Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
blank file --Dincher (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed bot upload created an empty file. Sv1xv (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
blank file --Dincher (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed bot upload created an empty file. Sv1xv (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Who made the photo? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Why don't you ask the uplaoder in a civilized way? This deletion request is trolling. --Kjetil_r 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Bad Faith nomination Huib talk 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless that thing Bastique holds in his right hand is a camera and the picture is taken in front of a mirror, we need the permission from the photographer, sole copyright owner of this picture. Teofilo (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - never heard of a tripod ? Bad faith nomination. Huib talk 19:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could have been done with a self timer too, of course. But we need some confirmation of that. The lack of any explicit mention of a self timer makes me doubt. Teofilo (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And if a self timer was used, most of the creativity involved in this picture would be the effect of each model choosing his own attitude, so that the copyright would be shared by the 3 models, in the absence of a photographer. In that case we need a permission from the other 2 models. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- What!? most of the creativity involved in this picture would be the effect of each model choosing his own attitude First of all, copyright isn't about creativity, it's about originality. Second of all, you never receive copyright for being in a photo. I suggest you seriously learn something about intellectual property law before making more nominations like this. (This comment has nothing to do with your questioning of the authorship itself... but I agree it was bad faith nom.) Rocket000 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- We are talking about a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation and a very trusted user on Commons, I find it hard to believe he would make a copyvio. In my personal opinion is this use of bad faith.
- And even when a selftimer is used will the user that pressed the button to set the timer be the author of the photo not the subject. Huib talk 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is the same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Scott Kellner in 1960.jpg above. Will Huib categorize that one as a "bad faith nomination"? Why has he not put a "speedy keep" on that one. Or is Bastique more equal than other uploaders? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And if a self timer was used, most of the creativity involved in this picture would be the effect of each model choosing his own attitude, so that the copyright would be shared by the 3 models, in the absence of a photographer. In that case we need a permission from the other 2 models. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could have been done with a self timer too, of course. But we need some confirmation of that. The lack of any explicit mention of a self timer makes me doubt. Teofilo (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a file deletion request page, and what template:idw used on User_talk:Bastique#File:Wm2007_DrorK_and_Bastique_.28with_troll.29.jpg is saying :("If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue") is simply... true.
Make - Canon
Model - Canon PowerShot S2 IS
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 180
YResolution - 180
ResolutionUnit - Inch
DateTime - 2007:08:05 05:30:34
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 196
ExposureTime - 1/500 seconds
FNumber - 4.00
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:08:05 05:30:34
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:08:05 05:30:34
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 3 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/501 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.00
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.71
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 6.00 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2592
ExifImageHeight - 1944
InteroperabilityOffset - 2174
FocalPlaneXResolution - 11520.00
FocalPlaneYResolution - 11571.43
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Inch
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Manual
DigitalZoomRatio - 1.00 x
SceneCaptureType - Landscape
Maker Note (Vendor): -
Macro mode - Normal
Self timer - Off
Quality - Fine
Flash mode - Not fired
Sequence mode - Single or Timer
Focus mode - Single
Image size - Large
Easy shooting mode - Full Auto
Digital zoom - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
ISO Value - Auto
Metering mode - Evaluative
Focus type - Auto
AF point selected - Manual AF point selection
Exposure mode - Easy shooting
Focal length - 600 - 7200 mm (100 mm)
Flash activity -
Flash details -
Focus mode 2 - Continuous
White Balance - Auto
Sequence number - 0
Flash bias - 0 EV
Subject Distance - 106
Image Type - IMG:PowerShot S2 IS JPEG
Firmware Version - Firmware Version 1.00
Image Number - 1161622
Owner Name -
Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 180
YResolution - 180
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 5108
