Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
joke/irrelevant picture 190.21.105.44 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A better duplicate of this image has been uploaded SBC-YPR (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Diti: Dupe of Image:Kashmir Railway Map.jpg
Image:Component_Comparison_between_Fermentation_Cordyceps_Cs-4_Powder_and_Wild_Cordyceps_Siensis.pdf
[edit]Out of Scope .... Posible Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Component_Comparison_Between_Cordyceps_Cephalosporium_Mycelia_Powder_and_Wild_Cordyceps_Sinensis.pdf
[edit]Out of Scope .... Posible Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope .... Posible Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 09:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Sterkebaktalk 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The cover of the August 2006 issue of Otaku Magazine, uploaded by S2mega under Creative Commons 3.0. deerstop 13:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the logotype of a private entity, founded in 1941. --Tonyjeff (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Per request by Leobudv. Also see this Kanonkas(talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image license is wrong and the image cannot be kept. Reliefs are always 3D art, unlike papyri or paintings. Moreover, Muntuwandi, the original uploader, has been banned for abusive sockpuppetry. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; 3D art. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (GMT)
en:American Colony (Jerusalem) never was a government agency, license is false --h-stt !? 07:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Come on, that is no reason to delete. Adjust the license, these are free images, donated by Eric Matson. I changed to the more convenient source template and I put in a {{PD-because}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have never heard about this donation and don't know if it includes the rights to reproduce. From the authorship note the individual photographer is not known, so the Matsons can't legally donate those rights. --h-stt !? 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just follow source links, and eventually you will end up at this description of the Matson collection where you see that the rights were donated to the American public. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Rights and Restrictions Information page quoted above says 2 things:
- Photographs in the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection are in the public domain. It then goes on to note the restrictions on the use of the color lantern slides (this is not a colour lantern slide). Privacy and publicity rights may also apply (of course that is always true of all images - However, I see no issues here).
- In 2003, the Home dedicated the intellectual property and related rights to the collection to the American public, subject to "whatever rights, if any, that may have previously been conveyed to others."
- The first statement, noting that the images are PD, is not contradicted by the second. It merely notes that the dedication is to the American public. As regards the question of who actually took the photograph, I don't believe that we need this information in order to accept the above PD claim. The G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection makes a credible claim of donation to the PD. Unless there is any evidence to the contrary, then a credible claim is all that we need. Greenshed (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Rights and Restrictions Information page quoted above says 2 things:
- Just follow source links, and eventually you will end up at this description of the Matson collection where you see that the rights were donated to the American public. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have never heard about this donation and don't know if it includes the rights to reproduce. From the authorship note the individual photographer is not known, so the Matsons can't legally donate those rights. --h-stt !? 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Also the image appears on the photographic plates between p. 80 and 81 in Anne Baker's 2003 book From Biplane to Spitfire without any attribution. This supports the PD interpretation. Greenshed (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I still have doubts that the Matsons ever owned the rights they so generously donated. But if their claim is accepted here as enough to keep the images, that's perfectly fine. And I am happy, because the cropped portrait of T. E. Lawrence will be the first portrait of him that is free enough for de-WP, so we can finally illustrate his article. --h-stt !? 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
en:American Colony (Jerusalem) never was a government agency, license is false 88.217.57.85 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Adjust the license then, but these are free images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt the license includes the right to reproduce. Please see the first related deletion request of today. --h-stt !? 10:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Follows from the decision on the parent image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Left_to_Right;_Sir_T.E.Lawrence_and_Sir_Leonard_Woolley_standing_beside_a_Hittitie_slab_found_during_excavations_at_Carchemish,_Syria_(1911-14).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
absurd license, without photographer and source no other license can be named. 88.217.57.85 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- You know where this comes from, I suppose. Just fix it then. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea where this image comes from. I found it was included in the de-article on Lawrence, removed it there and nominated it here for deletion because its license status is unclear. If you know better, please fix the missing information and maybe it is free. I'd like to keep it. But how would I know if it is legal, unless a source and a photographer are named? --h-stt !? 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because this was proposed for deletion together with other images from the Matson collection, I believed that you suspected the same source. And although I cannot find it in the digital collection of LoC, it might be in the non-digitized files. I will look around further. With so much detail, it should not be that hard to find. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I only found this rastered version from http://cnx.org/content/m13674/ (which is also cropped compared to the commons file). Keep with {{PD-Syria}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- PD-Syria? Can you prove that this image was first (or ever) published in Syria? I would assume it was published in the UK first and foremost. Without prove for PD status this image can't be kept.--h-stt !? 11:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I only found this rastered version from http://cnx.org/content/m13674/ (which is also cropped compared to the commons file).
