Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I don´t want to share this logo. --Catalunyaonline (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: User request
These are just business cards file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
the image is from a professional photographer (http://www.fnaweb.org/Piedras_Blancas.htm) not from the author 201.231.105.91 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. dave pape (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see {{Nopenis}}. Kimse (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)~
Delete useless Pibwl (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
very unlikely this is released under a creative commons license Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, clear Flickrwashed copyviol. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
modern art / without freedom of panoramic.
More images under Category:Tate Modern.
Deletion request offcourse only for the inside pictures of modern artwork. --Kolossos (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe we've ever had problems with museums - UK has fine FOP. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
FOP is only applicably in public areas outside of buildings. I read http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv62 and believe the image would be ok: "...if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." So the artworks in tate modern are only presented for a half year or so. If you can say this permanently, than it would be ok imho.
The museum is perhaps not the problem, but we don't have a permission from the artist who is living or not long enough dead. --Kolossos (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-free copied from copyrighted website, without permission.[1] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I read that images can't be renamed, delete and reupload is the only way? The reason is the wrong filename. I was confused about it and corrected after the upload, it should be N92, not A92. Both are valid model names so people could actually misstake one for another. I have saved all info about it so as soon as it has been deleted I will reupload it with correct name. Thanks / Aqualize Aqualize (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We need some coherence in this project about nudity. There's no proof that she's not underage. There's no proof it's not a private place. There's no proof she gave consent. 3 reasons to delete this picture! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
She's 19 as you can see here.--Lamilli (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It was taken by the subject of the photo, or at least with her blessing. She then posted it to flickr, so I don't see what is wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
it's my photo, and was my ex-girlfriend who uploaded this photo, I don't want it on wikipedia, please delete 189.175.238.81 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Looks alot like something that's out of scope anyway. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. The source[2] shows that the licence is "cc-by-nc-nd", not "cc-by-sa" claimed in the image page. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. The source[3] shows that the licence is "cc-by-nc-nd", not "cc-by-sa" claimed in the image page. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Impersonating FlickrreviewR - deleting and BAN HAMMER OF ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION -mattbuck (Talk) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. The source[4] shows that the licence is "cc-by-nc", not "cc-by-sa" claimed in the image page. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. The source[5] shows that the licence is "cc-by-nc-nd", not "cc-by-sa" claimed in the image page. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. The source[6] shows that the licence is "cc-by-nc-sa", not just "cc-by-sa" claimed in the image page. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
not a free image 207.237.254.216 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
TV screenshot copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
People shown here don't want this picture to be public --Moraleh (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per request. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Person shown here doesn't want this picture to be public --Moraleh (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete low resolution snapshot of person with no assertion of notability nor useful categorization; not in Commons scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
uploader request: no longer useful Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
uploader request: no longer useful Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Scouts_reconstructing_an_Anasazi_granary_near_Weeping_Rock.jpeg --85.177.178.122 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Official disclaimer states that we may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS. However photo gallery page says the photographs of the official events can be used free of charge. What does the community think?
The same applies to *Image:Nelson Oduber.jpg *Image:Roosevelt Skerritt OAS.jpg *Image:Roosevelt Skerritt.jpg
Kimse (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Kimse (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I say Delete. No hints that they allow derivative works, commercial use, etc. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As lc says, nothing says they can be used for derivatives use, and the disclaimer says commercial requires attribution. That, coupled with the all rights reserved at the bottom of the page leaves me with a big list to delete. Joy! -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
the age of the model does seem to be much younger than 18 (looks and the model has braces etc). --Salvör Gissurardóttir (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Absent clear evidence of age, and of consent of model, (both of which Peter Klashorst was asked to supply but has chosen not to, as is his right) Delete. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Since Commons has to be coherent, well yeah we should delete that one too for 3 reasons: absence of evidence of age + consent + private place --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. The lack of evidence for age plus the consent. Bidgee (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
en:Statue of Decebalus says this is in Romania, completed in 2004. Romania has non-commercial-only freedom of panorama. dave pape (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Per the previous deletion request. This is a different photo than before, containing a lot more surrounding landscape, but the sculpture is still the real subject of the photo. dave pape (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The sculpture may be located in Romania, but the photograph is taken in Serbia, and Serbia does have freedom of panorama. Apparently, even the other deleted file would be OK too. Nikola (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment This is one of the most entertaining cases I've ever seen.... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)- Comment - Very fine line here, we may wanna contact a lawyer. But anyway, do the laws of where the image is published apply, or does the location of the sculpture itself apply? It's insurmountably permanently located in a public place no matter what, but which laws apply I wonder? I'll put my
on Serbia though. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the place of publication matters for a derivative work. Normally it's the location of the sculpture, as the copyright violation (if there is one) occurs when you create the derivative work (photograph). I don't know either what applies when the work is in one country and the copying happened in another. (I've been expecting us to find a case like this eventually; didn't realize it was this one when I nominated it.) --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- When you say "Normally it's the location of the sculpture [that matters for a derivative work]", what do you mean by "normally"?