JpegIFByteCount - 5898
- Here is the full EXIF metadata of the file (to extract this, you neeed to download the file to your computer, and use a picture viewing software with the capability to extract EXIF). You can see that it includes "Self timer - Off". There has been a talk on CT:L#A stranger takes a_photo of_me_with_my own_camera, who_owns the_copyright? : I think it is quite clear that except in cases the law says something different (that could have been the case of the Australian law, if the provisions of section 35 (5) of the Australian copyright Act of 1968 did not impose a restriction to "a private or domestic purpose" and did not require that "a valuable consideration" be included in the agreement) we must consider that the copyright owner is the photographer. Teofilo (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- CT:L#A stranger takes a_photo of_me_with_my own_camera, who_owns the_copyright? does not exist, do you have a better link for this discussion? I don't think it is "quite clear." It is assumed that the anonymous photographer of a self-published self-portrait gives up his/her rights. Unless you can find any citation to the contrary, which you will not, because if any anonymous photographer were to claim copyright, they would unlikely be able to prove that they were in fact the photographer, and would not be able to assert they added any creativity to the image. The test would undoubtedly fail. Such nominations are waste of the community's time and create a terrible precedent for contributions. Any such nominations (no thanks to the snarky comment by Pieter Kuiper, who seems to believe in conspiracies of his own making) be speedy kept, unless there is good reason to doubt it is a self-published self-portrait. --Bastique demandez 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the full EXIF metadata of the file (to extract this, you neeed to download the file to your computer, and use a picture viewing software with the capability to extract EXIF). You can see that it includes "Self timer - Off". There has been a talk on CT:L#A stranger takes a_photo of_me_with_my own_camera, who_owns the_copyright? : I think it is quite clear that except in cases the law says something different (that could have been the case of the Australian law, if the provisions of section 35 (5) of the Australian copyright Act of 1968 did not impose a restriction to "a private or domestic purpose" and did not require that "a valuable consideration" be included in the agreement) we must consider that the copyright owner is the photographer. Teofilo (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- The link to CT:L#A stranger takes a_photo of_me_with_my own_camera, who_owns the_copyright? existed when I gave it, but it was archived by Miszabot at 19:06, 3 August 2009 (diff). It is now available as Commons talk:Licensing/Archive_20#A stranger takes a_photo of_me_with_my own_camera, who_owns the_copyright?. It is a pity nobody had the idea to look into this archive because that would have avoided to duplicate arguments already made in that talk. Teofilo (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Section 35 (5) of the Australian copyright Act of 1968 (the link is not broken, I have tried it a few seconds ago) provides an answer to the point you make on anonimity. The condition set by the Australian lawmaker for the copyright ownership to pass to the portraited person is twofold : 1) the existence of a contract with a valuable consideration 2) that the picture is used for a private or domestic purpose. If the photographer remains anonymous and these two conditions are met, the portraited person becomes the copyright owner. If the anonymous photographer observes that one of the conditions is not met, he can decide to revoke his anonimity, go to court and ask the court to take the necessary decisions so that his rights as author and copyright owner of the photograph are respected. Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview provides a link to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which explains that arguments such as The copyright owner will never find out are not valid. I also request the admin who closes this discussion to disregards comments not founded in copyright law or Wikimedia Commons policies such as this discussion is a waste of time. Teofilo (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Case law makes for better arguments than vague opinions (the link did work before the bot got to it). From Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 (1989):
The court reasoned that Reid had been an "employee" of CCNV within the meaning of § 101(1) because CCNV was the motivating force in the statue's production.
- The determining factor was the motivation behind it. In that case, the person really was hired, however, I can think no other reason why a complete stranger would take a picture for someone other than because of that person. Also notice that employee is in quotes suggesting that one doesn't have to necessarily be a employee in the traditional sense (i.e. a formal hiring procedure and/or getting paid). I'm fully aware that some legal info sites claim "work made for hire" is narrower than what this court has ruled (likely to due to the language of the Work-Made-For-Hire 1976 Copyright Act). But when the law is open to such interpretation, you have to go by the court's opinion (case law), not some individual's, even an expert's, opinion. Yes, all this is U.S., but that was the angle you were working from.