- Because this was proposed for deletion together with other images from the Matson collection, I believed that you suspected the same source. And although I cannot find it in the digital collection of LoC, it might be in the non-digitized files. I will look around further. With so much detail, it should not be that hard to find. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea where this image comes from. I found it was included in the de-article on Lawrence, removed it there and nominated it here for deletion because its license status is unclear. If you know better, please fix the missing information and maybe it is free. I'd like to keep it. But how would I know if it is legal, unless a source and a photographer are named? --h-stt !? 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A source is essential, as a first step. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
en:American Colony (Jerusalem) never was a government agency, license is false h-stt !? 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep And H-stt can fix the license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt the source includes the right to reproduce, please see the first related deletion request of today. --h-stt !? 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Follows from decision on parent image MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Image seems to be promotional from Singapore Airlines and there is no evidence of release of copyright under free licence russavia (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The cover of manga volume, copyrighted by it's author (Kenjiro Kawatsu). deerstop 13:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Mach (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Performance performed less than 50 years ago in the European Union.
The rights of performers shall expire 50 years after the date of the performance. Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, Article 3 (English) - (French).
Teofilo (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is not that for sound recordings of music performers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it applies to any kind of performance art. Teofilo (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide some evidence that photos of this kind of performances are covered by copyright. Just now, this looks like your own novelty, another tack to propose a whole new class of images for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Belgian Act of 30 June 1994, §35 (French) : Sont également considérés comme artistes-interprètes ou exécutants les artistes de variété et les artistes de cirque. - §35 (Dutch) : Ook variété- en circusartisten worden als uitvoerende kunstenaars beschouwd. . §35 (English)Variety and circus artists shall also be considered performers. See also en:Related_rights#Performers. Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- C'est lors d'un festival en plein air. J'ai reçu l'autorisation (presse)de faire les photos du festival par les organisateurs. Je pense que si cette image est supprimée, il faudra en supprimer bien d'autres... --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Les seules autorisations qu'on accepte sur Commons sont les autorisations écrites de distribution sous licence libre, archivées dans le service COM:OTRS. Sous licence libre, les produits dérivés, tels que cartes postales, T-shirts sont autorisés, et cela m'étonnerait qu'une autorisation pour journaliste de la presse écrite permette d'aller aussi loin. Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Il faut alors supprimer des milliers de photos sur wikipédia et pas seulement les miennes. C'est vraiment absurde, c'est une représentation en rue et donc publique, pas une représentation privée. Même les magazines et la tv ne respectent pas cela sinon il n'y a plus d'image dans la presse! Toutes les pages qui parlent de spectacle, chanteur et autres seront sans illustration! De plus ici ce n'est pas une représentation artistique mais folklorique. Cracher du feu n'est pas une création unique mais simplement un geste commun et folklorique. --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- FR : J'approuve ce que dit Luc. Il n'y a aucun fondement juridique à cette requête de suppression. La directive européenne, tout comme le traité OMPI s'applique aux oeuvres de l'esprit, hors cracher du feu n'est pas une oeuvre de l'esprit. EN : I approuve what Luc says. There is no legal basis about this deletion request. The european directive, like the WIPO treaty applies to work of the mind, make some fire is not a work of the mind. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ni plus ni moins que chanter une chanson écrite par quelqu'un d'autre. This is not less a work of the mind than singing a song written by someone else. Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- So will you propose to delete photos of open-air concerts in Belgium? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- sic. THISONE will. In German those are called "pea counters" -- no idea about how to translate. OPPOSE. ;[[ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by W. (talk • contribs)
- Of open air danses, by professional or professional-looking amateur dansers, perhaps. Teofilo (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beloved T~, I did NOT UNSIGN my comment, I just overly used o.n.e of those "~" . 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- NB: You are not disallowed to 'correct' thisone, too. eod.
