, then I will ensure deletion of all images within a very short time. --|EPO| da: 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Thue's recent information. Valentinian T / C 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Closing, template is now copyvio, all images with the template will be deleted soon. / Fred J 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
unused template. -- Common Good (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This website previously stated "Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate"[emphasized by me] = All information on the site is public information which may be copied and distributed. Copying and distributing does not mean modifying. While nonderivative is without question, it additionally most certainly refers to a "for journalistic purposes" permission. Now, this has actually been clarified on the web site. Instead of taking the correct conclusion that the old license has restated in less ambiguous terms, and was never meant as public domain, the license tag is now claiming the license was changed, and the old would still be valid. That is of course not correct, and the template and all pictures should be deleted completely. It must even be suspected that the statmenet was meant to refer to Information, not about copyright of works on the web site. That is, it was supposed to state that the webseite contained no w:Classified information; by no means it was supposed to grant any license at all. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Rtc, what are you doing again? What are you trying to make up this time? Please stop such erroneous and ridiculous deletion requests once for ever! Your behavior here is really outraging me for quite some time! Now I will raise my voice far more vigorously than in the past when I unfortunately had less time because of business! All pictures of Italian defense ministry are clearly Public Domain! In other pages of defence ministry there it is clearly stated that pictures can be used freely at condition that ministry or dependant agencies (army, air force, navy) are cited as source. And it is more than obvious that also in this case as stated on the template they give license to the public to use the pictures as they want. The statement "Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate" means that EVERY INFORMATION (Yes EVERY) and obviously no matter if written or as picture is considered for the public and can be distributed or copied. If ministry says the old license is still valid, then it is definitely correct, as nominal holder of copyright of these pictures (that in Italy are public domain after 20 years AND are obviously governmental pictures especially when taken under the fascist regime) they have all the rights to do that. In cases like that Italian law does not allow retrospective. So all pictures uploaded before May 23rd 2006 retain the old policy if you like it or not. Rtc, is this not clear enough for you? When information of any kind is explicitely stated as published for the public it is obviously Public Domain. Quite similar to the work of US governmental agencies. If you do not properly understand Italian or Italian laws then stay away or at least ask what you want to know instead of requesting deletions in such an obviously provocative way! I really would like to know what phantasies are you trying to buid up just to force deletion of all pictures released from Italy. What you are supposing is completely wrong! Ask the ministry like I did long before if you do not believe what I say. And please stop trying to deceive and mislead other users. You seem to have a very big problem with Italian pictures and licences. It is not the first time you try to destroy work of many people even when covered by clear copyrights. Unfortunately you succeeded a few times because also many users and admins seemed to be not willing to take the time neccessary to work out if a license tag is legally acceptable or not. They just went the "way of less resistance" (a true scandal to say the least). Be aware that this time it will not be as easy for you. And I hope you will not return to your bad language of the earlier discussions of this kind. Just rants and no arguments (I prefer not to cite what you wrote). Remember that you had also been blocked on German Wikipedia for that! And your request to accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license) is an incredible proof of your incompetence. Rtc, if you are so keen on trying to rule over licenses as you think and to destroy widely accepted work of many genuine users then get outta here and get lost or at least found your very own online encyclopedia where you can do whatever you want! This deletion request is completely erroneous and I ask the fellow users to ignore it and keep the license tag. It would be fine for me to modify it in a way that every doubt would be excluded right away. To all users: Please get a hold on you with deletion requests. Too many pictures in the past were deleted in an unjust way. It is better to try to fix before deleting. For me deletion is always the very last of means.
KEEP!
Reptil 8 March 2007, 6:45 (UTC)
I do not see a single argument, and in fact most of what you write is wrong and ignores the arguments I have given in the deletion request. The template will be deleted if you do not discuss correctly and point out a flaw in the arguments of the deletion request. The Ministry does not say that "the old license is still valid", but a commons user claims that. The Ministry has actually clarified the license, I guess after having found out that it has been misread by some naive commons users to mean public domain. Ah, and please don't shoot the messenger! Your exasperation and populism won't stop me from questioning and requesting deletion for each and every single tag that is from a critical point of view certainly not intended to be compatible to COM:L. That "EVERY INFORMATION (Yes EVERY) and obviously no matter if written or as picture is considered for the public and can be distributed or copied." simply does not mean that EVERY INFORMATION can also be used to create derivative works, and that it may also be used for commercial purposes. And a law is not retrospective if copyrights come alive again, as long as they don't come alive again for the past, but only for the future. --Rtc 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I happened to write part of the notes about this template, first on it.wiki, then here. Well, since I don't believe to be a liar, and since I'm not able to recognise serious new arguments, I cannot tell you anything different from what previously explained in the template's talk. I believe that it could seem quite rude, indeed, that someone is discussing Italian legal terms without knowing Italian language and Italian law, however the point is not politesse, the point is that all the images downloaded from difesa.it before the indicated date, are in the public domain. The problem is instead about images downloaded (and uploaded here) after that date. Nothing else, nothing more. As said before. Easy to solve, really: images tagged with this template must have been uploaded before May 23, 2006, and all what uploaded after (if not otherwise allowed) must be deleted. That's all. The rest is once again only a strange case of uninformed theoretical exercises about Italian law.
Rtc, given that you have such a consideration of other users, now please be coherent with yourself and kindly indicate us with all of your wisdom:
- who told you that "informazioni per il pubblico" can be translated as "public information"?
- where can we read that the previous licensing was a "for journalistic purposes" permission? Who told you that? Where in the Italian law is there a special treatment for journalists? Can you tell a case, please?
- what allows you to conclude that "the old license has restated in less ambiguous terms" when not a word there is now in the site about licences? which concepts are now "less ambiguous"?
- who are you to decide that difesa.it "by no means it was supposed to grant any license at all"? given that this site is run by a governmental office, why this office should not be able to do what all the other offices (in Italy) are allowed and perhaps also are expected to do?
- where can we read that "Now, this has actually been clarified on the web site." Where is it? Please link and/or quote this passage in the original language.
- "The Ministry has actually clarified the license": where the hell can you read it? Did you buy a special browser to read it? Where do they sell it and where can I buy this special browser so that I can read it too? The ministry simply removed the licensing terms, there is no license visible any more, are you really trying to say that this would be a clarification? Is this what you mean for "discuss correctly"? Honestly, I'm astonished. Please discuss this matter in legal terms and without inventing what has not already been invented: the removal of license didn't say anything, some text was deleted and this is the whole fact, please don't speculate on what hasn't been written.
About retrospective laws, I do hope that you can keep in mind that what once falls in the public domain, will belong to the public domain forever. This would usually be logical, but better to underline it for naive ital-deletionists. It's not really true that "copyrights come alive again", if you know the sense and the meaning (the legal meaning, especially) of "public domain". Which is said to be quite compatible to COM:L.
The Ministry does not say that "the old license is still valid" because it now says nothing, really nothing, about licenses. If you wish, the brocard is "tempus regit actum", so there would be no need to specify that point, given that its consequences (PD) cannot be reverted if they were even mistakenly caused by difesa.it and when licensed in that way contents were in PD. FYI, the removal of the license, on a legal point of view, does not actually mean that the ministry changed its policy, even if it is very likely it did. We didn't read that they had changed their policy, but considering that they probably had, we consequently modified our template in it.wiki and the one here. And it was upon this mere prudent reflection that all the correction was started. Naive users were therefore more prudent in the consideration of the situation than other users were in the choice of their words. The only relevant limit here is the date of upload.
Keep - delete images uploaded after May 23, 2006
Gianfranco 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are asking for justification of my claims. I have no justification, and I do not claim that my argumentation is justified, but that it is true. If you doubt what I say, check it—ask the ministery by mail if they still regard the old statement as valid and that it meant that the works as such (not merely the information) can be used for any purposes, by anyone, even for profit (selling postcards, posters), and even create derivative works (caricature) without the need to pay royalties to the photographer. You will see that they will clearly deny this. Instead of writing pages of debate, I suggest you to simply check that what I say is true. PS: you are right, the permission has not been restated, but simply removed. That doesn't tackle my main claim at all, however (which is that the pictures are conflicting with COM:L). --Rtc 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not interested at all in your eventual justifications, I was only pointing out how far you are from the matter. And how far you brought your claims from common sense. I would have preferred to be more kind, but you also commented what other users had done, and no one had asked you to do it...
- Yes, I'll ask the ministry, given that those who decide such matters happen to be relatives of mine so I'll have concrete answers (maybe quicker than mail), but unfortunately, due to this particular coincidence, this will be a personal confidence I will receive, so this is why I will keep on facts, only and solely on publicly evident facts. And facts are what is written today and what was written yesterday.
- BTW, PD doesn't seem to be conflicting with COM:L, is it?
- Finally, maybe these are really pages of debates, but I can also read how many edits you made in this page to enrich, little by little, your claims. There is a way to stop me from commenting: don't comment, keep on facts Gianfranco 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to keep on the truth, and not on alleged consequences of facts. If Einstein had kept on the facts of his time, we'd perhaps still not know the theory of relativity. --Rtc 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- We are not discussing about theories, but about facts. If you have any new theories of your own about Italian law, better you write to www.camera.it instead of difesa.it, and let them know everything we are longing to discover. And about jolly good Albert, I can imagine a comparison only in case you are a violinist.
