Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope "about me" page. --Kimse (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Gmaxwell:
All Rights Reserved. -Nard 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. One page history article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
long article Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Business advertizement Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 2 paragraph ad Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an online free-access bibliography of literary studies, criticism and philology, listing well over 150,000 items Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Really long Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Russian Scam warning Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Business ad and Bio Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, eventually violation of Personality rights of depicted person; image used nowhere, even not on user page. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Image gone from Flickr, no proof this image is even owned by Flickr user. -Nard 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Flirckreview failed + photo from 50 years ago or something ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
powerpoint show Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
University really long article on Deja Vu Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have attached my Portfolio please kindly pursue 2 page meaningless Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exceptionally long Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scoped ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Information pertaining to procedures and equipment used in a Vein Care practice Business ad Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Self Promotion/Out of scope ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Useless promotional material, out of project scope (with Image:BRAINDEATH.jpg and Image:Brain Logo.jpg) Trixt (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Self promotion + possibly lacking permission ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
without author, description and source --MartinS (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no source, and why would the wikimedia logo be on it? Very suspicious. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is not free and there is a license on it. I represent the brand that create it. Thx --81.252.144.47 09:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep ineligible for copyright. -Nard 15:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)- Keep - see {{PD-textlogo}}. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Tagged {{PD-textlogo}} ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright not given. See picture waterprint! --85.180.77.42 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. C-C-C-C-Copyvio ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no use Nicolas de Marqué (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no use Nicolas de Marqué (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Photoshopped copy from the manufacturer's picture: [1] (D2XS_front_links.JPG) -217.65.22.245 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lupo 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://www2.nikon.de/bilddatenbank.php?hauptordner=Digitale_SLR-Kameras&produktordner=D2Xs&object=D2XS_front_links.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. As copyvio. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error within file --Philaweb (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per author request ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Not 2D-2D, therefor protected reproduction.Code·is·poetry 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know uploader did not take the picture? -Nard 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to admit I gave very small information in my deletion request. Some more information: I am the photographer and owner of the plaque and live in Germany, I depicted it on www.finemedals.com/jules_chaplain.htm (it is not shown any more online, however). Please delete the picture, I do not agree to it being published. Best regards, Nicolas Maier— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.194.113 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Image was on display at the given web site on Oct 19, 2004,[2] 2½ years before the upload here. The page even displays a prominent "© N. Maier finemedals.com", and the main page said clearly "© September 2001 Nicolas Maier, author of all information provided on this website and photographer off [sic] all the images on these pages."[3] Lupo 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
kou0-[.; 41.233.34.249 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Bad faith nom ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See Source (log at en.wikipedia), was deleted as PUI --85.183.214.7 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As I uploaded twice by error. It is a duplicate of my own work, that is lagodivaresecom_002.jpg. Fvatwimediao (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, you can use {{Badname}} in future. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
copyright violation from [4] this image is from the old site, the new site states Copyright © Jaden’s Steamy Kitchen. Spammers and content stealers will be dunked in a vat of fermented fish muck. [5] Paloma Walker (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hold it, is this one of those "register with a name similar to the site it comes from so you can try and pass it off as a legitimate upload" things, cause the username matches. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is my photo - I uploaded it. steamykitchen
- It would still require proper authority for the licensing as would this one. You must understand that anyone can claim to be "you" so for your benefit & ours we need approval via OTRS for the license. It would also be good to know how you intend these images to be used (so that we know that they are within the project scope). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused with Wikimedia language - went through the FAQs and there are so many new words, acronyms and terms that some of this is going over my head (even the hmtl.) I know you guys are probably snickering, this stuff is a piece of cake for you...but to wiki newbies...it's pretty intimidating. I have thousands of professional quality images of food and food products that I'd love to share for anyone to use. Uploading my photo was so that I can insert it into my user profile. But I think it might be a good idea for me to wait until Wikimedia becomes easier to understand and use...or when *I* can figure it out on my own! Off to figure out how to delete images I've uploaded ;-) steamykitchen
- Easy solution: I've just emailed the owner of the site in question to verify that the user here and the owner of the site are the same person. (If you want something done right...) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