- So will you propose to delete photos of open-air concerts in Belgium? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ni plus ni moins que chanter une chanson écrite par quelqu'un d'autre. This is not less a work of the mind than singing a song written by someone else. Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vous avez écrit juste au dessus que les organisateurs donnaient des autorisations à la presse. Voilà pour les magazines. Et pourquoi pas également à la télévision ? Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- FR : J'approuve ce que dit Luc. Il n'y a aucun fondement juridique à cette requête de suppression. La directive européenne, tout comme le traité OMPI s'applique aux oeuvres de l'esprit, hors cracher du feu n'est pas une oeuvre de l'esprit. EN : I approuve what Luc says. There is no legal basis about this deletion request. The european directive, like the WIPO treaty applies to work of the mind, make some fire is not a work of the mind. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Il faut alors supprimer des milliers de photos sur wikipédia et pas seulement les miennes. C'est vraiment absurde, c'est une représentation en rue et donc publique, pas une représentation privée. Même les magazines et la tv ne respectent pas cela sinon il n'y a plus d'image dans la presse! Toutes les pages qui parlent de spectacle, chanteur et autres seront sans illustration! De plus ici ce n'est pas une représentation artistique mais folklorique. Cracher du feu n'est pas une création unique mais simplement un geste commun et folklorique. --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Les seules autorisations qu'on accepte sur Commons sont les autorisations écrites de distribution sous licence libre, archivées dans le service COM:OTRS. Sous licence libre, les produits dérivés, tels que cartes postales, T-shirts sont autorisés, et cela m'étonnerait qu'une autorisation pour journaliste de la presse écrite permette d'aller aussi loin. Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- C'est lors d'un festival en plein air. J'ai reçu l'autorisation (presse)de faire les photos du festival par les organisateurs. Je pense que si cette image est supprimée, il faudra en supprimer bien d'autres... --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Belgian Act of 30 June 1994, §35 (French) : Sont également considérés comme artistes-interprètes ou exécutants les artistes de variété et les artistes de cirque. - §35 (Dutch) : Ook variété- en circusartisten worden als uitvoerende kunstenaars beschouwd. . §35 (English)Variety and circus artists shall also be considered performers. See also en:Related_rights#Performers. Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide some evidence that photos of this kind of performances are covered by copyright. Just now, this looks like your own novelty, another tack to propose a whole new class of images for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it applies to any kind of performance art. Teofilo (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- a presse en général, la télévision en fait partie, elle était là aussi. --Luc Viatour (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
As I have already stated, however, the fact that a public event may not be transmitted to third parties without authorization is universally accepted without argument. It is not, I repeat, a principle peculiar to public sports events and to television. For example, a theatrical performance is a public event, but nobody has ever maintained that its televising should be free. In my experience no radio company has ever arrogated to itself the right to broadcast the sound of a performance, and I have never seen a television company turn up to take pictures of a performance without authorization. When a concert is held, the sound and the images that comprise the entertainment cannot be freely transmitted. The right over an entertainment or event, by Jose de Oliveira Ascensao, Copyright Bulletin, Vol. XXIV, N°2, 1990, UNESCO. Also available in French and Spanish. Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Universal?? That is bombastic nonsense of someone trying to diminish the public domain. Belgian copyright law has no panorama freedom, but other countries do. And according to COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary, ephemeral sights like ice or fire shows are not protected by copyright. And how about Category:Fireworks in Annecy, August 2005? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bonsoir,
- Cette discussion est pour le moins surréaliste. Le spectacle de rue dont il est question ici est public, cela fait des centaines d'années, pour ne pas dire des millénaires, que des artistes ou des saltimbanques crachent du feu et il n'y a dans ce geste aucune part de création, aucune interprétation originale, rien qui ressemble en quoi que ce soit à une œuvre de l'esprit au sens donné à cette expression par les textes en vigueur. A ce tarif-là, il faut retirer de Commons toutes les images de footballeurs tirant au but ou dribblant leur adversaire, toutes les images de musiciens, de patineuses faisant des pirouettes, etc., et même, pourquoi pas, en poussant le raisonnement à sa limite, toutes les images de joueurs et joueuses d'échecs qui ont été publiées sur Commons ces temps-ci.
