Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive July 24th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luciatran.png

[edit]

Personal pic, apparently, unused for now. Eusebius (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. My bad, I guess it is en:Lucia_Tran. Eusebius (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Volador&Sombra.jpg

[edit]

questionable source, Flickr account is new and full of fan/promo material, most probably a Flickr washing account Denniss (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Flickr account is used for uploading coyprighted photos. Compare this purported CC-photo [1] with the same photo [2] but credited to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Thuresson (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Flickrwashing by User:Mike09 and sockpuppets. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mistico_Tag_Team_Champ.jpg

[edit]

questionable source, Flickr account is new and full of fan/promo material, most probably a Flickr washing account Denniss (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Flickr account is used for uploading coyprighted photos. Compare this purported CC-photo [3] with the same photo [4] but credited to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Thuresson (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Flickrwashing by User:Mike09 and sockpuppets. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ratish_Jassra.jpg

[edit]

i took the photo and uploaded it, but the person in the photograph wishes to have it removed. thank you Andyeban (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - Out of scope. Unused personal picture of non-notable person. --Latebird (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cercaniassevilla.png

[edit]

Orphaned, unused low quality image, without description --chris 論 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wie Walter Siegmund Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Haplogroup_E-M78_Cruciani_2007.png

[edit]

Exact copy of an illustration from a copyrighted journal article (Figure 2A) with colors modified and text moved.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - The geometry shown is not an artistic work but reflects measured scientific (and hence uncopyrightable) data. The only copyrightable parts of the original are the choice of colors and design/location of any text - which have been changed appropriately to avoid any problems. --Latebird (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I need some clarification on this. User generated contour maps are often criticized as containing original research, because they are not based on the data used in the scientific studies they are sourced from. So in this case I tried to make the image as unique as possible, to avoid copyright issues, while maintaining the geometry of the contours. I fully disclosed the image which it was based on. Muntuwandi (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Haplogroup_E-M78.png

[edit]

Enlarged copy of an illustration from a copyrighted journal article (Figure 1E) with colors modified and text moved.[6] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vlajkamesta.png

[edit]

Reverted speedy deletion. Original request was "This file is a copyright violation because http://www.puchov.sk/mesto/symboly-mesta/vlajka-mesta ". Possibly {{PD-ineligible}}. --Sv1xv (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - simple geometric shapes, clearly ineligible. --Latebird (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete identical file to source, copyright violation --Bonnifac (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept PD-inelligible, so it does not matter if the file is identical. Sv1xv (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mirrors 062.JPG

[edit]

Poor Quality -> no educational content because it is blurry and unusable picture for others wiki projects --CalistaZ (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Very low quality pic, and unused. --Abujoy (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Useless, poor quality. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope: too bad to be useful. Yann (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Externsteine Relief.jpg

[edit]

Bad quality, low resolution and redundant to Category:Kreuzabnahmerelief an den Externsteinen. Some years ago I did upload the picture to de.wikipedia. Today we have far better images and don't need this one any longer. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use on many pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Копенгаген.Г.Х.Андерсен.jpg

[edit]

The statue by Henry Luckow-Nielsen (1902-1992) is still in copyright and freedom of panorama in Denmark only allows for non-commercial reproductions of sculptures. Hemmingsen (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:JF_Willumsen_Hoerup_Kgs_Have.JPG

[edit]

The sculpture by Jens Ferdinand Willumsen (1863-1958) is still in copyright and freedom of panorama in Denmark only allows for non-commercial reproductions of sculptures. Hemmingsen (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:近藤浩治.jpg

[edit]

User:Ua-saiko2 has uploaded 9 images and 6 of them have been copyvio images (File:デビッド・ワイズ.jpg, File:海田明里.jpg, File:伊藤賢治 1.jpg, File:なるけみちこ.jpg, File:崎元仁 1.jpg, File:谷岡久美 1.jpg). Unless the user can prove otherwise, this image is likely to be a copyvio like all the others. --CitizenAbel (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:下村陽子 1.jpg

[edit]

User:Ua-saiko2 has uploaded 9 images and 6 of them have been copyvio images (File:デビッド・ワイズ.jpg, File:海田明里.jpg, File:伊藤賢治 1.jpg, File:なるけみちこ.jpg, File:崎元仁 1.jpg, File:谷岡久美 1.jpg). Unless the user can prove otherwise, this image is likely to be a copyvio like all the others. --CitizenAbel (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:桜庭統 1.jpg

[edit]

User:Ua-saiko2 has uploaded 9 images and 6 of them have been copyvio images (File:デビッド・ワイズ.jpg, File:海田明里.jpg, File:伊藤賢治 1.jpg, File:なるけみちこ.jpg, File:崎元仁 1.jpg, File:谷岡久美 1.jpg). Unless the user can prove otherwise, this image is likely to be a copyvio like all the others. CitizenAbel (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gitow.jpg