- Anyway, that's not the issue I see here.. You can't seriously think someone would ever try and claim ownership in a situation like that. That would be absurd. "Hi, remember me? Probably not since our encounter was only for a brief moment; you asked me to take your family's picture, with your camera, while on vacation 2 years ago. Yeah, well... I can I have my picture back? And any copies you made and gave to relatives? Oh, and I am going to sue you because you uploaded it to website without my permission." Rocket000 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only that, but in order for a copyright violation to stick, they would have to prove they actually took the photo, and absent any other documentary evidence (photo, video, eyewitness testimony), that would be awfully difficult to do. howcheng {chat} 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting reasoning. Let us apply this to more photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only that, but in order for a copyright violation to stick, they would have to prove they actually took the photo, and absent any other documentary evidence (photo, video, eyewitness testimony), that would be awfully difficult to do. howcheng {chat} 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A by-passer who is asked to take a photograph of someone is merely an assistant in the same way a typist or editor assists an author, or a brush cleaner assists an oil painter. While such assistants perform an admirable--and perhaps even indispensable office for the artists involved--they have no claim whatsoever to copyright ownership. This is particularly true in the case of a stranger offering a free and generous act of snapping someone's photograph. As generous as such an act is, which occurs thousands of times throughout the world every day, common sense tells us that the copyright office never intended to grant those anonymous individuals a copyright for their kindness. NOTE: I placed this same comment on the photograph of me, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Scott Kellner in 1960.jpg, that Teofilo also has marked for deletion. A distinction must be made between an "Anonymous" photographer who deserves credit for the photograph he/she takes, and an anonymous helper who does not deserve such credit. Both are anonymous, to be sure, but their actions are greatly different. Scott --Rskellner (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- That may be common sense, but we're talking about the law here. Personally, I don't think aiming and pressing a button ever deserves copyright (snapshots, that is, not artistic photographs), but that's not the way things are. Rocket000 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I don't you're think wrong per se, just the reasoning is a little off. I see this situation as a type "work for hire". ...the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title..[1]. Even though the volunteer wasn't paid, there was mutual understanding that they were doing it solely for the benefit of the person who requested the service. Temporarily and informally employed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Pieter, Do you really want to know the difference?
- Bastique is my Hero, I think about him everyday thats why I want this speedy closed, My life would suck without Cary and I will do anything to help him.
- Or it is:
- You seem paranoid or something, when you look a little bit higher you will see I closed the old request so this page is on my watchlist so I noticed this one.
- Choose whatever you want. Huib talk 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep From a legal point of view (and I have confirmed this with a few IP lawyers that I personally know), in the United States the creative author of the work is the copyright holder, barring any other legal transfers (work-for-hire, for example). One could argue that indeed Cary Bass is not the copyright holder of a photo of himself taken on his own camera, but why? What's the point? Are we really going to nitpick that he didn't get a signed written statement of copyright transfer from the anonymous passer-by, whom he might not even know? Who even does that in the first place? On the other hand, one could also easily argue that Cary told the passer-by to make sure to include DrorK and the alleged troll in the photo and to do it from this angle, in which case that person acted as a mechanical agent, exactly the same role as a self-timer and tripod, and this person would then not own the copyright to the image. I choose to believe the latter. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per everyone. I refuse to believe that when I give someone my camera and say "could you take a photo of me?" that he is not by implication handing me the resulting copyrights to the photo along with the camera. Otherwise half of everyone's vacation photos are actually copyright violations, which seems absurd. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I am the author and I release this picture under a dual cc-by-sa-3.0 / GFDL license. guillom
- Keep. This deletion request was in response to another deletion request for another self-published self-portrait, wherein someone else posted this as an example. I'm not sure why Teofilo "took the bait" so to speak, but self-published self-portraits are very much considered to have copyright owned by the person who directed them rather than the person who took the photo because in almost all cases, that person is anonymous, and by doing taking the photo under the direction of the subject, they are asserting to have given up copyright over the image. --Bastique demandez 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and Guillom seems to remember having taken the picture, so I have no reason to doubt him. --Bastique demandez 19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Original elements (such as scene) are a work by the uploader. Be serious. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Bastique and guillom seem to disagree on who has the authority to grant the license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, not at all, we both completely agree that this Deletion Request is completely abusive and disruptive. guillom 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Bastique published this on his license, requiring attribution, and so do you. Which one of these licenses is valid? Whom should this photo be attributed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, not at all, we both completely agree that this Deletion Request is completely abusive and disruptive. guillom 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