- By reading Serbian copyright law, it simply says (paraphrasing) that "it is allowed to make two-dimensional derivatives of works permanently placed in public places", not mentioning that the public places have to be in Serbia. Just as it doesn't specify that the author has to be from Serbia, a work of any author from anywhere is protected in Serbia by Serbian law. Nikola (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the place of publication matters for a derivative work. Normally it's the location of the sculpture, as the copyright violation (if there is one) occurs when you create the derivative work (photograph). I don't know either what applies when the work is in one country and the copying happened in another. (I've been expecting us to find a case like this eventually; didn't realize it was this one when I nominated it.) --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Rename it to "Towboat in Iron Gate Danube" to make clear what's the main focus of this image, everthing else is just de minimis. --194.48.128.75 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is interesting. I say
Keep... country of origin of the photo is Serbia, I would think. It was taken in Serbia, and is a view from Serbia. "Normally" a work is only visible from the country it is located in, so normally that is the law which is considered, but this is a bit different. The sculptor located his work there, and knew (or should have known) what the Serbian law is, and the consequences of it. The country of the author can come into play for "country of origin", but for determining freedom of panorama status, I would go with the law where the picture was taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Ich denke, hier sollte serbisches Recht als Ursprungsland herangezogen werden. --Marcela (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept on the basis that the law of the country in which the photograph was taken allows such images. Without FOP, a copyright-infringing act takes place at the point when the image is captured on the camera memory (or film). It should therefore be the FOP law of the country in which the otherwise infringing act takes place that should IMO determine the issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Non-free Copyrighted image from website http://www.somnath.org/photo/39.jpg, uploaded without permission --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio again by User:Agc256 from L'Occitane website. http://www.loccitane.si/Default.aspx?c=5&l=2&s=154&a=1303 --Caspian blue (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bih Stan 1991.GIF
[edit]
This map is false, and, unfortunately, it is widely used. This map needs to be replaced with Image:BH1991.png. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Compare those 2 maps:
I checked data of 1991 census and left map is good. There is coresponding category on hr wiki: hr:Kategorija:Popis stanovništva u Bosni i Hercegovini 1991.. You can check yourself. The most notable errors:
- Glamoč (wrong bosniak position)
- Skender Vakuf (in realuty, has NO willages with bosniak mayority
- ... this was just after breef look!!
--Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - You oppose the map because it presents a different POV from yours. If you prefer your map/pov take the issue to the articles / talk pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This map is fine and, more importantly, its generally correct. No map is 100% perfect...if it were, there would be no maps on WikiCommons. It shows the demography of Bosnia before the civil war of 1992-1995 and the current political division between the Serb controlled Republika Srpska and Muslim-Croat parts of Bosnia Herzegovina. Please don't try to delete invaluable maps such as this because they don't conform fully to your POV. Your so-called 'bad' map reflects the division of Bosnia into two since 1996. It is needed as a reference point especially after the recent arrest of Karadzic. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Commons does not make this sort of editorial decision. It is up to the editors of the article to decide what map to use, if any. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality of my old photo, I added a better photo -Doronenko (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. standard practise is we dont delete images because another editor has uploaded an improved version. Gnangarra 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not another - ME. It's my own photo and I have uploaded a better image. Doronenko (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, user request. --Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
no source, undated, probably from c. 1982 so not PD yet in Iran 206.170.102.210 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: This image is a PNG which content is the same as Image:Hexadecimal multiplication table.svg. -Commonlingua (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - you might want to read Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for expressing your opinion. However, I read the note and I don't see how it is related. There is no attribution path (it's a multiplication table), and the reason of the deletion is not the quality of the image. It's not a superseded image. I transferred the image from the English wikipedia by mistake (please, see the source), without noticing that an image with the same content was already in Commons. Regards, --Commonlingua (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Picture of an HTML table, so just create the damn table.... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I put it up and it is not working and no longer useful. thanks! Knight Light (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate on what is not working? This version? The SVG versions? I can see this version and a preview of it; and the SVG versions, but not previews of them.
- Are you the copyright holder of the logo? Has a permission been sent to OTRS?
- Thanks.
- --AVRS (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Photo taken 1938. I think, Germany - as a member of the EU - has copyright term 70 years pma. Even if the work is anonymous, we cannot use it before 2009. Botev (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per the opinion of our resident expert Lupo[7]. This is not a "work" under German law because it is a mugshot. Under German law, non-works are only protected for 50 years. Furthermore the 70 years for anonymous works are almost up. -Nard the Bard 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Need the history of the article deleted. See description Nichalp (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think the file should be deleted (as the template in use, now, tells me).
The e-mail conversation in "description=..." seems to say explicitely that MAN company, owner of rights, allows wikipedia to use thisone AND all others from same CD distributed by MAN AG!. What's to be deleted, if ever possible, is the e-mail conversation in that file's "description=...".
This should be handled by OTRS, shouldn't it? Or is there another (better?) way to deal with such? --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why would you want the e-mail discussion to be deleted? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: no explicite permission to licence the content under GFDL and the permission to use the image seems only to be for wikipedia... i think this image is not free enough to stay at Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof that the image has been released under GFDL. If a explicite permission is send to OTRS, the image will be undeleted.--Trixt (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Despite the claim that the image is released under creative commons, the copyright is held byt the Commonwealth of Australia and is not freely licensed. Uploader admits Commonwealth holds copyright here. The copyright relating to the image is explained at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/pages/ITRMinister_CopyRight.aspx . The image is also used at http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm where copyright again is held by the Commonwealth of Australia and explained quite clearly at http://www.pm.gov.au/copyright.cfm The uploader seems confused about licensing provisions - having uploaded claiming public domain but released it as creative commons. Another editor fixed that problem. It has been asserted that the two licenses are compatible. I can't see how the Commonwealth unequivocally claiming copyright and allowing use under certain restrcitive conditions is compatible with creative commons. It has been suggested on the image talk page that It is not unusual for content to have more than one license. And there is no reason to say that Mr. Carr has not ensure for himself that he owns the copyright For all we know it was taken by Kim Carr himself. It is quite clear that it is not a self portrait but a professional image. I do not believe the image was legally uploaded with the creative commons license - there is no way the Commonwealth of Australia allows its images to be used as Creative Commons. Matilda (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx If an employee or officer of the Commonwealth is overstepping their authority, that is an internal matter for the commonwealth. It is none of our concern. The CC license on the official ministerial webpage is sufficent for us to rely upon. 58.110.148.250 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per the anon above, strong keep. The source link comes from the minister's own official site, complete with picture and cc-by-2.5 license. Other permissions are totally irrelevant. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- They are not other permissions they are copyright restrictions that appear on the bottom of the page purporting to release the image under Creative Commons. Timeshift + 58.110.148.250 and I disagree as to whether those restrictions override the permission. --Matilda (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, as long as all you're claiming is that the copyright notice on all their pages overrides the indivudal creative commons license, I have no qualms with that at all, as it's wrong so when this is judged the image will be kept :) Timeshift9 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- finally settled then?? I don't know how the image would have come to be on a Commonwealth government website releasing it for use on wikipedia if the commonwealth government did not want the image releasedFeadering (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Settle down Kim Carr staffer. Matilda believes that the MP does not have a right to overrule the authority of the commonwealth in terms of changing licensing on commonwealth copyrighted works. Regardless of if it is true or not, I share your view that the license is now ok from wikipedia's end, any dramas are between the MP and the commonwealth now. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- If a government webpage says it is a CC license, isn't that enough? I think it unlikely that the Aust. govt. will sue wikipedia for use of the image in any case. --220.237.198.8 (SurturZ) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- If Carr's ministerial page has a CC license for the image of said minister, indeed. Timeshift9 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- newsflash: we're not Wikipedia, and we don't host stuff when we can get away with it. We host stuff when it's freely licensed. No further thoughts at this time. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- If a government webpage says it is a CC license, isn't that enough? I think it unlikely that the Aust. govt. will sue wikipedia for use of the image in any case. --220.237.198.8 (SurturZ) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Settle down Kim Carr staffer. Matilda believes that the MP does not have a right to overrule the authority of the commonwealth in terms of changing licensing on commonwealth copyrighted works. Regardless of if it is true or not, I share your view that the license is now ok from wikipedia's end, any dramas are between the MP and the commonwealth now. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing that I believe may not be ok is the fact that the source link's photo is 800×610 pixels in size whilst the uploaded image to wikipedia is 3280×2504. Can any admin reviewing this just confirm that for the staffer? Thanks in advance. Timeshift9 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- note I have deleted the version at 3280×2504 resolution as no source had provided for that version. Gnangarra 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep per Timeshift - the copyright owner appears to have gone to some trouble to get this released for public use, and the fact a Government website now clearly states it's CC means we have every ground to believe it is so. There is no version anywhere on the Internet of this resolution, and the ones at pm.gov.au and alp.org.au are drastically reduced shots with less detail (top and bottom and/or sides removed). This department's willingness to do this gives us some hope for the future in our dealings with other MPs to get freely licensed photos that don't look like paparazzi drive-bys. Orderinchaos (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Strong keep. The non-free Commonwealth license applies to the website generally. It does not negate the free CC license on the specific image any more than the GFDL license on Commons generally would negate a CC license on specific image. If someone doubts the license or the attribution, they should contact the ministry about their concerns. Unless and until we hear otherwise from the ministry, the image should be kept. It’s not like the license was claimed by some newbie; the license is on an official ministry website. —teb728 t c 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have indeed contacted the website about my concerns. Note that just because I upload a photo I scanned in from a book I own and claim therefore I made the image to Flikr(another website) and paste it with a free-use license does not mean it becomes a free-use licensed image if copyright is still owned by the copyright holder. The uploader has said the photographer doesn't matter and Carr personally owns the image. I don't believe the uploader. There are other uploaders we done't beleive at times either. --Matilda (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you just give it up? Nobody else has an issue, as they shouldn't. It is an image of Kim Carr, on Kim Carr's official ministerial page, with a cc-by-2.5 license. Copyright is no issue, and seeing as you're persisting I might as well mention that it was you who said here that the current papparazi style photo was "excellent" followed by a smile, and then go on to say Carr's image is not for him to release and is also incapable of releasing it on a commonwealth website. You are persisting in pushing your barrow, I would suggest to stop. We as wikipedians want this, better photos released for wikipedia to use, we do not want to keep with the ameteur photos if we don't have to. Timeshift9 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are quite specific rules about uploading stuff to a .gov.au domain - unlike most domains it's actually supervised. I did some contract work for a government agency once and was amazed how nanny-statish that side of things all was. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know it is supervised and that is why I have queried it as ministerial staffers may get to override the supervision for a time - but not for a long time. I note also that the page releasing the picture under Creative Commons claims the picture is "by Kim Carr" whereas elsewhere the uploader has admitted it is not a self portrait [8] - this indicates the upload of the release under CC was not professionally done or supervised. --Matilda (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- As others have said here, even if that was the case, that's not our problem and the photo can be used. The sooner the 5 days is up and the 'keep' ruling comes down, the sooner we can all move on. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know it is supervised and that is why I have queried it as ministerial staffers may get to override the supervision for a time - but not for a long time. I note also that the page releasing the picture under Creative Commons claims the picture is "by Kim Carr" whereas elsewhere the uploader has admitted it is not a self portrait [8] - this indicates the upload of the release under CC was not professionally done or supervised. --Matilda (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are quite specific rules about uploading stuff to a .gov.au domain - unlike most domains it's actually supervised. I did some contract work for a government agency once and was amazed how nanny-statish that side of things all was. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Everything appears kosher here. We have no reason to disbelieve the Australian government. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is that a ruling dear administrator? Can we remove the tags and stuff from the image now? Timeshift9 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't closing the discussion. There's no reason why this can't run for the standard 5 days. howcheng {chat} 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for now. The history is too convoluted and there are too many questions now as to the validity of our using the image in question. If no one else has tracked down mail info on their office I'll see if I can track something down and get them to mail something in. rootology (T) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the website admin has not chosen to reply (yet) to my email on Friday - there have been just over two working days for him/her to do so. --Matilda (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- If they cared that much they would have replied by now. My guess is they don't. Timeshift9 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- They might not care - we care if it is free or not. They also haven't corrected the false assertion about the photographer --Matilda (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly we should go ahead with the delete then, based on this. I've emailed official bodies before here in the US, and sometimes not gotten replies for weeks. We can always re-add a photo of the Senator upon having one thats free to use. rootology (T) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, the image stays. We are using the same sized one as used on the source page, so there is no issue there. No admin in their right mind will delete this image, god knows why we are still on this issue. Can't wait until this IfD is closed, as it will be. Timeshift9 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly we should go ahead with the delete then, based on this. I've emailed official bodies before here in the US, and sometimes not gotten replies for weeks. We can always re-add a photo of the Senator upon having one thats free to use. rootology (T) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- They might not care - we care if it is free or not. They also haven't corrected the false assertion about the photographer --Matilda (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image on Kim Carr's official webpage is indeed released under a valid license that is compatible with Commons. However, in terms of resolution, the image we have is not the same! It is common for a photographer to release lower resolution versions under a free license, but keep the original high resolution image as all rights reserved. My only question is, where did this version come from? It obviously did not come from the source cited (I've searched that site and could not find this high res version). If we aren't provided with a link to the actual source, let's delete this high res version and replace it with the one cited in the source information. Brynn (talk!) 20:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged for Commons:Incomplete license - source info missing and irreconcilable with statements made elsewhere by uploader. Adequate source and creator data has not been provided. The page giving the release is not the source of this photo and is also misleading as it claims the photo is a self-portrait when it quite obviously is not and moreover the uploader has admitted elsewhere it is not by Kim Carr but has said "the photographer doesn't need to be attributed" --Matilda (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- We know for the record that this was uploaded by someone working out of Parliament House in Canberra. This was confirmed by technical means. Orderinchaos (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If we used the resolution photo, there shouldn't be a problem. Guy0307 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- But the uploader didn't use the resolution photo. Moreover there is now an inconsistency in our source data as to who took the photo and on the "source site" - not least because the source site didn't actually provide reliable or accurate data about the source of the photo either. --Matilda (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I replaced the image with the licensed image from the ministry website. (I am amazed that no one else beat me to it.) The high-resolution version should be deleted and the low-resolution version kept. —teb728 t c 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- hahaha...hahaha...welllll...I'm not sure how things are done where you are from, but we have these things called discussions...then an ADMIN (who is generally a person with a ton of experience in these matters) weighs everything put forth, and a decision is made as to whether the image should be deleted or replaced. Thanks for the giggle. Cheers! (seriously, I can't stop laughing..hahaha) <3 TEB728 Brynn (talk!) 