- Au contraire, si œuvre de l'esprit il y a, elle est ici le fait d'un photographe qui non seulement réalise ici trois images splendides, mais en plus les offre à la communauté au lieu d'en faire commerce. Les photographes ont déjà suffisamment d'ennuis de toutes sortes avec les censeurs de tout poil, les mauvais coucheurs, les spoliateurs et tous ceux qui tentent de se faire du pognon sur leur dos pour qu'il ne soit pas nécessaire d'en rajouter une couche.
- Amitiés. Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Il ne s'agit pas ici de droits d'auteurs, mais de droits voisins. Il ne s'agit pas d'une oeuvre, mais d'une interprêtation. L'originalité est un critère utilisé par les tribunaux, pour les oeuvres, en matière de droit d'auteur. Où avez-vous vu qu'elle soit nécessaire en matière de droits voisins ? Quand bien même ce serait le cas, n'y a-t-il pas dans la gestuelle, dans le style de ce cracheur de feu des choix qui reflètent sa personnalité ? Teofilo (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pour qu'il y ait des droits voisins, il faudrait que l'auteur de l'œuvre originale, c'est-à-dire le premier qui a craché du feu, soit identifiable. Le reste relève me semble-t-il au mieux de l'argutie ou au pire, de l'acharnement : on peut toujours trouver chez toute personne, et à tout moment, des détails qui "reflètent sa personnalité". Autant je me bats pour faire respecter les droits d'auteur, quand c'est nécessaire, autant ici je trouve qu'il n'y a vraiment pas lieu d'en faire tout un plat ; j'en viens d'ailleurs à me demander quel est le but exact de cette démarche, qui me semble non seulement inutile, mais aussi disproportionnée et destructrice. Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but it is in the style of the sabam.be collection agency (the Atomium case, and other examples). Let us hope that such outrageous claims will lead to changes in Belgian law, because Teofilo is likely to proceed to footballers, figure skaters, and chess players. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I support the implementation of panorama freedom in all EU countries, that is the implementation of Article 5-2-(h) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Currently opting-out countries, like Belgium, should abrogate their opting-out. This would not solve the problem of performance arts performed in the street, however, because they are not "permanently located". So a new law or European directive would be needed to cover these cases. Teofilo (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lorsqu'un spécialiste de langues anciennes propose une nouvelle traduction de la Bible, il a droit à un droit d'auteur, même si l'auteur de l'oeuvre originale n'a jamais pu être identifié. Et quand vous regardez les autres photos du Jaipur Maharaja Brass Band, vous trouvez vraiment que leur présence sur scène manque d'originalité ? De toute façon, ce n'est pas avec une seule photo qu'on peut se faire une idée de l'originalité d'une chorégraphie. Teofilo (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
en:WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Article 2 says : “performers” are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore. So, "expressions of folklore" are included even when no identified literary or artistic work is used as a source. Teofilo (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment This discussion might be of interest: Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_6#Copyright_status_of_concert_photographs. Pruneautalk 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, but I think that the problem is more severe here, because it is a photo of a visual art artist, not the photo of a sound art artist. The medium (vision) is the same. Teofilo (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nice quote-mining you have going on there, Teofilo. Have you read the document you quoted all the way through? Actually, have you even read the portion you were quoting? The author specifically denies that there exists any such "stadium right" outside of Brazil:
- As other legal systems possess no legislation specifying that a public sports event counts as intellectual property, in order to protect it, we are obliged to conclude that the stadium right cannot be one of the categories of intellectual objects currently protected.