kept this is a simple case of a misunderstanding, in the discussion above we learned that Guillom is the author that took the picture and since he agrees with the license I will close this as resolved. I would like to ask all users here also before nominating stuff from trusted users to use a talkpage to get more information, we all have a talk page and it can be found as a button on top of a user page. We are here to create free media, not trying to destroy free media, so lets use the talk page next time. I'm sure people will start complaining about the speedy close, but the DR was based on something, this is resolved during the discussion so I don't see any reason to keep it open any longer. Huib talk 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: it should be pointed out that per Rocket000's argument involving case law, it doesn't matter whether or not guillom, or whomever, took the picture, the author of the picture is the self-portraitist. --Bastique demandez 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The art is not old, the uploader did not make this picture. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, false license. (Artist per last info is still alive, so clearly not dead for 70 years. Also is not 2-d work.) No indication might be pd for any other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Lyrics by living artist; this would not be free to put on T-shirts or for postcards. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Non-educational, personal image Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
DeleteI think so,too.--KENPEI (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickrreview. Secondly the flickr owner claims full copyright over her pictures here They cannot be used without her written consent. Finally, there are other images of Duino castle Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
not encyclopedic, not in use Shakko (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not worth rotating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 15:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Probably a minor, not notable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The same minor, just zoomed in. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unflattering; attack image? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Same image as previous DR, but cropped. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
A small image of a magazine cover is probably not GFDL licensed and not uploaders own work Ö 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that uploader has the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. – Innv | d | s: 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unused image. – Innv | d | s: 06:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent use. Out of project scope. Wknight94 talk 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. – Innv | d | s: 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Images of ShaitanLord
[edit]- File:Assaulter variant of HK417.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:D10RS variant of HK416.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:D14.5RS variant of HK416.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:D16.5RS variant of HK416.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:D20RS variant of HK416.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Recce variant of HK417.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sniper variant of HK417.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:ShaitanLord's images are all copyvios they were taken from H&K website. Avron (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Copyvio, The HK416 images are taken from here: http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWebText/detailProd/1928/337/4/19 and the HK417 from here: http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWebText/detailProd/1928/345/4/19 --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Text in the Picture: ©Jon Lomberg and National Air and Space Museum --Uwe W. (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Copyvio - {{PD-USGov-NASA}} is not valid since the copyright is clearly noted on the image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is CC-by maybe PD-old but not sure because we don't have a proper source anyway. Huib talk 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep en:José Ignacio de Márquez died 1880! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Pieter. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not permanently situated; there is no exemption for photography in {{FoP-Israel}} Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio Huib talk 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work Teofilo (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain. Drork (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless the poster/artwork that takes up a large portion of the image can be shown to be free licensed, derivative copyright problem; see Commons:Derivative works. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. That background doesn't look de minimis to me. Also, do we have a "previously speedy deleted with no fix" speedy deletion criteria? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed. This picture was taken in Israel, and the Israeli law allows it for two reasons: (1) It is very reasonable to assume that this poster was never used again. In this case, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in a public place". The Israeli law defines "permanent display" by the intention of the author - if the sole purpose of the work is to be displayed in one certain public place, then it qualifies for the FOP principle as interpreted in Israel. (2) If the copyrighted work is not the sole item in the image, but part of a larger view, then there is no copyright infringement. This is clearly a picture of the entire hall, in which the poster is just one item (a prominent one, but still just one of many). The Israeli copyright law is relatively more liberal than those of the EU and the US, it would be a shame to apply unnecessary restrictions on images coming from Israel. Drork (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Israel is not the only country in the world to have such laws. But your interpretation of these laws is not correct. At the very least, you should provide compelling israeli case law to prove that your interpretation is correct. Please provide Israel court cases showing that what you say is correct. Teofilo (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clear up one thing - are you an Israeli lawyer or have some expertise in Israeli law? Drork (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Israel is not the only country in the world to have such laws. But your interpretation of these laws is not correct. At the very least, you should provide compelling israeli case law to prove that your interpretation is correct. Please provide Israel court cases showing that what you say is correct. Teofilo (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed. This picture was taken in Israel, and the Israeli law allows it for two reasons: (1) It is very reasonable to assume that this poster was never used again. In this case, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in a public place". The Israeli law defines "permanent display" by the intention of the author - if the sole purpose of the work is to be displayed in one certain public place, then it qualifies for the FOP principle as interpreted in Israel. (2) If the copyrighted work is not the sole item in the image, but part of a larger view, then there is no copyright infringement. This is clearly a picture of the entire hall, in which the poster is just one item (a prominent one, but still just one of many). The Israeli copyright law is relatively more liberal than those of the EU and the US, it would be a shame to apply unnecessary restrictions on images coming from Israel. Drork (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
- Delete obviously.