And kept. They are the same person, as per email discussion, so I've sent the permission to OTRS. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I declined the somewhat malformed speedy to elicit discussion. As this is a 3D object, the picture of the plaque may be eligible for copyright protection depending on the country in which it was taken. The nominating IP's website (www.finemeda.com) does not appear to exist to confirm that the photo was "stolen", but the uploader does not assert s/he is the author of the photograph. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to admit I gave very small information in my deletion request and made a typing mistake regarding the website. Some more information: I am the photographer and owner of the plaque and live in Germany, I depicted it on www.finemedals.com (it is not shown any more online, however). Please delete the picture, I do not agree to it being published. Best regards, Nicolas Maier
- Delete Image was on display at the given web site on Oct 10, 2004,[6] 2½ years before the upload here. The page even displays a prominent "© N. Maier finemedals.com", and the main page said clearly "© September 2001 Nicolas Maier, author of all information provided on this website and photographer off [sic] all the images on these pages."[7] Lupo 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per link and clarification above. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Image unfree at Flickr but user claims own work. I'd like to see some proof. -Nard 00:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Flickr user and uploader both claim to be David Midgley. There seems to be a good case for believing the uploader. Zeimusu (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi N -- What kind of proof would you like? I used to use the username MidgleyDJ here at the Commons but lost the password and never updated it prior to a change of email address. I'm currently using the same username at Wikipedia (see my recent edits to various Aloe articles there (of which this is a picture) -- link). I've even added these usernames to my flickr profile [8]. Does that satisfy? Davidjmidgley (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- but this discussion got me thinking and I've remembered my old password for User:MidgleyDJ here at the Commons. Is there a way to merge my two accounts. Apologies for asking here in this discussion. Davidjmidgley (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why not freely license the file at Flickr? -Nard 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because I use a batch uploader and they simply all end up with the same license. I should have just uploaded the file rather than pull it from my flickr account. Davidjmidgley (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- but this discussion got me thinking and I've remembered my old password for User:MidgleyDJ here at the Commons. Is there a way to merge my two accounts. Apologies for asking here in this discussion. Davidjmidgley (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi N -- What kind of proof would you like? I used to use the username MidgleyDJ here at the Commons but lost the password and never updated it prior to a change of email address. I'm currently using the same username at Wikipedia (see my recent edits to various Aloe articles there (of which this is a picture) -- link). I've even added these usernames to my flickr profile [8]. Does that satisfy? Davidjmidgley (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Enough. I believe the uploader. Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
All Rights Reserved on Flickr. -Nard 00:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Flickr user changed license to CC-BY-SA. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Reviewed just 3 months after upload...unlikely original license was free. -Nard 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was free when I uploaded it. As you can see, MShades uploads all of his photos as CC-by-2.0 (even screenshots). It's just with few pictures that he changes the licensing later on (as in this case, probably because of the huge surge of attention it received). Dunno if we should abide by a change of license which is not really intended by CC rules. --Melanom (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ShakataGaNai: Unfree Flickr license
Uploader admits this image was posted at Flickr as cc-by-nc-sa. -Nard 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as 'npd'.--OsamaK 09:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Unknown as of 13 July 2008; no permission
According to a similar image from the same flickr user, a guy from Botswana emailed him the picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After checking with the flickr user, he didn;t take it, so deleting as no permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not available at source, and looks like a copyrighted scan anyway. -Nard 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Not receiving an immediate response from the man is no reason to delete ANY photo. Give him some time. I was the one who contacted him in the first place to release it. Let us wait to hear the answer. It isn't being used right now at Wikipedia. (Mind meal (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
- Delete I don't believe this Flickr user has taken this picture himself. Artist James Dunbar once did a painting from that photo. Furthermore, this Flickr user has some other copyvios amongst his photos, or do you truly believe he took this image (promo shot for a 1994 film) himself? And then posted it only at 358 x 450 pixels? Also note that none of his photos have any EXIF info. Well, almost. This image does have EXIF info and is uncharacteristically well described. Turns out that the description comes from the EXIF itself, and that the identical image (at the identical size) can be found here. Looks more like professional stock photography, unlike any of the other images in this Flickr user's uploads. For instance this one, © Nicole Waring. (There are more photos of the same woman in this istockphoto user's portfolio.) Lupo 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused image that has been here for a year. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Unused isn't a reason for deletion. Out of scope, possibly --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as out of scope. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Stated public domain licence is incompatible with Smithsonian Institution copyright statement --Ozhiker (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ask Darwinek. He proposed that SI photos is free according to this sentence: "Smithsonian Institution is administered by the U.S. government. Photos taken by Smithsonian Institution's employees are thus without restriction. (confirmed by Mr. Edward Venzke from Smithsonian Institution)." --Peko (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment To be more specific, they say (p. 2, footnote),
- The Smithsonian may own copyright in objects in its collections that it has acquired by sale, gift or other transfer of copyrights. The Smithsonian also owns the copyright in works created by its trust fund employees as part of their duties or its contractors by assignment. However, the Smithsonian cannot own copyright in works prepared by Smithsonian employees paid from federal funds.