- Of course, we're not talking about sports here. The author is talking about rights to a "public event", of which sports are a subset. So if the author is right, then they have specifically denied your position that a public performance is copyrightable! What's more, even if the point of the piece was to detail a legal right that already existed (as it would if the author had their way), it would only apply to a photograph (even if we do concede that such would be a derivative work) of such an act in "a public place, such as a square or garden" in circumstances where
- promoters [...] have a right of use that will allow them to fit it out for their purposes and to control admission.
- What we have is a speculative piece, asserting that certain (moral) rights exist which should be (legally) codified. That's all. And I'm not impressed by their reasoning anyway, so whatever.
- Earlier, you quote the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. But there's an elephant in that particular room. Hell, there's even a wooly mammoth in the title of the treaty, but just in case that didn't clue you in, here's the point of the treaty:
- Desiring to develop and maintain the protection of the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in a manner as effective and uniform as possible,
- The upshot of it all is:
- Contracting Parties shall accord the protection provided under this Treaty to the performers and producers of phonograms who are nationals of other Contracting Parties.
- "[P]erformers and producers of phonograms". Phonograms. If you hooked a rope on each end of the definition of "phonogram", tied each rope to a Case STX-480 and then had aforementioned farm machinery drive off in opposite directions, the ropes would snap long before you could stretch it far enough to be inclusive of "a dude setting fire to his breath".
- You also said "See also en:Related_rights#Performers. Let's do that and make it a herd, shall we? Apart from the WPPT cited (and addressed0 above, The Treaty of Rome, the other legal document it cites, says:
- Performers (actors, singers, musicians, dancers and other persons who perform literary or artistic works) are protected against certain acts they have not consented to.
- As I see it, it's an act of great skill, but not a "literary or artistic work". The burden of proof is upon you to show that fire-breathing is such. I think you'll have almost as much of a difficult job as you would trying to prove that it's a "phonogram". Good luck. If you need help, I know a couple of places that lease tractors at very reasonable prices.
- tl;dr: lol, Internet lawyers. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A similar issue arose at Commons:Deletion requests/Classical spectacular. There is some confusion here. Performers' rights do exist in Europe and elsewhere as neigbouring rights (not copyright as such) under the Rome Treaty 1961 and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996. In Europe, the term of protection was harmonized in 1996 by Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (The "Term Directive").
The 1961 Rome Treaty requires signatory states to provide certain minimum protections for performers, including "the fixation, without their consent, of their unfixed performance". No specific definition of "fixation" is provided, but the whole context is the field of phonograms. The WIPO Treaty has many of the same clauses, but specifically defines “fixation” as "the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device". There may be implementation differences in different countries, but this is not to do with the protection of still photography.
In the UK, for example, the implementation of these treaties is via the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, s182(1)(c) of which says that a performer's rights are infringed by the making of "a recording of the whole or any substantial part" of the live performance. The definition of "photograph" in s4(2) of the Act is "A recording of light .... which is not part of a film". So, the legislators in the UK, at least, did not intend the taking of a photograph (being neither a film nor a sound recording) to infringe the performer's rights.
Source: The Law of Photography and Digital Images, Michalos QC, Sweet and Maxwell 2004.