- Still you are not bringing any concrete facts in support of your opinion. Gianfranco 18:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- A theory or opinion is a fact if it is true, and I am claiming exactly that: That it is true what I say; that it is a fact. I am not claiming that I can justify, or support it. You believe that only supported theories can become facts and hence can be valid in this discussion, but you have not supported this belief, and thus it must be assumed as invalid in our discussion by your own criteria. My claim however can be true without being justified, or supported, and, in fact, nothing at all can be a justified or supported, since it necessarily leads to infinite regress, dogmatism or circular reasoning (justification and support are the hallmark of pseudoscience, BTW). I told you that if you doubt that what I say is true, you can check it, and I am ready to admit error immediately and withdraw the deletion request if your check turns out to contradict my claim—and I am not even requiring that you can support, or justify such a discovery. However, I won't change my "opinion" merely because you have your own. --Rtc 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should I know that this template had to be removed, I had already requested its deletion, but I don't know it has to be deleted, and I still don't have this idea even after you tried to convince me about this (in a very strange way, indeed). You know, while you have received legal explainations too, on the point, your only reply was that if we send an e-mail to someone, we would be told so-and-so. This is your argument. Not a word (or at least not an inherent one) on the discussed topics.
- About dogmatism, please note that this is precisely what you are proposing to me: you are asking to believe in your word, the only proof being hypotetical. Unfortunately I don't accept dogmas from a pope, who might be better entitled to talk about "truth" without explaination, so it would be funny if I'd accept them from you. Especially after all what we have read here above.
- I actually don't have an opinion on the point: I studied instead how the thing was, together with other it.Wikipedians, all mothertongue Italians (you won't believe: several it.sysops too, some of them - what a shame - lawyers...), all with a professional background in law (but this makes no difference in it.wiki as well as in wikirealm) and with a bunch of laws to check, and finally we took the given indication. We did it for it.wiki, of course, not for Commons, but the result is one, whatever the project, and we informed Commoners of what had changed. Go check the discussions in it.wiki for more. And try to remember that you wouldn't be aware of this matter if from it.wiki we hadn't noted the change in the license and corrected the template. We are not going to produce a legal advice on this, but still it is not an individual opinion. So, you can keep your opinion as long as you don't pretend it to be a legal advice and as long as you don't believe to be Einstein. You evidently aren't. This is a dogma you can take for granted.
- On a mere point of civilisation in the Western world, besides, it's not me who has to proof that what I did was correct, it's you who have to eventually proof that it wasn't correct; this is not dogmatism, it is "presume good faith", a principle which rules all the projects since their beginning, because this is/was a civilised group of projects. So I'm not going to demonstrate you anything, I already explained what I had to explain. But there's nothing I have to justify.
- There was also something called perhaps Wikilove somewhere, which maybe chattered about mutual respect, but I'm afraid this would now be too much: in Italy we don't consider the study of law as "pseudoscience" and, wherever you may live, I guess that this is the same around your town too. I therefore hope that you will stop insulting: we are here for other reasons, certainly not for your personal entertainment.
- I won't reply any more, I believe the question is already clear enough for those who will have the patience to read --Gianfranco 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are the one who is discussing this on a personal level. Dogmatism does not mean to make unproved claims (there are no proved claims). I am exactly not asking you to believe what I say. I already said that you can actually check my claim by sending them an email. What use is in discussing "together with other it.Wikipedians, all mothertongue Italians (you won't believe: several it.sysops too, some of them - what a shame - lawyers...), all with a professional background in law (but this makes no difference in it.wiki as well as in wikirealm) and with a bunch of laws to check" when you can simply ask by email? I already said that it is impossible to proove anything at all, so don't claim that I "have to eventually proof that it wasn't correct". There is no such proof. the study of law, if done correctly, is not pseudoscience simply because it does not justify, or support, any claims. Go ahead and check my claim. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the truth? --Rtc 09:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- A theory or opinion is a fact if it is true, and I am claiming exactly that: That it is true what I say; that it is a fact. I am not claiming that I can justify, or support it. You believe that only supported theories can become facts and hence can be valid in this discussion, but you have not supported this belief, and thus it must be assumed as invalid in our discussion by your own criteria. My claim however can be true without being justified, or supported, and, in fact, nothing at all can be a justified or supported, since it necessarily leads to infinite regress, dogmatism or circular reasoning (justification and support are the hallmark of pseudoscience, BTW). I told you that if you doubt that what I say is true, you can check it, and I am ready to admit error immediately and withdraw the deletion request if your check turns out to contradict my claim—and I am not even requiring that you can support, or justify such a discovery. However, I won't change my "opinion" merely because you have your own. --Rtc 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to keep on the truth, and not on alleged consequences of facts. If Einstein had kept on the facts of his time, we'd perhaps still not know the theory of relativity. --Rtc 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why is it so hard to ask them for clarification? Be sure to mention commercial use and derivatives. Unless we receive a clear statement, I expect the images to be Deleted. Kjetil r 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Rtc, believe me, there is no exasperation at all or populism from my side. The argument of populism is completely erratic as I am not Italian. So do not make us all laugh with statements like that. You did not see a single argument from me before? Too bad, what a pity, maybe you did not want to understand what I wrote. You are once again fundamentally wrong as you always have been with your incredibly infuriating deletion requests. These are nothing else than unproved claims and rants. I never saw any significant improvements of articles or any articles written new from you, neither on German Wikipedia nor here. Only senseless destruction of honorable work. User Gianfranco is NOT a liar, he did the template to the best of his knowlwedge and is obviously right. In what you were replying to him you were just turning around yourself without any substantial arguments. What you write against this tag does not convince at all. The Italian Army said in some other cases of pictures on Wikipedia that EVERY picture can be used in the way someone wants, as long as the original source is credited, derivative work is allowed too. The only condition is not to use the pictures in a discrediting way. And after all, every picture of the ministry and also especially the older ones of fascist Italy are considered as government pictures. A government has all rights of this world to declare pictures PD or not. EU directives do not matter in such cases. If you like it or not. And no... no copyrights at all come alive again! When they say every information is usable then they cleary refer to the pictures as well (obvious, isn' t it?) and so of course they refer clearly to the copyright of works AND pictures on the web site that they obviously own. In case of pictures of fascist Italy they are the legal successor of the appropriate entities then (especially in defense matters). If the ministry says they are usable then they are usable. Basta! (Like they say in Italian...) You cannot assume things to be the same as in Germany. I will nevertheless ask the Italian defense ministry again and await reply. Rtc is definitely wrong and does not seem to be willing to understand what really matters here. He thinks he represents the holy dogma. One could think he might be paid by someone to do so. I expect the final proof that he is wrong (as always). Gianfranco is definitely right and everything can be found in his statement. Pictures from Italian Government, Army, Navy, Air Force, Carabinieri, Polizia di Stato, Guardia di Finanza, Vigili del Fuoco, Corpo Forestale dello Stato and other state identities are PD and usable if declared as that and if not tagged as something else. Rtc, write something in Wikipedia and do some contribution instead of claiming anything from the air and raising hell. Finally I ask all honorable users please let us finally stop these superfluous deletion requests. They do not help at all and lead to nothing.
Reptil 26 April 2007, 17:33 (UTC)
- I am not claiming that anything I say is proved. I am claiming that it is true. If you doubt it, go ahead and do whatever you feel necessary to check to prove it for yourself. Please stop your lengthy pleadings and start to make yourself comfortable with the idea that these and many, many other templates are going to be deleted, since they are actually not free licenses. It may hurt you in your very heart that non-free content that is not compliant to COM:L is being chased down and proposed here by me to be burnt at the stake, but you'll have to sustain that pain—that's your private matter and I won't interfere with that. Eradicating non-free content from wikipedias is a very honorable contribution to the projects that is highly underestimated. --rtc 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- You simply don't want to read that this material is PD because released as such until the mentioned day. It's not me who's saying it is PD, it is a governmental institution which said it was PD. It wrote it, also, and this is why we know it was PD. It was written in Italian language, which is my mothertongue, so I may entirely appreciate all the meanings of the declaration; I'm sorry if this is a problem, but they wrote it in the legally relevant language. I'm not going to prove that I read it, I already gave you links where you can read it too, unfortunately I cannot be held responsible for your knowledge in Italian language. Eradicating PD from wikipedias is not as honorable as working honestly to add free content to them. So let's calm down tones, please, and let's regain the sense of proportions.
Since I have no interest in letting not-free content be included, I have to specify that Reptil is partially wrong. This template applies to the images from www.difesa.it, which contains the sub-websites about army, navy, air force, no one else; Carabinieri, Polizia di Stato, Guardia di Finanza, Vigili del Fuoco, Corpo Forestale dello Stato are NOT included, because their respective websites (not related with difesa.it) said nothing similar and so we cannot extend by deduction the previous declaration. Only www.difesa.it, nothing else. --Gianfranco 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You simply don't want to read that this material is PD because released as such until the mentioned day. It's not me who's saying it is PD, it is a governmental institution which said it was PD. It wrote it, also, and this is why we know it was PD. It was written in Italian language, which is my mothertongue, so I may entirely appreciate all the meanings of the declaration; I'm sorry if this is a problem, but they wrote it in the legally relevant language. I'm not going to prove that I read it, I already gave you links where you can read it too, unfortunately I cannot be held responsible for your knowledge in Italian language. Eradicating PD from wikipedias is not as honorable as working honestly to add free content to them. So let's calm down tones, please, and let's regain the sense of proportions.
- PS: I was asked to be more precise about the latter point, also in order to avoid misuse of certain contents and I will gladly try.
- Carabinieri (www.carabinieri.it) always had a separate website which always had a © indication. Same for Guardia di Finanza (www.gdf.it) and Vigili del Fuoco (www.vigilfuoco.it) (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
- Corpo Forestale dello Stato (www.corpoforestale.it - js-only) gives no indication and is presumed to be copyrighted (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
- Polizia di Stato (www.poliziadistato.it) uses a CC-by-nc-nd/2.5 license (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
- Just to be clear, these sites don't ordinarily release contents that we could use.