I would speedy it, but that would probably be antisemitic or something...Rocket000 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase my words:
- This picture was taken in Israel.
- Israel has Freedom of Panorama principle.
- The Israeli FOP principle is very liberal (Israel is a great country to live in, really).
- The Poster shown in this image qualifies for the Israeli authorized legal definition of "placed permanently in a public place". This is because the poster was made especially for the event in which the picture was taken, and the author did not intend to recollect it and display it elsewhere. The hall in which the picture was taken is definitely a place accessible to the public.
- Furthermore, the fact that the poster is not the only element in the picture, and it can be safely said that the photograph is a photograph of the hall and not of the poster itself, makes this image even more "kosher".
- Drork (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for staying on topic even when I didn't. I've retracted the useless part from my comment. However, I disagree with your interpretation of FOP, but I can be wrong too. The de minimis claim on the other hand, I just can't see that at all, and the other points are fair-use rationals. Rocket000 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase my words:
- Delete Obviously. There is nothing anti-Israel about protecting the copyright of Kadima and its photographers. Drork seems to invoke some fair-use reasons for this temporarily shown image (they intended to show it only on election night, this upload does not hurt them economically). Unlike ice statues, this montage and its components still exists somewhere in the party's archives. And it is not de minimis: the underexposed room acts as an efficient frame to focus attention on the well-lit display with Livni in the center. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
May I remind you that this is not a vote. Either the photograph violates copyrights or not, and it doesn't. All those who claim it does, are not acquainted with the Israeli law, while those who ARE acquainted with the IL law say this image is perfectly kosher, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive in the entry dedicated to this image. Drork (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Huib Abigor Sterkebak undeleted after a conversation with Cary Bass, a Foundation employee, probably not especially acquainted with Israeli copyright law. It was a political measure; see also User talk:Abigor#My request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Drork (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think most of us are aware of the politics involved here (and elsewhere), but let's not let it affect the copyright issue at hand. Valid nominations, regardless of how they got here, are something we need to work out. Rocket000 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-06#File:PikiWiki_Israel_2219_Election_2009_night_-_Kadima_Party_.D7.A2.D7.A8.D7.91_.D7.91.D7.97.D7.99.D7.A8.D7.95.D7.AA_2009_-_.D7.9E.D7.98.D7.94_.D7.A7.D7.93.D7.99.D7.9E.D7.94.jpg){kind=link}
Source disputed. Image is a cell phone photo of an television image. Uncle Milty (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of writing.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art(illustration).
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art(illustration,map).
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please delete this picture because it is not based on any source?--Emin (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
(There is no any source for this image) --Emin (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Something unknown --Самый древний (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No copyright problem, in use on 13 projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use, no reason to doubt the own work claim. –Tryphon☂ 05:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This map seems to be a map of Bucovina, but is wrong. Good maps of Bucovina can be found in File:Moldova-Basarabia-Bucovina.png, File:MapRegionsRomania.png or File:Bucovina division.svg for example. This map is unused (except in the French Graphic Lab, were we talked about this picture's deletion). --Sémhur (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
These instructions are now obsolete with the release of Wikilog 0.7.0. This image is no longer being used in its page mw:Extension:Wikilog. Juliano (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- agree, ----Erkan Yilmaz 05:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The Picture is from ESA See: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=meteosat&single=y&start=59&size=b, ESAs Copyright information for the picture see: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmgdownload.pl?url=http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/MSGlive.jpg&capt=MSG+flight+model+in+spin+test&tipo=Image --Uwe W. (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bonjour, je lis dans la notice de l'ESA : "Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes".