--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The UK law is not really relevant here, because the picture was taken in Belgium, and the policy here on Commons is that the picture should be free at least in the country of origin and in the USA. Even if it were, you fail from convincing me. The UK law saying that a recording of the whole or any substantial part" of the live performance is forbidden, means that unsubstantial parts of a performance may be recorded. For example a narrow focused photograph of a hand or of an ear of the performer, not showing the substance of his talent as a fire breather would be OK. But a picture showing his general gesture as he breathes fire is substantial, and, I am afraid, forbidden in the UK too (as far as I understand from the part of the UK law you are quoting). Teofilo (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- When the law does not provide a definition, one should use a dictionary. Merriam Webster defines "to fix" as to make firm, stable, or stationary b: to give a permanent or final form to: as (1): to change into a stable compound or available form. A photograph is a permanent form which can stay the same for years. So I think that a photograph is a "fixation". Merriam Webster defines "to fixate" as : to make fixed, stationary, or unchanging. Once you have pushed the trigger of a camera, it is impossible to go backwards and the making of the photograph becomes irreversible. (It would not be the case if you broadcasted the performance live, because as soon as the television viewer turns his television off, the image disappears) (you could say that a display on the internet has some similarity with a television broadcast, because the viewers may turn their computer off, so that the picture instantly disappears, but here on commons we want the pictures to be available on all kinds of mediums (media), including paper)(But anyway I guess that the UK law has some provisions forbidding unauthorised broadcasts of performances). Teofilo (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Classical spectacular is not relevant because it deals on a performance located in Australia. The Australian law is very different from the Belgian law. Teofilo (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per MichaelMaggs. Teofilo's many words have not shown that still photography is covered by these laws. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- And if I said 2+2=4 you would say that I have not shown convincingly that 2+2 is not 5. Teofilo (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per MichaelMaggs --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lorsque les intégristes pensent défendre une cause, ils n'en défendent en fait que la caricature, car ils perdent de vue l'essentiel. Le but du droit est avant tout d'éviter qu'une personne morale ou physique se trouve lésée par l'acte d'un tiers. Dans le cas présent on voit mal qui pourrait se sentir lésé en quoi que ce soit par ces images qui, je le répète, sont de haut niveau, et ne peuvent que magnifier ce qu'elles montrent. Si quelqu'un peut traduire en bon anglais ... Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- If Michael Maggs talks about Britain, while the deletion request is about pictures taken in Belgium, why should I not speak about the situation in France ? In his book "Reproduction interdite?" , p.49 Google Books, Emmanuel Pierrat (a lawyer specialised in defending the press) quotes Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, première chambre, 6 décembre 2000 Vogel/Société éditions Générations : La reproduction non autorisée d'une photographie d'une actrice, même prise à l'occasion d'une représentation théâtrale publique, constitue une faute au regard de l'article 1382 du code civil et de l'article L212-3 du code de la propriété intellectuelle qui protège les droits de l'artiste interprète. (unauthorised reproduction of a photograph of an actress, even if taken during a public theatrical performance, is a fault as regards to articles 1382 of the Civil code and article L212-3 of the Intellectual Property code which protects the rights of the performance artist). Teofilo (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Complètement d'accord avec les avis de Jean-Jacques MILAN et de Luc Viatour, ce dernier dont il faut apprécier le geste de donner libres de droits des photos de qualité exceptionnelle. Les photos prises lors de représentations publiques ou de concerts, mises libres de droits par leur auteur, sont par ailleurs quasiment les seules que l'on peut utiliser ici pour illustrer les articles sur un artiste ou sur un art ! --Grain de sel (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pour les mêmes raisons que celles évoquées par Jean-Jacques MILAN et Grain de sel.
Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept: Maybe amateur lawyers could troll in other places than Commons? Thanks. le Korrigan →bla 17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not found free copyright at source --shizhao (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- "These images are in the public domain. Do with them what you will." Sounds pretty free to me. From the URL[1] that is given in the upload-description. --Dietzel65 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
obvious derivative of the Blockbuster logo. Is this allowed? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete'...for a different reason'. Seems out of scope. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted not to simple form copyright on commons + beeing out of scope abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 20:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Not in scope COM:SCOPE. Not used. Avron (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Delete I am the uploader of this image.Skjackey tse (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
it is copyrighted by Masami Kurumada deerstop 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Diti: Derivative work
The character is copyrighted by Masami Kurumada (manga artist). deerstop. 13:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Diti: Copyright violation: The character is copyrighted by Masami Kurumada (manga artist)
Image doesn't display for me (thumbnail nor actual size) -- Deadstar (msg) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Collage. Per user description: The copyright of the pictures is owned by ITIPACK, ROBOPAC and Lachenmeier companies. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also Image:Stretch hood.jpg, from lachenmeier website, uploaded by the same user. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely work of uploader to release into the public domain as webpage http://news.cnet.com/2300-11397_3-6213545-1.html credits image to Pascal Parrot/Getty Images MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An image from someone's blog. deerstop 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Possible copyvio, appears to be lifted from theofficial website.)KTo288 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, blatant copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"i created this file using adobe photo shop, this is my cousin rick". Does anyone recognise this baseball player (Indians). From the size, I doubt this is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me just add these other contributions by same uploader.