- The difficulty is in trying to work out what was paid for by federal funds and which was not. In lieu of any evidence for it either way, I say Delete. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence to confirm the image is free, this statement from The Smithsonian Institution does not warrant that use of the text, images and content displayed on the website will not infringe the rights of third parties not owned by or affiliated with the Smithsonian. states that they do not guarantee that all their images are free.--Paloma Walker (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a better quatlity photo of the same already exists in the same category Baliw (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, unused, low quality, and uploader request. I vote for others too..--OsamaK 09:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a better quatlity photo of the same already exists in the same category Baliw (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Where ? FxJ
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a better quatlity photo of the same already exists in the same category Baliw (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
a better quatlity photo of the same already exists in the same category Baliw (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
a better quatlity photo of the same already exists in the Commons Baliw (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
a duplicate of the same already exists in the same category Baliw (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's not clear whether it's been 50 years since creation (possibly not-PD in the source country). Botev (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the uploader misunderstood the license. It looks like they think all photographs from before 1967 are PD. OTH it's a strong bet if the image appears generically in an encyclopedia it's PD. -Nard 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand the information correctly, this was taken from the Encyclopaedia Rhodesia which is a government publication? According to Amazon, the first edition of the Encyclopaedia dates from 1973. If the photo was taken before 1958, then it's PD, but there's at least a chance that it was taken when Field was Prime Minister (1962-1964), in which case it would still be copyrighted. We need more information, but I'm leaning towards Delete. Pruneautalk 09:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof of date of photo. -Nard 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Restored: 50 years after publication. Yann (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No FOP in Romania. -Nard 00:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Uploader requested speedy deletion of this but I think it's kind of cool and in scope so I removed the speedy tag. -Nard 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - If you really think it should stay, then why not. But, I really don't see any reason for it to be here. I made it quickly on photoshop, and anyone else can make one too. There just doesn't seem to be any reason for this to be here, or any article for this to be used on. P.S. The original rationale for speedy deletion was that the uploader and creator (me) is requesting deletion, and that it is not being used anywhere. Thanks, GM 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per "kind of cool". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope.--OsamaK 10:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." per COM:PS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploader marked for speedy deletion but I think it's kind of cool and in scope so I removed the tag. -Nard 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - If you really think it should stay, then why not. But, I really don't see any reason for it to be here. I made it quickly on photoshop, and anyone else can make one too. There just doesn't seem to be any reason or article for this to be here. P.S. The original rationale for speedy deletion was that the uploader and creator (me) is requesting deletion, and that it is not being used anywhere. Thanks, GM 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per "kind of cool". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nice. --Dezidor (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No potential for use. Geraki TLG 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." per COM:PS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sculpture in US public place not covered under freedom of panorama. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Marc Chagall's birthday is today. His death date was 28 March 1985, making this work still copyrighted. -Nard 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The windows are old from The Middle Ages and the picture are windows not only the glass of Marc Chagall who are added later. ---Nina- (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is another one ---Nina- (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