- And just to be precise, images taken from difesa.it and uploaded after May 23, 2006, MUST be deleted, because we cannot compare each page with its previous "ante-May-23-2006" version (they could still be in PD, really, but we cannot be sure about that, so the convenient limit is the date). --Gianfranco 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
List of images at risk (all uploaders have been required to check their status):
- Image:Littorio class battleship line drawing.jpg, uploaded 03:39, 6 lug 2006 (not even a photo)
- Image:RN Vittorio Veneto.jpg, uploaded 08:12, 6 lug 2006
- Image:RN Vittorio Veneto at Battle of Cape Spartivento.jpg, uploaded 08:23, 6 lug 2006
- Image:RN Roma at La Spezia harbor 1943.jpg, uploaded 06:25, 9 lug 2006
- Image:RN Roma at launch on June 9th 1940.jpg, uploaded 06:55, 9 lug 2006
- Image:Roma class armored steam frigate (1868) line drawing.jpg, uploaded 06:01, 10 lug 2006 (not even a photo)
- Image:RN Roma pirofregata corazzata (1868).jpg, uploaded 07:11, 10 lug 2006
- Image:RN Venezia pirofregata corazzata (1873).jpg, uploaded 07:18, 10 lug 2006
- Image:RN Vittorio Veneto ready to launch in 1940.jpg, uploaded 09:09, 15 lug 2006
- Image:RN Littorio at high speed manoeuvres 1940.jpg, uploaded 09:59, 15 lug 2006
- Image:Zara class cruiser.jpg, uploaded 16:38, 27 giu 2006 (not even a photo)
- Image:Italian cruiser Pola.jpg, uploaded 15:23, 29 giu 2006
- Image:Italian cruiser Fiume.jpg, uploaded 15:19, 30 giu 2006
- Image:Littorio class battleship line drawing.jpg, uploaded 15:29, 8 lug 2006
- Image:Italian batleship Giulio Cesare.jpg, uploaded 15:29, 8 lug 2006
- Image:Bolzano.jpg, uploaded 19:28, 12 dic 2006
- Image:MAS15.JPG, uploaded 16:44, 7 mar 2007 (not even a photo) (missing source link)
- Image:VU-sinking.jpg, uploaded 17:32, 7 mar 2007 (missing source link)
- Image:Venturini Enzo.jpg, uploaded 15:03, 15 mar 2007
- Image:Matta Marco.JPG, uploaded 15:07, 15 mar 2007
- Image:Ramacci Fiorenzo.JPG, uploaded 15:09, 15 mar 2007
- Image:NATALE Silvano.jpg, uploaded 15:12, 15 mar 2007
- Image:Filippo Montesi.jpg, uploaded 17:44, 15 mar 2007
_line_drawing.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The suggested way is to verify if recorded (i.e. in archive.org) as already available on difesa.it BEFORE May 23rd, 2006. --Gianfranco 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Axed; there is no proof that the works can be commercially distributed and derivative works are allowed. (→O - RLY?) 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The license tag is invalid; they don't have any rights on the pictures but merly state that they assume "in good faith [...] elapsed copyrights". They say that "All copyright issues are the responsibility of the end user" and "it is strongly suggested that you attempt to obtain permission from the original copyright holder before using any of these images for commercial purposes."[114] The tag by itself is thus completely irrelevant. Either the pictures are PD, then the appropriate tag should be applied (such as {{PD-art}}, or they are not, then refering to the site's disclaimer won't help anyway. --Rtc 09:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Rtc --88.134.140.64 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep Pibwl 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep the pictures and change tag --Avron 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete delete tag and move towards updated templates--68.126.255.18 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Keep only those images for which they give a clear source in their index (see also their list of abbreviations), and if we can determine that the image would also be PD in its country of origin. Lupo 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reworded the template and moved it to {{GWPDA}}. It is no license tag any more! So all images using this template are now without a valid license. Maybe someone could check the images and change the licenses or maybe someone could inform the uploaders of the images using {{PD-GWPDA}} about this issue. --ALE! ¿…? 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente desde que se faça referência ao IPPAR como fonte de informação, agradecendo-se que, sempre que se detectarem deficiências, lhe seja comunicado, de modo a proceder-se à respectiva correcção. Estas informações deverão ser transmitidas através do e-mail: ippar@ippar.pt"[115] [emphasized by me]. If I understand this correctly, basically, if you detect some error in the work, you are obliged to contact them by email. This is a condition in conflict with commons licensing policy, reminiscent in its nature of the obnoxious BSD advertising clause. Also, "utilizados livremente" (free use) is ambiguous. --Rtc 08:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. The disclaimer states that data from IPPAR may be used freely as long as there is a reference to the source, IPPAR; they will appreciate if you/we report errors so they can corrected them. You are *not* obliged to anything, except for the reference, which is a common procedure in copyright [GFDL also requires that]. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. The GFDL explicitly permits derivative work and commercial use; this license doesn't. --Rtc 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This statment is no more avaiable at the IPPAR website. Manuel Anastácio (talk • contribs) tryed to contact the copyright holder with no results (see here, in portuguese) Lugusto • ※ 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hey people, the statement is still there, in the "Pesquisa de Património" section. It can be seen here. Thus, the template can still be kept. Another thought: when they state "data can be used freely" (Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente) with the condition that "IPPAR be cited as reference" (desde que se faça referência ao IPPAR), then it must mean that the information concerning the Portuguese monuments in the site, including images (which are clearly part of the "data" provided by the site), are free to be used. They do not establish any condition appart from attribution. If one day IPPAR changes its mind and decides to state that the images cannot be used, then we stop using them, but right now they are clearly granting anyone the right to use them freely. This is literally what the Portuguese sentence in here means. --Fulviusbsas 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The statement is still available, and in my opinion, it means "use for whatever you want, as long as...". Maybe we could try to contact IPPAR again and check if that is really what they mean. Lusitana 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
template kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This says that images are available for private use only, and additionally "Permission is required for using any material available on this website for other purposes, including commercial purposes. Each request will be analysed on a case by case basis in conformity with existing regulations and under the conditions set out thereof." This is clearly not what the template states, and even then the text in template allows them to revoke any permission, which does not conform with COM:L. This will affect all images in Category:Images from IPPAR. russavia (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- This template was kept before... it's entirely possible the licensing terms have changed, in which case we need to determine when, and put a cutoff date on the tag, not delete it. The original licensing terms were here; the date on that was May 23, 2009, and is the last date in the Internet Archive for that link. It appears the website and organization name changed shortly after that (from IPPAR to IGESPAR) and the terms also seem to have changed. So anything using this template after mid-2009 or so would seem to be bad. But, this template was kept before, so uploads from that era should still be allowed I think (and the template needs to be kept to support them, but of course the wording needs to be changed quite a bit). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No clear consensus to delete. Looks like a cutoff date should be established to prevent new images that do not meet the licensing requirements described in the tag from being uploaded with it. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If the pictures are PD, then only according to {{PD-US}}. The others are covered by a license for educational and scholarship purposes only ("The contents of this digital collection are provided for use in research, teaching, and private study. For these purposes, you may reproduce (print, make photocopies, or download) materials without prior permission", emphasized by me, [116]) --Rtc 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but not for the reasons Rtc gave. I brought this up a while ago, and according to http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/369_curt.html, even the post-1923 photographs never had their copyright renewed, so they're all public domain. Northwestern University Library's claim on these images is as invalid as Bridgeman Art Library's was on theirs. —Angr 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - but only after sorting the PD'd ones out. --Lhademmor 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reword the template to indicate that post-1923 work had not their copyright renewed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The template is not valid in Germany and other countries with individual treaties with the US. --Rtc 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is a problem for us. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's just a remark that if the template should be reworded, then a warning as for {{PD-US-not renewed}} needs to be added. --Rtc 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is a problem for us. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The template is not valid in Germany and other countries with individual treaties with the US. --Rtc 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone with good knowledge of US copyright go through these ca. 100 images and tag the public domain images accordingly? Please! It would be nice if we could close this request soon. --ALE! ¿…? 11:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept – template modified to emit either {{PD-Art|PD-US}} or {{PD-Art|PD-US-not renewed}}, depending on the copyright year. If none is given, "not renewed" is the default. All image pages updated accordingly. PD-Art is included because of the Northwestern University's claims to a copyright on the digitizations. Lupo 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
March 26
[edit]
This image is missing source information. The uploader has reverted nsd, hence this deletion request. -- Siebrand 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep siebrand is trolling. Source is not required for PD-old and PD-ineligible pictures. --Rtc 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I assume you will take this accusation back on the double? Siebrand 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Source is given as Fragonard, Jean-Honoré (1732-04-05 - 1806-08-22) /Lokal_Profil 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Any other information on this file is exemplary, there is no need to add the name of an illustrated book or an individual, since no one can claim any rights on this reproduction. --Polarlys 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Kept, well-known painting by Jean-Honoré Fragonard (†1806). Kjetil r 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If the picture is PD-old, then who is the author and when did he die? Rtc 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
.......................... The photo was taken by A. Boito (who died in 1932) User:Milliot 26 March 2007
withdrawn. --Rtc 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Protected DVD-cover --Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Yann 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If the picture is PD-old, then who is the author and when did he die? Rtc 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
........ Author - A. Boito (died 1932) Author died more than 70 years ago-public domain
- Keep This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Strangely enough, all of a sudden, the option when uploading new reads:
This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years.