- Image:PedroCerrano.JPG "I am the author i caputured this imgage on a vacation trip"
- Image:Koroma.jpg (watermarked "scout.com"). "Abe koroma, defensive player from psu, this is his campus photo." and then "Own work by uploader". (deleted as copyvio from here with their copyright statement here.
(Uploader also claimed Image:WillieMaysHayes.jpg was self made whereas in fact it was taken from an American express ad. Deleted that one as a copyvio.)
- Image:Tanak2a.JPG is perhaps a screenshot from the film Major League II. --dave pape (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Dave, it does seem to be that way. The PedroCerrano shot is also on this weblog, no source info, delete all. -- Deadstar (msg) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
rua espiritu santo 212 97.33.1.159 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept, nonsense request. --Martin H. (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Granted, this has an OTRS-pending tag, but to possibly save some time - it's an Associated Press photo [2]; China Daily does not own the rights to release it under a free license. dave pape (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No evidence work of FAA - source website says he Chicago Airport System. All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, missing essential source information. --Martin H. (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
from [3] ,Not self GFDL. copyeighted. --shizhao (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- More from http://www.jetphotos.net : Special:LinkSearch/http://www.jetphotos.net--shizhao (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do not include File:Orenburg Airlines Mi-8.jpg in this deletion request, as Leonid is a mate of mine, and I have permission to upload his photos as I see fit. Any other photos on jetphotos.net will not be covered by the permission he granted me. And yeah, delete the nominated image. --russavia (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The original upload at fr.wp says:
- Auteur : Alex Sandro do Amaral Uchoa
- Source : www.noronha.pe.gov.br
- Licence : La reproduction du contenu et des photographies du site est autorisés avec un lien pour le site et le crédit du photographe.
But the give website/source simply says Todos os direitos reservados (all rights reserved), in my opinion this image is not free and should be deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Infringement of Intellectual Property Copyrights [mis-representation of a performed artwork, plus no permission obtained to use image of artwork and make public], Privacy Rights and Personality Rights --LM0000CC (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image of a person with her PC, where is the performance? Permission to use the photo is given by the photographer, for your personality rights concern see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. --Martin H. (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Tryphon (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No reliable source for the image, neither reliable permission nor author. The uploader states that this picture was aquired at the site of the Academy of Letters of Paraíba, what, if true, does not release the image in public domain. Moreover, if the picture was obtained in that site, how might the uploader use the {PD-self} permission in such a low resolution image, with no metadata? --Tonyjeff (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The source website is non-free. --Tryphon (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Giving false information (see talk page). -- (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete numerous other images by this user have also been deleted for the same reasons. If the user creates a new version without misinformation it can be kept, but this should be deleted. Politizer (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The issues are pointed out in the talk page, so anyone can make the corrections; but only if the image is not deleted... --Tryphon (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a promotional poster. Could be copyvio if uploader is not Melinda Garcia -- Deadstar (msg) 13:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: In Category:Unknown - February 2009, not used anywhere (checked with CheckUsage)
Leopold II statue in Ostende
[edit]
Sculptor Alfred Courtens died in 1967 : nl:Drie Gapers
No FOP in Belgium : COM:FOP#Belgium
Teofilo (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would not anybody be free to sell postcards of this statue? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cette statue à plus de 50 ans et tombe donc dans le domaine public. --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Le domaine public, dans l'Union Européenne, commence la 70e année suivant celle de la mort de l'auteur. Donc dans ce cas cela donne 1967 +1 +70 = 1er janvier 2038. Teofilo (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Il faut peut-être que j'explique pourquoi c'est 70 ans, alors que dans le cas du cracheur de feu on avait dit 50 ans. Ici on applique l'article premier de la directive européenne 93/98 CEE, parce qu'il s'agit d'une création. Alors que dans le cas du cracheur c'était une oeuvre d'interprétation et on appliquait l'article 3. Teofilo (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- de toute façon 50 ou 70 cette statue est bien plus vieille (époque de Leopold II). Je regarde si je trouve des infos quand j'ai du temps.