These windows are in an open and public space, offered to the view of everyone. They have be designed specially for the purpose of being visible by all, in a cathedral. They can be seen by anyone. Viewing them cannot be subject to copyright, as long as it is not a commercial venture, I think. Baronnet (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted glass windows are clearly main focus of the image, thus not de minimis. FOP does not apply, as this was taken in France. I will open another DR for similar images. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Logo of an irrelevant german organisation, deleted on german wikipedia de:Bundesbildungskammer, claiming to be an authority. Additionally not in use and certainly wrong license (should be copyrighted). 87.164.60.250 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, not in use anywhere. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Orgchart of an irrelevant german organisation, deleted on german wikipedia de:Bundesbildungskammer, claiming to be an authority. Additionally not in use. 87.164.60.250 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not in scope, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, not used anywhere. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
G8 images
[edit]- Image:G8 Afternoon Working Session 2008.jpg
- Image:G8 Working Lunch 2008.jpg
- Image:G8+8 Outreach Working Lunch 2008.jpg
- Image:G8+7 Outreach Working Session 2008.jpg
- Image:G8 Tanabata 2008.jpg
- Image:Fukuda 68 2008.jpg
Delete © MOFA. All Japanese Government contents has not a public domain or order licenses. --Christopher Longo (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- RESPONSE
- These official photos were made available for downloading by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), and the link on each page quite plainly demonstrates. MOFA requested advance registration. The registration form clearly indicated that the downloaded photos were for Wikipedia use, and MOFA approved it.
- It is not inconsequential that these photos have been posted as part of the article which is featured on the main page of the English Wikipedia today -- "In the news" (January 8, 2008). A not-inconsiderable amount of work went into pre-planning, downloading, and then creating a context in which these images are presented.
- Christopher Longo's one-line complaint, such as it is, articulates no specific objections to which a competent response can be directed. Whatever it is which vexes him may seem obvious to him or to someone else; but frankly, I don't understand. Perhaps if the problem were explained more fully in different words, I would be able to reply or explain or engage in argument in some way ....
- I'm also wondering this: Why doesn't the casual complaint-maker bear any burden of proof or persuasion in this venue?
- In contrast, the information provided along with the upload would seem at least minimally straightforward and complete. Without more, this appears to be an unhelpful exercise in that the too-terse complaint provides no foundation for the kind of dialogue which would help anyone understand how to avert similar misunderstandings in the future.
- As you may know, the en:34th G8 summit will produce one further day of official photos. With this "dispute" (or whatever-it-is) unresolved, I'm reluctant to invest the further time involved in uploading additional images which will enhance the usefulness of article about this event.
- When this task is completed, my plan had been to upload relevant MOFA images to accompany articles about the four Tokyo International Conference on African Development and the en:Hideyo Noguchi Africa Prize which was first conferred in June 2008.
- en:Hideyo Noguchi Africa Prize
- en:Brian Greenwood, UK -- 2008 Noguchi laureate
- en:Miriam Were, Kenya -- 2008 Noguchi laureate
- en:Hideyo Noguchi Africa Prize
- Most of the additional images would have come from MOFA; but I suppose in due course, I would have sought additional images from the en:London School of Tropical Medicine and from the en:University of Nairobi or the Kenyan government. I would want to avoid the necessity for defending these additional digitized images from similarly difficult-to-parse and difficult-to-evaluate deletion threats. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Images are copyrighted, watermarked and most are very low res. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is there an ORTS ticket with the details of the permission ? - can you link to a page granting permission. FYI - "wikipedia only" permission is not enough. Without evidence of permission being granted then these will have to be deleted. Megapixie (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright note "Copyright© : Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan" is even on each single photo's page (when you click on a photo).
- @Ooperhoofd, therefore I'm wondering why you wrote "The copyright holder of this file -- the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- 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." Did you get a indivual permission from the J-MOFA? That might not be impossible, but we need the evidence (aka OTRS ticket).--Túrelio (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
___________________________
I have drafted and sent the following letter to the Secretariat for the G8 Summit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) -- g8summit-press@mofa.go.jp. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Subject: 34th G8 Summit -- official photos, permission for use in Wikipedia context
Dear Sir or Madam:
It seems that I need to apply for explicit permission to make use of the work of the official photographer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. upload images official
The English version of Wikipedia currently includes a limited number of official photos from previous G8 summits. I had thought that by registering with MOFA for access to the "Summit Photo" page, I was complying with your minimal requirement; and indeed, your records will show that accredited access was duly granted.