Why was there a sudden change by the administrator and who would that be? In fact there are more than one options not available for taggin the License. Milliot 26 March, 2007
withdrawn. --Rtc 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This photo has been previously approved. Why is there still a deletion warning? User:Milliot 29 March, 2007
- Because it still missed the licence. I added it. Yann 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is missing source information. The uploader has reverted nsd, hence this deletion request. -- Siebrand 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep siebrand is trolling. Source is not required for PD-old and PD-ineligible pictures. --Rtc 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I assume you will take this accusation back on the double? Siebrand 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but not because of your bald unwarranted and despicable personal attacks, Rtc. A source, inasmuch as Lokal Profil defines below, is absolutely required for to verify that PD-old pictures are, in fact, PD-old. --Iamunknown 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Source is required, in this case it's an image by en:Gustave Doré (1832–1883). Making it PD-old/PD-Art /Lokal_Profil 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even though it is PD-art, we do require a source for all images (in this case a photograph of a painting), or it it true that we do not require any source information as long as one can make clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no copyright? In my opinion we should always require a source, as this adds to the credibility of the media provided. Siebrand 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't tend to require a source for images of PD-paintings since no one can claim any rights on these reproductions. We do however require a source for who painted the painting or (if artist is unavailable) when it was painted. /Lokal_Profil 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- But how can you verify such things without a source to validate the claims made? I mean, this appears to be a very slippery slope to me. I mean, the upload page states If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice.... Siebrand 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doré and Fragonard are famous artists, everyone knows that these are famous works by them. --Rtc 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- True, it is a tricky situation. In my oppinion source information means the artist since whoever reproduced it doesen't effect the copyright situation. If one has additional source information it should obviously be added. On the other hand if we take an image such as the Mona Lisa can we prove that the artist was Leonardo da Vinci and that the image is PD-old thus making the picture PD-Art? We'd say yes but only because the image is well known. Problem is that well known to someone isn't necessarily well known to someone else [117] /Lokal_Profil 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- But how can you verify such things without a source to validate the claims made? I mean, this appears to be a very slippery slope to me. I mean, the upload page states If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice.... Siebrand 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't tend to require a source for images of PD-paintings since no one can claim any rights on these reproductions. We do however require a source for who painted the painting or (if artist is unavailable) when it was painted. /Lokal_Profil 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep author is known to be dead for more than 70 years. Therfore, this picture is PD-old / PD-Art. --Taxman(de) 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even though it is PD-art, we do require a source for all images (in this case a photograph of a painting), or it it true that we do not require any source information as long as one can make clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no copyright? In my opinion we should always require a source, as this adds to the credibility of the media provided. Siebrand 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my comment above. --Iamunknown 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
![[117]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FImage%3AFragonard%2C_The_See-Saw.jpg&diff=4938554&oldid=4938514){kind=link}
Kept, no need to continue the discussion. It is a PD-art. Clearly a work by Gustave Doré (†1883). Kjetil r 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Where does the permission come from? The website nowhere mentiones GFDL or CC, as far as I can see. --Rtc 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with the current information. The user who created the template is a commons admin. I have written a note on his talk page requesting more clear information. Siebrand 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He told me that he allows to publish his photos under GFDL licence. I will contact him. MaxiMaxiMax 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to him, so I hope he will confirm his permission soon. Please don't do anything with loaded images and template. MaxiMaxiMax 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please ask him to put license tags on his web-site directly. --Rtc 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did. I hope he understood me. At least I asked him to contact me if he has any problems or doubts. MaxiMaxiMax 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please ask him to put license tags on his web-site directly. --Rtc 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to him, so I hope he will confirm his permission soon. Please don't do anything with loaded images and template. MaxiMaxiMax 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. He contacted me and promised to add a note about GFDL and CC-BY-SA licences to his site tomorrow. MaxiMaxiMax 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, well done. --Rtc 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
On the bootom of the title page of www.walks.ru is now written:
об авторских правах и лицензиях GFDL, CC-BY-SA Я, автор проекта, разрешаю бесплатно распостранять свои работы, в том числе и производные от них при условии ссылки на источник ( www.walks.ru ) и неизменности лицензии! I grant to anybody permission to distribute my works under terms of GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) and CC-BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/) licences
MaxiMaxiMax 08:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the case is pretty clear now, so I will remove the deletion request from templates. MaxiMaxiMax 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn. --Rtc 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a work of applied art. The painting on the aluminium foil is separate and independent from its utilitarian function, to serve as protection package for the chocolate: This packaging function would still be fulfilled without the painting. It is thus a work of applied art, and hence copyrighted. Rtc 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- So ein Quatsch. Freunde, was darf man denn noch fotografieren? --Immanuel Giel 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- funny, funny, Easter Bunny. ;) MfG Alter Fritz 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn, see User_talk:Lupo#Image:Easter_bunny.jpg
This image is missing source information. The uploader has reverted nsd, hence this deletion request. -- Siebrand 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep siebrand is trolling. Source is not required for PD-old and PD-ineligible pictures. --Rtc 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I assume you will take this accusation back on the double? Siebrand 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The author is given, that should be enough. - Andre Engels 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep VIGNERON * discut. 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is missing source information. The uploader has reverted nsd, hence this deletion request. -- Siebrand 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep siebrand is trolling. Source is not required for PD-old and PD-ineligible pictures. --Rtc 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I assume you will take this accusation back on the double? Siebrand 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; Look at Category:Maps_of_regions_of_Italy, almost all are based on the same GFDL'ed map, de:Bild:Regionen in Italien.png. But it looks the original was somehow lost while moving. --Denniss 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As much as I remember at the time I copied it from de.wikipedia it was marked as GFDL (I passed it here to be able to use it on nap.wikipedia) - that is quite a long time ago ... [118] - as much as I know you cannot retreat the license, that is take it away, once you granted it. So this image should stay and remain GFDL. --SabineCretella 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – Tintazul talk 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep VIGNERON * discut. 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
![[118]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Apulien_in_Italien.png){kind=link}
uploaded SVG version here: Image:Coprinus angulatus spore.svg M.violante 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON: double de Image:Coprinus angulatus spore.svg
Should be spelled/is now rename to Category:Tyska kyrkan, Stockholm. All files have been relocated to the new category. Mats Halldin 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, a check usage returned "728 wikis searched. Tyska_kyrka,_Stockholm is not used anywhere!" Mats Halldin 10:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Mats: kategorier som er flyttet kan du sette {{Bad name}} på. Kjetil r 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If the picture is PD-old, then who is the author and when did he die? Rtc 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
...... Author - A. Boito (died 1932) Author died more than 70 years ago-public domain
- Question A. Boito (died 1932)? I have read about Arrigo Boito only, died 1918, he was composer, not painter... This {{PD}} template seems to be problematic... Julo 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Strangely enough, all of a sudden, the option when uploading new reads:
This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years.