- No, it is from 1931. But surely the Belgian authorities must have the copyright, and they are not trying to make money of selling postcards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now that might be a "fair use" argument, but it doesn't make the statue copyright-free. Copyright runs until the end of 2037. Delete Lupo 09:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Article 8 of Belgian copyright law: "(2) Copyright shall not subsist in official acts of the authorities." This was unveiled by the king. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The statue is not an official act. Lupo 09:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Similar phrases are the basis of PD-Gov in several countries. It all depends on how courts interpret the law. One should not read laws like other texts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- And similar phrases in other countries' laws do not apply to statues or images, but are restricted to laws, official edicts, court decisions and opinions, and such. One should not read laws like other texts. Lupo 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Similar phrases are the basis of PD-Gov in several countries. It all depends on how courts interpret the law. One should not read laws like other texts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The statue is not an official act. Lupo 09:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Article 8 of Belgian copyright law: "(2) Copyright shall not subsist in official acts of the authorities." This was unveiled by the king. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now that might be a "fair use" argument, but it doesn't make the statue copyright-free. Copyright runs until the end of 2037.
- No, it is from 1931. But surely the Belgian authorities must have the copyright, and they are not trying to make money of selling postcards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Le domaine public, dans l'Union Européenne, commence la 70e année suivant celle de la mort de l'auteur. Donc dans ce cas cela donne 1967 +1 +70 = 1er janvier 2038. Teofilo (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cette statue à plus de 50 ans et tombe donc dans le domaine public. --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- See also Atomium, the famous monument built in Brussels, Belgium, for the World's Fair (Expo '58) Teofilo (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no FOP in Belgium and the author died less than 70 years ago. --Tryphon (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
All images in Category:Planet Geography
[edit]
- Image:AIDS_sign_in_Tanzania.jpeg (I added a delete tag only on this one)
This is a "Wikipedia only" permission, therefore unfree : User:Komencanto/Codrington permission email Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It has a {{Cc-by-2.5}} template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- A template which was never approved by the copyright holder, Stephen Codrington. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it was. It has been there since the day Image:Familyplanningmalaysia.jpg was uploaded (July 3, 2005). The email correspondence make it quite clear that Codrington approved this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Email includes no reference to a creative commons license. Teofilo (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it was. It has been there since the day Image:Familyplanningmalaysia.jpg was uploaded (July 3, 2005). The email correspondence make it quite clear that Codrington approved this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- A template which was never approved by the copyright holder, Stephen Codrington. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It would be better if we had that e-mail exchange in OTRS... anyway, assuming good faith and that the on-wiki reproduction of these e-mails is truthful (no reason to suspect otherwise ;-), the author did approve the cc-by license. Lupo 07:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The paper was created in 1942, thus it cannot be in public domain. -Blacklake (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
new SVG version available (Image:Huffmanovo kodovani.svg) --DaBler (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, superseded. --Martin H. (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt this artist's rendition of a complex yet-to-be-built is made by this user. However, I can't find the image online (google search). -- Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
High res, uploader's only contribution, unlikely that she has the rights; probably copyright held by the photographer Stifle (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very likely that subject owns the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete May possibly own rights, but no reason for it to exist as it's solely self-promotional for an individual whose article was deleted on Wikipedia for being nonnotable spam. 68.47.239.11 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThere are a lot (5 700) of google hits for "Joan Marie Whelan".--Gothika (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, no encyclopedic value. BrokenSphere 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