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've advised the uploader who was the contributing staffer that if they want the higher res, to upload that to the ministerial creative commons source, and until then the hosted, lower res image will be used. I think that should satisfy everyone. Timeshift9 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the photo is now attributed to Auspic and everyone lived happily ever afterFeadering (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Afraid not. Wikipedia no longer recognises Auspic. Edit - oh, I see what you mean. In the source link you're indicating the author is Auspic, and the license is still cc-by-2.5. That wasn't needed IMHO, but causes no issues all the same. Timeshift9 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Closure of IfD needed
[edit]
Five days is up, the source image on the source link is released under cc-by-2.5 and matches the image uploaded on wikimedia here. The only thing that is being contested is who actually took the photo, however as almost all have said above, this is not relevant. Keeps far outweigh Deletes. I call for the closure of the IfD with a resulting keep. Timeshift9 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Five days is up"? Deletion discussions (cough, "IfDs") go on for as long as we think is appropriate. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you deletionists are saying that the official website for the Australian Minister for Innovation, an Australian Government website, has screwed up on the copyright on the image of a Federal minister ? That it does not understand Australian copyright law ? Rcbutcher (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- As above. Collard, see above: "No, I wasn't closing the discussion. There's no reason why this can't run for the standard 5 days. howcheng {chat} 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)". The IfD has now been open for five days. There is no coherant argument as to why it should be deleted. We have this source link for this image. It is the exact image from that website. The rest is history, give up whatever crusade you are on because it is the official Australian Commonwealth Government website giving express cc-by-2.5 licensing to that image. Now read on what the vast majority of contributors here have said (remembering Matilda removed a bunch of keep images, so to see how many have no objection the entire discussion needs reading), and move on as an admin will soon be closing this discussion. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The keep templates - literally {{subst:vk}} were added by Timeshift [9] to multiple comments not all of which were clearly keep !votes and also to unlogged in users who had only contributed to this debate. Not quite sure what the policy is on commons but single purpose accounts don't normally get counted for this purpose. As they had not identified themselves even as a wikipedian ... I am not sure why they blundered here or as a single purpose one-off user how does their view relate to policy or what the issues are or even if they are abusing multiple accounts. I restored some of the keep templates for the clarity of the closing admin where the editor was signed on and was clearly stating keep. In the case of this edit by Collard , I did not restore the vk tag inserted by Timeshift - I think Timeshift was misrepresenting Collard's point. Perhaps he can explain otherwise or Collard can correct the misapprehension I have.
Nonetheless the templates are only a quick visual clue, I would expect that the closing admin will read through. The project page states The procedures on this page differ significantly from those of other Wikimedia projects, namely the English Wikipedia's Images and media for deletion, so all users should read the following instructions carefully. Also note: Arguments about copyright status are always more compelling than votes.
Not sure where the 5 days comes from. The project page states When a debate has reached consensus or when it is likely that no additional arguments will be added, an administrator will close the discussion and determine whether the file should be deleted. For clear cases, it might happen within a few hours, but more complicated cases can go on for months.
In answer to Rcbutcher So you deletionists are saying that the official website for the Australian Minister for Innovation, an Australian Government website, has screwed up on the copyright on the image of a Federal minister ? That it does not understand Australian copyright law ? In a nutshell yes. My discussions with the uploader lead me to believe he also uploaded the image on the government website and my discussions also confirm he has not a clue about permissions or copyright and has contempt for intellectual property rights. --Matilda (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)- Would you care to provide us with excerpts from such discussions? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The keep templates - literally {{subst:vk}} were added by Timeshift [9] to multiple comments not all of which were clearly keep !votes and also to unlogged in users who had only contributed to this debate. Not quite sure what the policy is on commons but single purpose accounts don't normally get counted for this purpose. As they had not identified themselves even as a wikipedian ... I am not sure why they blundered here or as a single purpose one-off user how does their view relate to policy or what the issues are or even if they are abusing multiple accounts. I restored some of the keep templates for the clarity of the closing admin where the editor was signed on and was clearly stating keep. In the case of this edit by Collard , I did not restore the vk tag inserted by Timeshift - I think Timeshift was misrepresenting Collard's point. Perhaps he can explain otherwise or Collard can correct the misapprehension I have.