Why was there a sudden change by the administrator and who would that be? In fact there are more than one options not available for taggin the License. Milliot 26 March, 2007
Thank you. It has been taken care of. Please see the updated version. User:Milliot 28 March, 2007
- See, do you really think you make the situation any better if you simply claim that you are the author?! --Rtc 08:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: Dupe of Image:Carlo Bisiach sketch portrait1.jpg
- Re-opened by Lupo. I don't know what the above means, but the duplicate was deleted by Bryan. That in no way closes this discussion. This image still has no known author, and it's entirely unclear why this sketch from the 1930s was PD. Delete unless a clear and verifiable source is indicated, by which we an verify that PD claim. (What is "Analogic" supposed to mean?) Lupo 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I really do not see the problem. If you guys would like to contribute known photos of Carlo Bisiach, by all means, please contribute. There are very few photos available. I have posted very old photos by a photographer who died in 1932 (not any other date). According to wiki rules, that is PD is it not? Do let me know. Thank you for your concern(s). User:Milliot 30 March, 2007
Kept: Denniss (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
same image of image:Nofoodlogo.svg M.violante 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
handled at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded --ALE! ¿…? 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
same image of image:Nofoodlogo.svg M.violante 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded/2007/03/26 instead. /Lokal_Profil 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
copyvio per [119] ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm not 100% sure. The site says it was taken by private companies but, where was the large file taken from? If it was taken from a NASA site (and we should find out where) then it's quite possible that NASA links the image with more than just a fairuse claim. I think the proper procedure is to suspend this nomination and let it be deleted for having no source. Iff a source is found for the full quality image then we will have better information about how to discuss this. gren 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the writeup it was taken with the company's IKONOS-2 satellite, or at least that's how I read it. I did an (inexhaustive) search of the NASA image archives and couldn't find anything even remotely like it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- NASA has quite a bunch of pics on their sites which are not licensed in commons compatible terms. The company seems to be called GeoEye now and their general licensing guidelines are incompatible with commons. --Dschwen 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Found the (likely) source on the WayBack Machine: main pageimagecaptionscopyright note. --Dschwen 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (the commons version is a slight crop)
- "Permission is granted to electronically copy, publish in hard copy and broadcast these first international high-resolution image chips if proper attribution to Space Imaging is provided." Nothing on commercial use though... ~ trialsanderrors 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prohibited Activities:
- > Copying or reproducing (even if merged with other materials), other than as consistent with permitted activities
- > Selling, licensing, transferring, disclosing or using in any manner not expressly authorized
- > Altering or removing any copyright notice or proprietary legend
- It is basically an NC ND license. Note that while Reformatting (following Publishing Guidelines, above) is permitted, any other derivative work is not. --Dschwen 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it. It seems like a long shot, but I think I'll send them an email and ask them if they're ok to make the picture available under a commons-compliant license. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did you send that email? I'll have to delete the picture as Copyvio, if you get permission I can always undelete. --Dschwen 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the answer was a reconfirmation of the NC-ND license you mentioned. I proposed they change it to a free license since they were interested in posting it on Wikipedia, but they didn't respond to that. ~ trialsanderrors 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I removed the no source speedy... but it seems it is unfree so we have to vote delete. Maybe they'll reply with free use but until then it doesn't appear to be. But I do have a question. Does the fact that it's on the internet archive mean that it's possibly free in any way? Or do they archive everything... and how does that work with fair use? Maybe we could inquire with them? gren 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- They archive anything. As far as I know they have actually been granted an exemption from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the Library of Congress. --Dschwen 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- here, but that's only half the story and does only apply to circumvention of copy-protection. IA has been sued several times before (all unsuccessful if I remember correctly). --Dschwen 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- They archive anything. As far as I know they have actually been granted an exemption from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the Library of Congress. --Dschwen 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen: copyvio
It's highly unlikely the uploader created this work of art, maybe he took a photo of it which would make it a derivative and no evidence is brought to support the original being {{PD-old}} -- Yonatan talk 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image can be found in places all over the internet, just do a Google search for "maha-vishnu". It is even sold as a poster.[120] Lupo 14:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Unknown as of 26 March 2007; not edited for 9 days
unused, useless and boring image Jack · talk · 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seminal work from JustinC - keep it Gordo 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this is not a useless image (i.e. there are plenty of topics where it could be useful) and being boring (in your subjective opinion) is not a valid deletion criterion. Thryduulf 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Consider deleting nominator - David Gerard 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Clear Keep. historical petrol pumps unlikely to be obtained as a free image elsewhere. --AlisonW 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Excellent pic, as is usual from Justin. Not that many old pumps around, as Alison says, and the resolution is just high enough (with a bit of sharpening) to produce cropped close-ups for anyone who wants to lose much of the 'red brick'. I also happen to like the signage, puzzlingly 60s-70s in aesthetic, though that is belied by the apparent youth of the wall. Tarquin Binary 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Its not a great shot (bit of barrel distortion annoys me, but could easily be fixed), but I am not even sure if this place exists now. Petrol related things are going very quickly, lost forever in a supermarket dominated market at least in this country. Suppliers of independent petrol stations are rare. Oh and this is commons, where content is allowed to sit around for a while before being used or repurposed. Justinc 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
not cc-by, copyvio. source [121]: Uploaded on March 26, 2007 by Tszkin2004, is cc-by. But here same photo Uploaded on March 13, 2006 by donnyroadend, is All rights reserved. Shizhao 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, the Flickr user takes anything he finds on the web and tags it with random licenses.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Where does the permission come from? Does it include permission to create derivative works and does it permit commercial use? --Rtc 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (speedy, even): Site disclaimer http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/disclaimer.html states that the image can only be used for non commercial purposes (all images with this template are from this sub site). Main site: © 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (also 2006) is on every page on the site http://www.wisc.edu/. Siebrand 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, better redirect to noncommercial to prevent uploads/moves from en wiki. --Denniss 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect, en.wikipedia's copy is now redirected to noncommercial, so no such uploads should occur. --Iamunknown 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Note the terms of the dodgy part:
- "Our images are freely available for noncommercial use - we only ask that proper attribution is given. If you are uncertain of whom to credit, please send URL and description to SSEC's Public Information Coordinator. For any commercial use, in addition to acknowledgment, a donation is requested to support the continuation of this service." (emphasis mine)
- This is not a straightforward non-commerical license. It is unclear, but it states "Commercial use is allowed". A request for a donation is not necessarily an additional restriction on the license.--Nilfanion 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The license is unclear. If they mean what they say then it is allowed imo. If not its not. I'm contacting them by email to find out; this requires time.--Nilfanion 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for a week or two pending further investigation by Nilfanion, then if we don't get more information or the license isn't free enough, Delete Yonatan talk 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've received an initial reply. Regarding the images tagged with this template they are certainly usable and I have explicit permission to make derivatives and use commercially. I'm following up a minor side issue, to make sure that the template as written is valid. I will post the prurient parts of the exchange to the templates talk page when thats resolved, and get someone else on OTRS to confirm.--Nilfanion 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can they be used commercially by anyone and without a fee? --Rtc 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, all the images currently tagged with the template are in the public domain as in this sense of PD.--Nilfanion 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, all the images currently tagged with the template are in the public domain as in this sense of PD.--Nilfanion 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can they be used commercially by anyone and without a fee? --Rtc 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, Keep per the OTRS response on Template talk:UWiscCIMSS, which clarifies everything. --Coredesat 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn. --Rtc 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The subpage is semi-protected because of trolling from a blocked user.
kindergarten Rtc 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Beitrag zur Urheberrechts-Realsatire. --80.143.122.235 07:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Bnottelm, you are blocked because of personal attacks and disruption. Kjetil r 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is 'kindergarten' a reason for deleting anything? I think some more explanation is needed. grendel|khan 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just look at the picture. --Rtc 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't speak German, and the description says it's a museum. I don't get it. grendel|khan 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It reads "censored because of copyright." --Rtc 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with "kindergarten"? grendel|khan 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- His picture got deleted because of the copyright violation. He uploaded it again and it was deleted again. He then uploaded this picture, acting like a sulky child in kindergarten. --Rtc 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does some other picture getting deleted have to do with this picture? How does that constitute a deletion rationale for this image? grendel|khan 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- See the original version. Is the current version useful to Commons? No, it is a childish protest, a way of disrupting the Wikimedia Commons. Kjetil r 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I didn't realize that the new one was shopped. So he uploaded a photo of a museum gallery that contained copyrighted art, it got deleted, and now he's uploaded a version with the useful parts shopped out as some sort of protest. Why didn't the nomination just say that in the first place? grendel|khan 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I assumed it was obvious... --Rtc 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I didn't realize that the new one was shopped. So he uploaded a photo of a museum gallery that contained copyrighted art, it got deleted, and now he's uploaded a version with the useful parts shopped out as some sort of protest. Why didn't the nomination just say that in the first place? grendel|khan 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- See the original version. Is the current version useful to Commons? No, it is a childish protest, a way of disrupting the Wikimedia Commons. Kjetil r 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does some other picture getting deleted have to do with this picture? How does that constitute a deletion rationale for this image? grendel|khan 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- His picture got deleted because of the copyright violation. He uploaded it again and it was deleted again. He then uploaded this picture, acting like a sulky child in kindergarten. --Rtc 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with "kindergarten"? grendel|khan 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It reads "censored because of copyright." --Rtc 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't speak German, and the description says it's a museum. I don't get it. grendel|khan 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just look at the picture. --Rtc 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Makes sense now. grendel|khan 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used and not useful. --Rtc 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have submited it to {{speedy}} deletion. Alex Spade 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: content was: {{speedy|Not used and not useful. --Rtc 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not used and not useful. --Alex Spade 12:30, 2 ...
Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos. grendel|khan 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not used anywhere on Wikipedia. - Mailer diablo 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete just as the description says, its a private party photo. --Canadianshoper 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, needless. — Kalan 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: private photo / A.J. 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"However, as a courtesy, a link back to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) would be appreciated." This seems not a requirement, so a coypright tag is not the right place for it. {{PD}} should be used, and the request added separate to the description page of the picture. --Rtc 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think PD-link is meant to say what you think it should say. – Tintazul talk 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then {{PD}} should be used, and the request added separately to the description page of the picture. --Rtc 10:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. What use is there in removing this? - Andre Engels 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- simplification of the license babylon. --Rtc 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as this seems to be a helpful template for those asking for a little extra promotion. I could see changing it to a "wrapper" template like {{PD-Art}} though, specifying the actual license as a parameter, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Carl Lindberg 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, a wrapper would be a good solution. Please do it, and I will withdraw the deletion request. --Rtc 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the wrapper must also be able to handle other links than Wikipedia. // Liftarn
- Sure, a wrapper would be a good solution. Please do it, and I will withdraw the deletion request. --Rtc 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or it could be changed to an {{Attribution}}... // Liftarn
Not done You're more than welcome to make a {{wikipedialink}} wrapper or something of the sort but not liking a suggestion in a tag isn't a good reason to delete it. Yonatan talk 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please do not add additional restrictions to a CC license such as "would be delighted if you could send him a short notice and a specimen copy, if you use his work outside of wikipedia" and please do not change the standard text of license templates. Use the standard template and additionally put a separate personal tag on the pictures if you want to give them a personal note (for example, see User:André Koehne/byme for how to do it right); and clarify that sending a copy is not a restriction, but entirely voluntary. --Rtc 10:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Although I don't like personalised licenses this one does not add restrictions to the CC licens. The comment about would be delighted is simply a request not a requirement. The requirement for proper attribution is not a problem at all. /Lokal_Profil 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then he should use the standard template and keep his comment separate from the licensing stuff, so it cannot be confused. I gave User:André Koehne/byme as an example. --Rtc 05:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- True that would make the license better BUT not doing it doesn't make it invalid and doesn't motivate deletion. /Lokal_Profil 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then he should use the standard template and keep his comment separate from the licensing stuff, so it cannot be confused. I gave User:André Koehne/byme as an example. --Rtc 05:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I will try to improve the license according to your standards. All I want is a) a simple way to put my personal licence into my work and b) inform the people that use my work, that I am interested to know, where my work and my name shows up. I thought the current license was not emphasizing any restrictions since I used the "would be delighted". Please, give me some time to correct this before you delete the template so that I can modify it. sidonius 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn. --rtc 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- very bad quality ← Körnerbrötchen - @ 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no license) --ALE! ¿…? 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All derivate work. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yes, I already asked for deletion long time ago. see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG --Rtc 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This should be speedied--how did it stick around for this long? grendel|khan 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I guess there's a couple more at Category:Harry Potter and at Category:Harry Potter Characters. And what about Image:HarryLego.jpg? Lupo 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Except Image:Dumbledore.jpg which is used in the WikiProject's template and is on the talk pages of several hundred articles (or is this a Commons-only thing?). John Reaves 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As a newbie to the Commons, would someone mind explaining what "derivative work" is and why these photos are against Commons policy (as grendelkhan implied) or are just wanted off of here? In any case, at least Keep Image:Dumbledore.jpg as John Reaves noted. --Fbv65edel 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Dumbledore.jpg , it is an old man with glasses, please be realistic, there is no copyrightable derivative element there just because the image is named "Dumbledore.jpg". / Fred Chess 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not an old man with glasses, it is Dumbledore and it is supposed to be him. The facial features of the character from the film are clearly recognizable. So even if this wouldn't be a derivative work of the novel if all context information would be removed about that, it would still be a derivative work of the film. Also, the picture wouldn't be usable for any Wikipedia article about Harry Potter anyway, and certainly not for any other article either. It would violate COM:PS; people can publish their personal art on deviantart if they want to. --Rtc 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Ack. Aslo do notice, that if this representation of on old man with a long beard is copyrighted, it is not copyrighted by Rowling as this stereotypical old wise wizard figure goes far beyond Harry Potter (eg. Merlin). Samulili 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Some may deserver seperate discussion:
- Comment - I have marked several of the images from this series for speedy deletion ([122] [123] [124]) previously. Some of them were deleted, some had the tag removed, and some were taken to deletion requests... where again the results were mixed. I've been told that there are exceptions allowing 'fan art' for certain uses in Germany... if we therefor want to allow it as 'partially free' or 'sometimes free' then there should be restriction tags defining the circumstances where these images can be used. Otherwise we should delete them - not just from 'Harry Potter' but also 'Star Wars', 'Star Trek', 'Doctor Who', 'Middle-earth', and all the rest. Commons needs to decide how free is 'free enough'... there are some countries which would allow free use of ALL images. If we adopted that standard then Commons should allow everything - and in contrast, if we blocked everything which is 'unfree' somewhere in the world we'd be axing alot of stuff which would be fine for use in many cases. Commons has defined that 'fair use' is not 'free enough', 'freedom of panorama' IS 'free enough' (though that seems a bit paradoxical), et cetera... but fan art still seems to be in limbo. The project scope says that "fan art that closely resembles copyrighted material" is not allowed, but is that referring to a picture of Harry Potter closely resembling a written description of him or only two similar images? We need a clearer line. I'd think that line should be, 'free from copyright worldwide'... but if we're going to continue to allow 'less than fully free' images in some cases (like 'panorama' and 'fan art') we should identify each of those very specifically. --CBDunkerson 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are no "exceptions allowing 'fan art' for certain uses in Germany" and there is no such exception anywhere in the world. Who claimed so? --Rtc 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen it several times in discussions as an explanation of how the German Wikipedia can use fan art while stating that it has 'only free' images [125]. --CBDunkerson 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find anything on the linked page that discusses fan art in the German Wikipedia? --Rtc 08:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen it several times in discussions as an explanation of how the German Wikipedia can use fan art while stating that it has 'only free' images [125]. --CBDunkerson 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are no "exceptions allowing 'fan art' for certain uses in Germany" and there is no such exception anywhere in the world. Who claimed so? --Rtc 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's a pretty bad idea for an encyclopedia to illustrate articles about fictional things with fan art. --88.134.140.64 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are many factual background of this case that are not clear to me, so please be reminded the following is somewhat speculative. I think these fan arts are based on film or illustration in the books. The latter type is probably more strongly protected than the former, because you cannot really copyright your own face or body. When costume and other visual features are considered, real life people could be protected in some cases, I guess. But then, in those uncopyrightable cases, the use of the images or fan arts are subject to publicity rights, I think. Either way, they are not "free" materials. But I am not a lawyer, and I could be wrong. Hence I just comment, not vote.Tomos 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all Perhaps rename images to generic names where possible e.g. Dumbledore.jpg-->Old wizard.jpg Brisvegas 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
![[122]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Harry_Hagrid_new.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3975622){kind=link}
![[123]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Hogwarts_by_Koehne.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3975613){kind=link}
![[124]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Dumbledore.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=3897707){kind=link}
Keeping all. This deletion request is hopeless as it covers quite a few photos that are fine (and have not been flagged) as well as two drawings that might be questionable, viz Image:Dumbledore.jpg and Image:Askaban AK.jpg. The former might be a copy of the film version of Dumbledore, and the latter looks as if it could be copied from somewhere, but I don't know where. I'm marking both as keep for the moment, and leaving it open for either to be made the subject of a further individual deletion request if anyone can specify exactly what they are supposed to be copies of (bearing in mind that it's not enough just to say "they appear in the HP books"). --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe derivative work from the story? Or ineligible for copyright? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think they are safe. / Fred Chess 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Probably too trivial to be eligible for copyright. Brisvegas 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I'm actually rather uncertain about these, but my best guess is that they should be OK. --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a sign. Is that copyrighted? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep seems ok to me. --Rtc 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. No problem at all: there is no copyright in the general concept of "platform 9 3/4". --MichaelMaggs 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No reason for deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep note trademark restrictions on Image:HP books.png. --Rtc 10:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