However, my colleagues at Wikicommons tell me that it is a crucial that I obtain some evidence of MOFA's express permission to post these photos in a Wikipedia context. Without that requisite demonstration of express permission, the status of any official photo from Tōyako must be considered unusable.
In order to better understand my seeming error, I re-visited the other articles about G8 summits. In this review, I gave special attention to the documentation accompanying the G8 photos. As you can see below, in each case, I was able to locate an express statement -- in English, in French, and in German -- concerning the prospective use of these official photographs.
In this context, the following statement from the official Hokkaido summit web site would seem insufficient: The official photographer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be the Host Photographer of the Summit. All major events except bilateral meetings will be photographed by the Host Photographer. Photographs taken by the Host Photographer (Summit Photos) can be viewed and downloaded from the "Summit Photo" page. (Downloading service is for media usage. A password is required to download photos.)
Could you direct me to an online set of explicit statements similar to what has been incorporated in the French web site for the 29th G8 summit at Évian-les-Bains. Alternatively, will you please prepare some kind of permission statement which might resolve the impasse I now confront. These are the questioned photos I have already uploaded to Wikicommons:
- Fukuda arriving at New Chitose Airport, July 6th - Image:Fukuda 68 2008.jpg
- G8+8 Outreach Working Session, July 7th - Image:G8+7 Outreach Working Session 2008.jpg
- G8+8 Outreach Working Lunch, July 7th - Image:G8+8 Outreach Working Lunch 2008.jpg
- Tanabata, G8 leaders in a group, July 7th - Image:G8 Tanabata 2008.jpg
- G8 Working Lunch, July 8th - Image:G8 Working Lunch 2008.jpg
- G8 Afternoon Working Session, July 8th - Image:G8 Afternoon Working Session 2008.jpg
Thank you for your attention to this unwanted problem. If my writing has not been clear enough, I hope the following will clarify any questions you may have.
If necessary, please be assured that I am ready to work with you in resolving any related issues which may arise from this inquiry.
Sincerely,
_______________
ENGLISH
Information using official photographs from the U.S. Department of State - [9]
33rd G8 summit - [10] Photo: G8 leaders in a group, Heiligendamm, 7 June 2007 - Image:33rdG8Leaders.jpg
- Use authorized by statement: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
32nd G8 summit - [11] Photo: G8 leaders in a group, Saint Petersburg, 16 July 2006 - Image:060716 bush leaders orig.jpg
- Use authorized by statement: This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105.
31st G8 summit - [12] Photo: Blair speaks as G8 summit attendees stand behind him, 7 July 2005 - Image:Blair G8 July7th05.jpg
- Use authorized by statement: This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
_______________
FRENCH
Information about using official photographs from the 2003 Évian summit - [13]:
Crédits photographiques -- Les photos présentes sur ce site proviennent des sources suivantes:
1. Service photographique de la Présidence de la République (la reproduction des photos est autorisée sous réserve de la mention de la source et de l'auteur). 2. Service photographique des Archives Nationales (la reproduction des photos est autorisée sous réserve de la mention « cliché atelier de photographie du Centre Historique des Archives Nationales »).
3. Service photographique du ministère des Affaires étrangères. Photographies de F. de La Mure (la reproduction des photos est autorisée sous réserve de la mention « Ministère des Affaires étrangères – Service photographique »).
4. Service photographique de la Ville d'Evian (la reproduction des photos n'est pas autorisée, la publication sur ce site résultant d'un accord avec la Ville d'Evian).