- As above. Collard, see above: "No, I wasn't closing the discussion. There's no reason why this can't run for the standard 5 days. howcheng {chat} 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)". The IfD has now been open for five days. There is no coherant argument as to why it should be deleted. We have this source link for this image. It is the exact image from that website. The rest is history, give up whatever crusade you are on because it is the official Australian Commonwealth Government website giving express cc-by-2.5 licensing to that image. Now read on what the vast majority of contributors here have said (remembering Matilda removed a bunch of keep images, so to see how many have no objection the entire discussion needs reading), and move on as an admin will soon be closing this discussion. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you deletionists are saying that the official website for the Australian Minister for Innovation, an Australian Government website, has screwed up on the copyright on the image of a Federal minister ? That it does not understand Australian copyright law ? Rcbutcher (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- And exactly how is that last bit relevant when its found on .gov.au? Timeshift9 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have queried whether it was an authorised upload with the website and they have yet to reply. Although one of the anon!votes stated If an employee or officer of the Commonwealth is overstepping their authority, that is an internal matter for the commonwealth. It is none of our concern. I disagree and so apparently do others - ie Collard stated we don't host stuff when we can get away with it. We host stuff when it's freely licensed. If we disagree that it is freely licensed ... that is the basis of my argument - no more no less. I am repeating myself here and so are you - can we leave it please unhless something new comes up?--Matilda (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Most people here do not disagree, and have reasonably objective reasons for our agreement. I don't doubt you'd be familiar with (or at least aware of) the policy manuals relating to uploading to the .gov.au web space - it's not a space you can just click on an FTP client and upload to, there's almost a ratification process. If they have stuffed up and we are notified, then we act on that notification. Until such time, we are presented with a CC notice on a government website with relation very specifically to the shot we have, I see no reason to argue with it. Orderinchaos (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised that the maintainers of the aus govt website haven't replied, seeing it's such a pointless question : "are you aware somebody may have made an unauthorised update of your Innovation Minister's website, to whit uploading an image of said Minister, and/or incorrectly designating said image as cc-by-ssa.... ?". Rcbutcher (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the higher-res photo from? Guy0307 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised that the maintainers of the aus govt website haven't replied, seeing it's such a pointless question : "are you aware somebody may have made an unauthorised update of your Innovation Minister's website, to whit uploading an image of said Minister, and/or incorrectly designating said image as cc-by-ssa.... ?". Rcbutcher (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Most people here do not disagree, and have reasonably objective reasons for our agreement. I don't doubt you'd be familiar with (or at least aware of) the policy manuals relating to uploading to the .gov.au web space - it's not a space you can just click on an FTP client and upload to, there's almost a ratification process. If they have stuffed up and we are notified, then we act on that notification. Until such time, we are presented with a CC notice on a government website with relation very specifically to the shot we have, I see no reason to argue with it. Orderinchaos (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have queried whether it was an authorised upload with the website and they have yet to reply. Although one of the anon!votes stated If an employee or officer of the Commonwealth is overstepping their authority, that is an internal matter for the commonwealth. It is none of our concern. I disagree and so apparently do others - ie Collard stated we don't host stuff when we can get away with it. We host stuff when it's freely licensed. If we disagree that it is freely licensed ... that is the basis of my argument - no more no less. I am repeating myself here and so are you - can we leave it please unhless something new comes up?--Matilda (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:080040_-_015_Sen_Kim_Carr_24_Jan_08.jpg&curid=4440250&diff=13146508&oldid=13146104){kind=link}
Kept. noting that the 3280×2504 version was deleted from the history. Closing this discussion as keep. The question was raised that someone associated with the source site may have overstepped their authority in placing a CC-by-2.5 license for the image. This unfortunately is something we cant establish, we can establish and act in good faith in the knowledge that the site has restrictions on who can edit the page and that license clearly stated for the image has the Author(Auspic) and the attribution requirement(CC-by-2.5). If at some stage the source contacts us saying that they have found an incident where a person has overstepped their authority and provided a copyright notice for an image to which they didnt have the authority then we can delete the image as we would when any other similar incident is brought to our attention. Gnangarra 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
mistake Oxente (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
mistake --Oxente (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
17:57, July 25, 2008 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Raposa54.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)