All fine. It's not a copyright infringement simply to make an allusion to a specific book. --MichaelMaggs 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion a borderline case. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I do not think that it is a borderline case copyright-wise, but I think that it contradicts COM:PS, since we don't want personal art. Commons is not an art community, is it? People can publish such stuff on deviantart. The only use for such pictures would be the User namespace, since in articles, as a picture with primarily artistic content, it would be original research. An equivalent photo of the book would be entirely fine; I think the user drawing the picture merely did the drawing because he did not see that an equivalent photo would be just as legal as the drawing. --Rtc 07:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we could keep it as a general illustration of a book. At least I couldn't find anything similar in Category:Books. Samulili 07:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is good to illustrate the subject "Harry Potter and the Half blood prince", if the copyright status is ok. It shows the diary of the Half blook Prince, which is a story element. That's why I'm not sure. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it's a fictional book? then of course it's a copyright violation. --Rtc 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no copyright to ideas. The fact that someone has written about a diary, does not make it a copyvio to make an own illustration of it. Samulili 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there is no copyright on ideas. The picture however does not represent some arbitrary diary, but the diary of the Half blood Prince You can draw some diary, but not this diary that clearly refers to a fictional item from the Harry Potter novel, since that makes it a derivative work. Even if the item would be legal, it were against COM:PS. It were not usable within wikipedia either, since as fan-art it is original research and undermines the integrity of the project. Non-professional art for a non-general topic is not acceptable. We can't sacrifice encyclopedic integrity merely because of copyright restrictions. --Rtc 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a derivative work just it because it has the same name. For derivative work, the diary's appearance would have to described in detail, or a similar picture of it would have to be included in the book. Furthermore, I did not suggest that this be kept as an illustration of the diary in question but as a general illustration of a book. Samulili 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- No! It is the author's very intention for this drawing to represent the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter. That intention inherently leads to derivative work, no matter how the diary's appearance has actually been done. Copyright does not merely protect the representation, but all fictional items appearing within a work. You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work. Please see that any attempts to circumvent copyright this way and use elements from the novel inevitably leads to a copyright violation. Copyright law wasn't made by idiots, keep that in mind. --Rtc 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright only protects the form of presentation, not just any idea of a book. Samulili 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about that certainly, and in fact I have said that "You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work." Please try to understand my point. --Rtc 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say that? You agree that ideas aren't copyrightable yet you argue that the idea of the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter is copyrighted, while it is just an idea from a book. But to make things clearer, could you perhaps quote or show the original work of which this is supposed to be a derivative? Samulili 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- An idea would be to merely use a diary as an element of your own story. However, if you import a special implementation of that idea (be it in your own novel, your own picture or whatever), in this case the diary of the half blood prince from the novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (which is the original work you asked for), you are creating a derivative work. Copyright protects not only the mere representation (and in fact not even all of it), but also creative elements of the story. You could perhaps say that copyright only doesn't restrict general ideas, while creative ideas of how to actually adopt this idea into your own story are copyrighted. --Rtc 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say that? You agree that ideas aren't copyrightable yet you argue that the idea of the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter is copyrighted, while it is just an idea from a book. But to make things clearer, could you perhaps quote or show the original work of which this is supposed to be a derivative? Samulili 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about that certainly, and in fact I have said that "You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work." Please try to understand my point. --Rtc 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright only protects the form of presentation, not just any idea of a book. Samulili 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No! It is the author's very intention for this drawing to represent the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter. That intention inherently leads to derivative work, no matter how the diary's appearance has actually been done. Copyright does not merely protect the representation, but all fictional items appearing within a work. You can of course use the idea of a diary within your own work, but you cannot use the diary of the Half blood Prince from the novel Harry Potter within your work. Please see that any attempts to circumvent copyright this way and use elements from the novel inevitably leads to a copyright violation. Copyright law wasn't made by idiots, keep that in mind. --Rtc 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a derivative work just it because it has the same name. For derivative work, the diary's appearance would have to described in detail, or a similar picture of it would have to be included in the book. Furthermore, I did not suggest that this be kept as an illustration of the diary in question but as a general illustration of a book. Samulili 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there is no copyright on ideas. The picture however does not represent some arbitrary diary, but the diary of the Half blood Prince You can draw some diary, but not this diary that clearly refers to a fictional item from the Harry Potter novel, since that makes it a derivative work. Even if the item would be legal, it were against COM:PS. It were not usable within wikipedia either, since as fan-art it is original research and undermines the integrity of the project. Non-professional art for a non-general topic is not acceptable. We can't sacrifice encyclopedic integrity merely because of copyright restrictions. --Rtc 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no copyright to ideas. The fact that someone has written about a diary, does not make it a copyvio to make an own illustration of it. Samulili 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it's a fictional book? then of course it's a copyright violation. --Rtc 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This illustrates a concept within one of the HP books, namely a particular fictional diary. There is no copyright in a generic idea, even a creative idea. So far as I can tell, this does not copy a specific image from the film either. The fact that we can clearly understand what it's meant to be does not, in itself, make it a copyright ingringement. It may perhaps be fan-art, but it could usefully illustrate an article about the book, in an allowable way, so it should stay. --MichaelMaggs 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything not previously listed and in Category:Harry Potter and Category:Harry Potter Characters
[edit]Shoot and burn. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete Lupo 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there should be wider attention of this deletion request, or people will just come and complain after... / Fred Chess 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think I have sent all authors a message. Will also post this on the VP -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From my talk page, from one of the drawers (I cannot read it) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Estas imagens todas feitas por mim foram apenas para ilustrar a Wikipedia, e para tanto fiz os desenhos. Se as regras colocam-nas como "trabalho derivado" e, portanto, passíveis de apagamento, apenas tenho que concordar, sem com isto opor-me em nenhum momento. Agradeço a todos que se dedicaram à exaustiva análise dos meus posts, inclusive pela apreciação das caricaturas e desenhos feitos com base em fotografias - não se pode "inventar" um rosto, ao que me parece - e limitarei minha participação aqui apenas às imagens que forem antigas (domínio público) ou feitas por mim, com minha velha e pobre câmera. Espero, finalmente, que tenhas um tradutor que lhe possa verter estas minhas palavras... Cordialmente, André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's Portuguese. He basically says that if these are derivative works (a rule he apparently was unaware of), then he agrees that his drawings, which are based on photographs, have to be deleted. He also says that he'll limit his uploads to old images and to photos he took himself. Lupo 10:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Estas imagens todas feitas por mim foram apenas para ilustrar a Wikipedia, e para tanto fiz os desenhos. Se as regras colocam-nas como "trabalho derivado" e, portanto, passíveis de apagamento, apenas tenho que concordar, sem com isto opor-me em nenhum momento. Agradeço a todos que se dedicaram à exaustiva análise dos meus posts, inclusive pela apreciação das caricaturas e desenhos feitos com base em fotografias - não se pode "inventar" um rosto, ao que me parece - e limitarei minha participação aqui apenas às imagens que forem antigas (domínio público) ou feitas por mim, com minha velha e pobre câmera. Espero, finalmente, que tenhas um tradutor que lhe possa verter estas minhas palavras... Cordialmente, André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all as non-free images. --Carnildo 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- CommentRe: information -- what about informing English or German Wikipedia? / Fred Chess 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Probably forgot to say, but I informed the English Harry Potter WikiProject. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree we shouldn't violate copyright - so it's ok the stuff is gone. But it would have been nice if someone had left me a note on my talk page, that my drawing was deleted - it would have saved me some time used on making another drawing (which of cause I won't upload now) --Malene Thyssen 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought that I had left a note to all of the uploaders. Apparently not. Apologies, -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete everything that is a obvious copyright violation: I won't close this deletion request and leave it to an uninvolved admin to decide of on the rest of them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Closing due to incorrect form of request. None of these images have been tagged, so users have not been put on notice. Many are quite clearly OK, and those that look dubious are not alleged by anyone as having been copied from any specific original image. If any are indeed true copyvios, please nominate one by one, adding the appropriate tag and specifying exactly what is alleged to be the original (eg film version, book cover etc). It's not enough that they represent something described generally in the HP books. --MichaelMaggs 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
More Harry Potter images
[edit]I have found some more images with Harry Potter stuff that might be problematic and that have not been tagged yet with a deletion template:
- Image:Slug.jpeg
- Image:Harrypotterfan.jpg
- Image:LEGO Harry Potter-20060715.jpg
- Image:Cartas.Coleccionables.30Kb.jpg
- Image:Fawkes.PNG Image:Feniks.PNG (based on [126])
- Image:Fênix (by Koehne).jpg
- Image:Hagrid House.jpg
- Image:Hdlogo.PNG
- Image:Rony Weasley.jpg
- Image:Alvo Dumbledore.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I don't know the procedures here on commons so I have not tagged the images. -- Zef 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another one. -- Zef 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Brief legal review
[edit]- These images need individual consideration, and several of the points made above are far too sweeping. It is trite law that there can be no copyright in an idea as such: copyright protects not an idea but some specific realization, in words, images or sound. Furthermore, there can be no copyright in a mere name, eg "Harry Potter", even if that name is an author's own creation: names are in themselves too trivial for copyright protection. So, what are we left with?
- The text of the books. Anything which copies the actual words of JK Rowling, from one of her books, will infringe. But a drawing of eg Harry Potter, based loosely on JK Rowling's description of him, from the books, will not. The books themselves have no illustrations. Generic fan-art will normally be OK from the copyright point of view, although it may be out of Commons scope. That's the case (subject to non-copyright issues - see below) even if the drawing is labelled "Harry Potter".
- The illustrations on the books' covers. Copies of these may infringe - but only if they actually make use of some original features of those illustrations: it's not enough for example to say that fan art infringes a cover illustration simply because both show a boy with black hair having a scar on his forehead. The combination of these three things is an idea not an actual realization. To infringe copyright in the illustration, you'd need to take something more concrete - the boy's expression and position, say. A generic drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar is OK.
- The films. This is more complicated. While it's true that an actor has no copyright in his own likeness, a drawing that closely replicates a still from the film will infringe the film-makers' copyright in the same way as would a photograph directly taken from the screen. Also, where the film has introduced new visual elements that are not in the books, those may attract new copyright. So for example a drawing of Hogwarts that copies closely the film realization may infringe; a generic drawing which is based on the ideas from the books will not.
- Non-copyright issues. The manner in which an image is used is of great importance in practice, even where there is no copyright problem. If I create a new and original drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar, and label it "Harry Potter" I should be OK so far as copyright is concerned. But as soon as I try to sell postcards of my drawing, or use it as a cover illustration for a book of my own, I will be in deep trouble. In the UK, US and other Common-law countries, I will be committing the tort of passing off by putting into the market place articles which might well be bought by unsuspecting purchasers who incorrectly think I am associated with JK Rowling in some way, eg that I have been licensed by her or her company. In France and other Civil-law countries, passing off doesn't exist but instead I would fall foul of a variety of unfair competition laws. I might in theory also have to worry about libel, especially if my drawing might be considered derogatory and damaging to JK Rowling's reputation. So far as images on Commons are concerned, the general consensus seems to be that we ignore such non-copyright issues if they will affect only the ultimate downloader and re-user of one of our images; dowloaders have to satisfy themselves that any use they make of one of our images is OK under their own national law.
If no-one objects I'll have a go soon at closing some of these requests on the basis of the above. But it would be helpful to have some more feedback on whether fan art generally is within Commons Scope. Some generic fan art images may I imagine be useful to illustrate Wikipedia articles about the Harry Potter books and/or films.