27th G8 Summit - [14] Photo: G8 leaders in a group, Genoa, 20 July 2001 - Image:G8-genes-2001-02.jpg
- Use authorized by the French « Service photographique de la Présidence de la République » ... (see above)
'26th G8 summit - [15] Photo: G8 leaders in a group, Okinawa, 22 July 2000 [16]
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G8-okinawa-2000-01.jpg){kind=link}
- Use authorized by the French « Service photographique de la Présidence de la République » ... (see above)
21st G7 summit - [17] Photo: G7 leaders in a group, Halifax, 15 June 1995 - [18]
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G8-halifax-1995-01.jpg){kind=link}
- Use authorized by the French « Service photographique des Archives Nationales » ... (see above)
_______________
GERMAN
Information about using photographs from the 1999 Köln/Cologne summit - [19]
25th G8 Summit - Image:G8-Staatschefs im Römisch-Germanischen Museum.jpg Photo: G8 leaders working session, Köln/Cologne, 18 June 1999 - Image:G8-Staatschefs im Römisch-Germanischen Museum.jpg
- Use authorized by statement: Rechtefrei. Die Fotos des KölnBild-Archiv sind für die journalistische Nutzung freigegeben. Die digitale Bearbeitung darf das Material nicht entstellen oder in irgendeiner Weise die geistigen oder persönlichen Interessen der Urheber an dem Material gefährden. Der Name der jeweiligen Fotografin / des Fotografen sowie der Zusatz "Stadt Köln" sind in der Veröffentlichung zu nennen.
- No Response from Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on July 10th
- As you may know, the en:34th G8 summit has ended. I sent the above letter to the Secretariat for the Summit; and that may not have been the best e-address to have contacted.
- No Response from Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on July 10th
- Túrelio suggested that the complicated form of the letter itself presents problems, because its wording is simply too difficult to parse. He suggests sending another, more simply worded e-mail inquiry. Of course I agree about the text of that letter -- but in this unique forum, it does at least demonstrate that I am actively trying to grapple with what needs to be done; and the letter accurately illustrates that this whole process is neither simple nor easy.
- I will draft and send another more simply written letter of inquiry, as Túrelio has encouraged me to do.
- It would have been better if this now-massive inconvenience could have been averted, but not one better-informed critic (other than Túrelio) is offering suggestions about a better plan of attack. More importantly, it seems reasonable to ask what I could have done, or to whom I could have turned in advance so that there would have been no cause for complaints or criticisms or questions? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
PERMISSION FOR USE CERTIFIED BY JAPAN'S MOFA
from g8summit-press@mofa.go.jp
to [Ooperhoofd's e-address deleted]
date Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:33 AM
subject Re: 34th G8 Summit -- official photos, permission for use in Wikipedia context
mailed-by mofa.go.jp
Reply
Mr. ... [Ooperhoofd],
Thank you very much for your e-mail. There is no problem you use summit photos in Wikipedia as you do now, which "author" and "permission" are put down on each photo. We do not set an online set of statements concerning the prospective use of summit photos.
Regards, Secretariat for the G8 Summit Ministry of Foreign Affairs
重要度 : 普通 発信元 : - <Ooperhoofd's e-address deleted> 日付 : 2008/07/10 06:13:23
宛先 : g8summit-press
件名 : 34th G8 Summit -- official photos, permission for use in Wikipedia context
- Best thing to do is maybe forward it onto en:Wikipedia:OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Further follow-up:
- As suggested by Bidgee, I re-visited en:Wikipedia:OTRS; and I did send e-mail follow-up to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Further follow-up:
Limbo
[edit]This project or question or dispute or whatever-it-is seems to be in limbo. No response has been forthcoming from OTRS. What, if anything, should I be doing now? Should I re-submit? I assume that a confirmation letter was sent to MOFA and whoever received it didn't quite know what to do with it? What, if anything, should I be doing now? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Still no follow-up? What, if anything, should I be doing differently? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I really wish they would remove this annoying red tag. I just happened apon it. Ooperhoofd wow! you have really done a great job against this... this... person on the internet casting aspersions at your image. Thanks for the good work! 67.220.13.184 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid, that this permission might not be sufficient for OTRS to give green light for keeping these images. Once again they only agree to use the images on Wikimedia and do not agree to a free license. It would probably be better, if could ask them for a specific license. You might also try to contact an OTRS team member (e.g. on chat) to inquire whether they have already processed your mail and are now already negotiating about the license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I really wish they would remove this annoying red tag. I just happened apon it. Ooperhoofd wow! you have really done a great job against this... this... person on the internet casting aspersions at your image. Thanks for the good work! 67.220.13.184 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)