- Est-ce que le fait de la publier sur WP ne rentre pas dans ce cadre ?--Aaaf-wiki (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sur Wikipédia, oui, mais sur Commons, non. Nos images doivent être libres pour tous usages, y compris commercial. La politique de l'ESA ne le permet pas. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal image and out of project scope. Only use is on es.wp where the author's only contributions are in user space from August 2008. Wknight94 talk 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably should be kept unless eswp wants to delete the user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept, user photo in use on user's Wikipedia page. If there is a problem with the user's page on the local Wikipedia, bring it up there; meanwhile within project scope for Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
We already have enough of these, and this particular image is not very useful, IMO J.delanoygabsadds 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OPPOSE "we already have enough of these" is not commons policy; commons is not censored & commons is a media archive; not a photo-album. the number of images of male human genitalia on wmc is not greater than the number of images of many other common topics on here. matter of fact; the range of imagery of human genitalia is somewhat limited; we don't have a full range of size, skin colour, hair colour; not even close to it. (wmc is lacking in human anatomy images generally & there are almost none with scale/measurements.) this is just prudishness by people who don't like to see the "naughty bits"; making wmc "respectable" means being professional not being censorious prudes Lx 121 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
follow-up: picture is notable as representing small-to-intermediate sized male human external genitalia; i haven't got the size categories properly organized yet, but wmc doesn't have many images representing this particular size range. Lx 121 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - low image quality, delete and make way for better uploads (even better uploads by this user if he wishes). Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If author Sabila Enun,why source as mention own work Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably because it's Sabila Enun's own work. File:Boshonto_Utshob_by_Sabila_Enun_2.jpg, also uploaded by User:Tarif and mentioning "Sabila Enun" as the author, claims an OTRS permission with ticket ID #1353109. As Tarif hasn't contributed here or on en: for a few moths, could an OTRS volunteer check the extent of the permission? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sabila and Tarif are different people (of course). The permission does not cover this file, and is not covered by any other ticket I could find in OTRS.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal image and out of project scope. Only use is on es.wp where the author's only contributions are in user space from August 2008. Wknight94 talk 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably should be kept unless eswp wants to delete the user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal image and out of project scope. Only use is on es.wp where the author's only contributions are in user space from August 2008. Wknight94 talk 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably should be kept unless eswp wants to delete the user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Request by author: duplicate of File:Laxminarayan.jpg
- DR formatted by Sv1xv (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment File:NJ Somerset Laxminarayan Dev & Lord Ranchhodrai.jpg seems to be a more descriptive filename than File:Laxminarayan.jpg. Both are unused. Is there a reason to specifically delete the former and not the latter? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment thought file name was a bit too long. File:Laxminarayan.jpg is currently used on en [dot] wiki. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
20th century poem; texts are not included in COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that a work of artistic craftsmanship? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The headstone, but not the poem. It does not make any difference, I think, whether a poem is written on a piece of paper or on a slab of stone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do not stand at my grave and weep is a poem, written by Mary Elizabeth Frye. Although of disputed origin until later in her life, Mary Frye's authorship was confirmed in 1998 after research by Abigail Van Buren, a newspaper columnist, [3] Galoubet (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- She never published or copyrighted the poem, what does that mean for its status? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Almost nothing, under British law. A later publisher might gain a 20 year publication right, but I think it should count as published, given how many copies have been distributed. It is clear she expected the work to be widely distributed and does not object to its distribution, but for Commons this is not free enough. What if someone were to make an offensive hardcore rap version? Or use it in a video advocating against abortion? When you pose questions like that you see just how free Commons requires works to be, and without affirmation in writing the person does not reserve rights in all cases then we must delete. -Nard the Bard 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- She never published or copyrighted the poem, what does that mean for its status? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do not stand at my grave and weep is a poem, written by Mary Elizabeth Frye. Although of disputed origin until later in her life, Mary Frye's authorship was confirmed in 1998 after research by Abigail Van Buren, a newspaper columnist, [3] Galoubet (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- The headstone, but not the poem. It does not make any difference, I think, whether a poem is written on a piece of paper or on a slab of stone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as derived work of a non-PD text that does not fall under FOP as a literary work. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Images of Grandesbandas
[edit]- File:The Fire Concierto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dejar de Pensar.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Diego Stegmeier en Concierto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pacheco en concierto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Raúl Guarda.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Franco Aravena en vivo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Grandesbandas's images are self-promoting. Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as suspected copyvios. All with the exception of the second image all these images are used in this band article at en-wp. However, these images have been taken from the web site of the band. Some examples:
- File:Pacheco en concierto.jpg taken from here
- File:Franco Aravena en vivo.jpg taken from here
This means that we need a confirmation of the permission through our OTRS team for these images. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted movie, including the whole category, 84 images: Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). The copyright notice is right in the middle of the image. Yann (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Question Does the film's copyright apply to the trailer ? --Coyau (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:Liz Taylor 1963.jpg states: "This image is a screenshot made by myself from a public domain movie's trailer. Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. licence : http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright". I don't know whether the claim is valid, though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Issues:
- 1) The image is currently tagged as PD-US-no notice which is clearly wrong. However I note that the uploader merely tagged it as the generic "PD" still in use on Commons in 2005. User:Red devil 666 changed license to "PD-US-not renewed" in April 2006, which for all I know may be correct. User:Rossrs changed the license to "PD-US-no notice" in July 2007, which a simple look at the image proves is obviously false. Image may or may not be PD, but if so reason and reference needs stating.