--MichaelMaggs 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've got no counter-arguments to what MichaelMagges wrote. I would just like to add that some drawings—while not copyvios of a book text or a movie—may be copyvios of cover art from Harry Potter books. Samulili 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your analysis is wrong. A "drawing of eg Harry Potter, based loosely on JK Rowling's description of him, from the books" is a derivative work, and hence a copyright violation, and it is so very clearly. If you "create a new and original drawing of a black-haired boy with a scar, and label it 'Harry Potter'", you have also created very clearly a derivative work, and hence a copyright violation. Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe, and be it with an arbitrary amount of additional creativity and originality, is a copyright violation. Copyright cannot be evaded by such dishonest methods. Copyright restricts neither actual words, nor ideas, not specific realizations; it restricts the creative content. This is a very abstract concept. Fan art, if referring to a specific work (and not merely a general style) is a copyright violation. And concerning project scope, it is unprofessional and heavily against encyclopedic integrity to have fan art in such articles. Let's make the badly needed move to purge this stuff. --rtc 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comment that "Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe ... is a copyright violation" is perhaps a reflection of your wish that it be so rather than an accurate statement of copyright law. Copyright is not a general monopoly right that protects all and every type of creative content, even at the highest conceptual level; it simply prevents copying of the specific manner in which the author has put those concepts down on paper (or in sound, etc). Of course, it's well-understood that the copying doesn't have to be exact, and also that adding extra original content does not in itself avoid infringement. Since the copying need not be exact, there may be room for argument in borderline cases as to whether the copyist has taken high level concepts (allowed) or has taken but modified the specific realization (not allowed). But it's absolutely not the case that an author is entitled to some sort of all-encompassing protection on anything and everything in the 'universe' she has created. Perhaps your argument would better be based on your evident desire to keep Commons free of fan-art; but that's a different issue. --MichaelMaggs 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct, not any and every use of things in the universe s/he has created is restricted by copyright. Quentin Tarantino for example makes use of elements from other works frequently. That is possible because he creates something entirely new, such that the creative traits of the source works are clearly fading away compared to his new work. But that is absolutely not the case for fan art, or anything else that could still be used in an article about Harry Potter. So for the pratical issue we are discussing here, the general statement that "Anything derived from the Harry Potter universe ... is a copyright violation" well holds and gives one the correct idea. --rtc 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the obvious copyvios. The rest have not been tagged, and need to be tagged and nominated one by one, as the concerns many not be the same in each case. Some look dubious to me (book cover copies?) but I can't be sure as no-one has yet alleged anything more than "from the HP books", which is not enough. --MichaelMaggs 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In fact, the national-archive does not own any copyrights on these materials, and is merely the proprietor of the physical copies of their material. The advice given on the respective images looks as if they are trying to explain how to properly use the material under fair use. See for example Image:Rotterdam_Bombardement_1940.jpg, "The photo can be used for non-commercial purposes in low resolution". --Rtc 16:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the template, and add {{nld}} to the images that had the tag. In fact only two images have been nld'd. Four others did not even have a source, and one other was a direct violation of Commons licensing, as it was only allowed for non commercial use. As a side note, I want to mention that the tag had restrictions which are not allowed on Commons: it was not allowed to use the image in a possible derogatory context. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It speaks for itself "The said materials may be used by governmental and non-governmental institutions for the promotion of Poland, in compliance with the directions of Polish foreign policy. They may not be used by Polish and foreign natural and legal persons for obtainment of financial gain." → {{Promophoto}} --Rtc 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; obvious to me – Tintazul talk 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; heavy usage restrictions. - Andre Engels 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep;It is not necessary to use when anyone wouldn't like to do it-Andros64 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete: usage restrictions / A.J. 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template speaks for itself. Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. Also, there are additional rights on the recording. --Rtc 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; unknown copyright is not the same as no copyrights. That would be like driving someone else's car just because you don't know if it has an owner – Tintazul talk 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; as far as I can see the material under this template has no more than a strong fair use claim, and we don't allow fair use on Commons. - Andre Engels 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replaced with no license tag once all ~250 items that use this "license" have been re-licensed or deleted, this tag should be deleted as well. MECU≈talk 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I (User:Damouns) posted this photo in Flickr without being aware of the meaning of CC licence. I indicated on the page that the author was my aunt, and not me. So the licence on Flickr was false, because Damouns (I) wasn't the author. Damouns இ 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted license was not given by author/owner of copyright. MECU≈talk 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
changed with Image:Adnate gills icon2.svg M.violante 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A Korean Artist, should not be a work of the United States Federal Government, and no source URL to prove it. Jnlin 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from www.imf.org
surely no work of the United States Federal Government Polarlys 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But if you look on the website that is mentionned and look up for photograph 09606 (number is mentionned on the page) you end up on this page that says "Copyright: Public Domain". So what is the problem? Bradipus 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- They don’t know the accurate date („circa 1938“), but release it as PD? No author given, Robert Ley surely wasn’t portrait by the United States Federal Government. Nazis and their photographers enjoy copyright and there is no reason to deny it. --Polarlys 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- If an organisation such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says a picture is public domain, the only thing an organisation such as us must do is to assume it is correct. Should someone come up with an argument that the picture was not properly put in PD, then we might reconsider the case. Bradipus 22:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- That’s the case here. It’s no work of the United States Federal Government, it’s not PD because of it’s age and no author is given. --Polarlys 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Bradipus . Absolutely. No matter if it's not an USFC work. Polarlys is unreal.201.37.249.74 13:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The USHMM does not say it was PD. They say "Credit: USHMM, courtesy of William Gallagher" and "Copyright: USHMM". Lupo 07:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, and one the correct PD-old tags should be used instead, anyway. --Rtc 12:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The most commonly used books from Runeberg already ahve their own templates. For the rest PD-old and source should be enough /Lokal_Profil 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The author (Silke Kohlschmitt) did not fully understand the extent of the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at the time of the upload. The author officially requested the deletion of the image. 207.164.32.194 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is the author the uploader? --Rtc 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded the picture and asked for Ms. Kohlschmitt's approval (which she gave then) - but apparently now she changed her mind and claims she did not fully understand what it meant. I guess it's partly my fault. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, please remove the picture. Vincentl 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – Tintazul talk 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is exactly what I have always been warning of. --Rtc 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template speaks for itself. Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. Also, there are additional rights on the recording. --Rtc 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; unknown copyright is not the same as no copyrights. That would be like driving someone else's car just because you don't know if it has an owner – Tintazul talk 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; as far as I can see the material under this template has no more than a strong fair use claim, and we don't allow fair use on Commons. - Andre Engels 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replaced with no license tag once all ~250 items that use this "license" have been re-licensed or deleted, this tag should be deleted as well. MECU≈talk 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I (User:Damouns) posted this photo in Flickr without being aware of the meaning of CC licence. I indicated on the page that the author was my aunt, and not me. So the licence on Flickr was false, because Damouns (I) wasn't the author. Damouns இ 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted license was not given by author/owner of copyright. MECU≈talk 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:02extrude1.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Coat gaertner and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Coat hoelzel. --Rtc 10:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
done --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Igino Sderci photo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lage von Alberobello.png Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sem40 Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ArquivoNirez Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NYPL Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bucovina Romania Ukraine.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bushdog002.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:1000Bit Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PCL Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures incorrectly tagged as PD-Switzerland-photo Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jm1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ulubiona2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EU location Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FOLP Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Www.bordeaux-port.fr Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Portpictures.nl Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ERzeszow Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Ashipilin Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from www.tarisio.com Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from ipp.mpg.de Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Bmz Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sergeymila
March 27
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grasshopper (Genus-Melanoplus) Sideview.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grasshopper (Genus-Melanoplus) Frontview.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel annotated topographic.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Three feet an ancient cooking vessel .jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Westaflex Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Star-spangled banner.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel.png Commons:Deletion requests/Template:MMP-Katowice Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MisionesGov Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gina Lollobrigida by Koehne.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Peter Cushing.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:225px-ABQ fall skyline.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:26543e.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2004-verbundgebiet-VRR CP 1200 6081.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Indus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Robert Redford drawings Commons:Deletion requests/MIA pictures not PD-old Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1053.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikiinfo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Justin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Festival of the Lion King.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from the Probert Encyclopedia Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1906 DWM Navy Luger 1756.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FvonHayek.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pasht rug.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures uploaded by User:Milliot
_Sideview.jpg){kind=link}
_Frontview.jpg){kind=link}
March 28
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adjani Ete02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adjani Ete02plus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Juventus-FC.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:013 RM121.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Londonovergroundv2.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tassos PapadopoulosSchüssel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Desira Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2006-Dodge-Charger-SRT8-FA-1920x1440.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ciepielow.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Form of government.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lechia gdansk osp.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:United Koalition of War criminals.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HeraldTrojan.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blue diablo.jpg
March 29
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Taiwanese Souvenir Sheet.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cambio2.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SpiceGrlsMGD98.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NicolasKrassik.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HagithSmall.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beryl Grey Andres.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:F-clef.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:C-clef.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Incrédulo.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Phil.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hashim Al Atassi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:100 3844.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coprinus gonophyllus spore.png Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Formica s.str. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SegwayHT.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:West Europe - small and large vision.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kll.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prog000614-subhead02.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alte Favorita Vienna Sept. 2006 005.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NAMABG-Painted Greek Warrior Head.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DanielMA.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Structural-Model1.png Commons:Deletion requests/Images from LZJ encyclopedia Commons:Deletion requests/General Tojo Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triceratops.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat Of Arms Bernkastel Kues.jpg
March 30
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Djibril Cissé.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SB logo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SB content.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sep3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swhitehouse.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kanuga.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schwa IPA symbol.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Moving sidewalk scheme v2.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Lord Ram.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StuA.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ReverendMother.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Unholyallies.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Penis pics Template:Delh
Toutes les images de Image:Werke, I - 001.jpg > Image:Werke, I - 036.jpg. Désolé, je me suis rendu compte après coup qu'il valait mieux renommer en Image:Nietzsche's Werke, I - 001.jpg. MarcBot 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Yann 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Template:Delf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Robert K. Merton drawing.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alex2.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikicast Audio Test TX 1.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Janequin.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Revista Legal LEX.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:!!!Merton,R.K..JPG.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aardenburg - Borstbeeld Petronella Moens.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Janacek.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:200 DM 1996.jpg
March 31
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BrookdaleCClogo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Diode wikiv.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2006-10-22UP10.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:killjoke.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FIFA World Cup trophy.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FIFA Worldcup Copy for Germany 1990.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LC 1.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schalke DFBpokal 2001 a.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FA Cup's trophy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trophylibertadores.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trophycopabrasil93.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trophycopabrasil02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trophybrasileiro9305.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Copa El País.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ligue des champions NB.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schneider Trophy 2006-08-10.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vince Lombardi Trophy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A Stanley Cup Premiere.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bague coupe lafleur 79.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coupe Stanley.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof stanley cup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mar del Plata.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dadaji1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dadaji2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dadaji3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Patti Lateranensi NO.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DonD Bank au kl.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Deutsche Meisterschale.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stanley cup closeup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:America's Cup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stuttgart-vfb-1954-dfb-pokal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Presidents Cup golf trophy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grey Cup circa 2006.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lindh killer image1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof calder.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof campbell.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof clancy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof hart.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof jack adams.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof jennings.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof norris.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vault.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vezina.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lady Byng trophy hhof.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stanley cup hhof.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StanleyCup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StanleyCupAvs2000-01Engraved.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Memorial Cup Trophy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:World Baseball Classic Trophy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SacramentoCAseal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Felon (fingertip infection).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Seepferdchen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof stanley cup.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