- 2) User:Yann wishes a broader evaluation regarding all images in Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). I suggest a new deletion request be filed including all of them; at present there is no notice on the category nor the other images in it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tagged as "no notice", but a clear copyright notice is seen. No judgement on other images in the category; film trailer might be PD-US-not renewed (someone care to research?) -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On reviewing the image history and two messages on my User talk page [4], I have decided that closing this as delete on narrow grounds of false license was not appropriate to the situation. While I contend my deletion for reason for false license was technically correct, it did not address additional issues which need to be settled regarding this and related images. Additional discussion added above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't remember changing the information for this image, or why I would have done it, but I obviously did and it's obviously wrong. The only information I'm aware of that gives any explanation regarding the general copyright status for old film trailers is this which is from a copyright clearance house. Their contention is that old trailer were either not copyrighted (ie no copyright notice attached to the trailer at the time of its first publication which preceded the independently copyrighted film), or were released with a notice and not renewed. They state that industry custom is to accept that trailers released up to 1972 have not been renewed, ("In any event, industry custom and practice has been to use trailers prior to 1972 based on the above information"), and that a "blanket" copyright status applies to any released after 1976. I've also read somewhere else that movie studios renewed the copyright for most of their films (with some exceptions) but they didn't see any value in the trailers which were not expected to be used again, and therefore either overlooked renewing them or intentionally chose not to. I can't find a source for that, and perhaps someone else might know something about that. It seems logical, but it's clearly not something we can put any faith in without some additional supporting evidence. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this useful information. My questions regarding these images are
- Do they come from the trailer or from the film? The link you mention says The trailers did not contain copyright notices, or there is a copyright notice here. Their copyright was therefore registered.
- Was the copyright renewed? I think we have to assume that it was unless we have the proof that it wasn't. Yann (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- 1. They were all uploaded at the same time by the same editor, so it's reasonable to assume that they came from the same source. Several images contain text that would be used in a trailer but not in the film, so again it's reasonable to believe they came from the trailer. No doubt about it - there is a copyright notice.
- 2. Was it renewed? I don't know. Using the industry standard of considering trailers of this period to be not subject to copyright due to expiration and non-renewal is an assumption rather than proof. A search of the copyright data per [5] shows nil result. Does the absence of a copyright listing for this film trailer indicate that it wasn't renewed? I don't know. It doesn't seem definitive. Where do we go from here? Rossrs (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this useful information. My questions regarding these images are
- at 1:Yes , all these pics are from the trailer: http://www.archive.org/details/Cleopatratrailer1963 And yes, there is a copyright notice, not as usual in the end of the trailer, but in the middle (at 2'22")
- at 2: Something for native speakers, only a few pages
- 1) A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%......
- 2) How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work?
- 3) How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed? . Mutter Erde 78.51.199.130 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Was this resolved in any way? There's a similar issue with this image at a Feature Article Review on the English Wikipedia. The trailer has a copyright notice, though it's unlikely it was renewed. trailer mahanga (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The copyright for the movie was renewed on 1991-09-23 (RE0000544757). I was unable to find any renewal records for the trailer. In fact, the oldest record regarding a preview by 20th Century Fox Productions was from 1988 (PA0000399621). The current database at copyright.gov covers all records since 1978. As a renewal of the trailer was due in 1991, we should be able to find it if it exists. However, I do not know to which extent the copyright of the movie covers the trailer. As the trailer seems to provide previews of selected scenes of the movie, the trailer is possibly covered by the renewed copyright of the movie. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, PD-US-not renewed. (per AFBorchert) Kameraad Pjotr 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}