[edit]

I don't think this is PD-trivial Avron (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vistrel.jpg

[edit]

I don't think this is PD-tivial Avron (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Harun.JPG

[edit]

Personal pic, apparently, unused for now. Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Walla_Walla_Onion.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chihuly_blue_chandelier_in_daylight_at_the_Phoenix_Botanical_Garden.JPG

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Explorersz.ogg

[edit]

Broken Ogg file. Probably supposed to be this video, but if so, I'm not sure what educational use it would have. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the user's other contribs to the nomination:

All three files are unused. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Piscinafamalicao.jpg

[edit]

Probably copyvio because this image looks like an advertisement and due to this user uploads. Sdrtirs (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Portugalské_kolonie.jpg

[edit]

Henrique Galvão is mentionned as an author on the map. He died in 1970, but I'm not really sure it's the same guy. If it's not him, 1921 is not early enough a creation date to justify a PD status by itself. Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same Henrique Galvão. This map is from the mid 1930's according to the copy in the Portuguese National Library. There the reference to the map is given as:
"Portugal não é um país pequeno [ Material cartográfico] : superfície do império colonial português comparada com a dos principais países da Europa / mapa organizado por Henrique Galvão"
AUTOR(ES): Penafiel. Câmara Municipal; Galvão, Henrique, 1895-1970, ed. lit.
ESCALA: Escala [ca 1:8500000]
PUBLICAÇÃO: Penafiel : Câmara Municipal, [ca 1935]
DESCR. FÍSICA: 1 mapa : litografia, color. ; 59,00x90,00 cm, em folha de 69,00x97,50 cm
NOTAS: Escala determinada por comparação com um mapa de escala conhecido, Datação atribuída em conformidade com a data do número de entrada do Depósito Legal, entre 1934 e 1936
CONTÉM: No canto superior direito apresenta quadro comparativo com o somatório das superfícies, em km2, do império português e de cinco países da Europa, designadamente: Espanha, França, Inglaterra, Itália e Alemanha
CDU: 913(469-44)(084.3) ; 912"19"(084.3) ; 32.019.5"19"(469)(084.3)
END. WWW: http://purl.pt/11440
The Portuguese National Library also provides what they call a "Public copy", of which this image seems to be an exact copy, stating:
  • Generally, public copies are from works that are in the pubic domain already, meaning that they are no longer copyright protected or are orphan works for which the National Library of Portugal (NLP) could not find, after reasonable research, any right holders. Should you have any information that may help clarifying such cases, please contact bnd@bnportugal.pt.
  • However, the digital images are the property pf the National Library of Portugal and may be used freely for private or educational uses only. Using the images for ther purposes requires prior authorization from the NLP, notably for any publishing or distribution purposes, for free or subject to payment.
  • Permitted usage does not include any commercial exploitation of the images, which is subject to prior authorization by the NLP. Authorization requests should be addressed to reproducoes@bnportugal.pt.
Does all of this help in any way? I would be a pity to lose this map... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Im sorry, my source (friend) say it author dead 70 years. My stake! --Fredy.00 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (uploader)[reply]
  •  Delete Apparently the NLP themselves haven't done anything to find the copyright holder. If Henrique Galvão is the author as stated, copyright will expire only in 2041, unless the original publication of the map is covered by some copyright exception. --Eusebius (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright status unsure - most probably not free. |EPO| da: 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zealous_Class.png

[edit]

Logo of a college class: as may be expected, this claims to be the property of the college, but there's no evidence of permission being granted. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - The college does not own the copyright on classwork submitted by students (logo for a fictitious class of the future). But since the author "Megan Scott" is not the uploader, an OTRS release from her would be needed. --Latebird (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scope isn't a problem; it's currently being used at en:Asbury College. However, if the logo is claimed as being Asbury property, shouldn't we assume that it is, i.e. that she's donated it to the college? Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't assume anything. Experience shows that most new uploaders are not familiar with the intricacies of copyright and copyright transfers, and may easily jump to incorrect conclusions about who owns what. In either case though, an OTRS release would be necessary for us to keep the image. --Latebird (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've received an email from the uploader, who confirms that it's college property and notes that contacting the original creator would be virtually impossible. Do you think that this email should be sent to OTRS, since it offers no reason not to delete? Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS normally needs something from the rights owner, which doesn't seem to be the uploader here. But then, you might want to ask someone who actually handles those tickets for a final answer. --Latebird (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted No evidence of permission, OTRS was not completed. Royalbroil 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kangzhi.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded with a claim that it was "self-made" by the uploader, but it was probably not. Image exists on several other websites ([7][8][9]), and this message the uploader left me on en-wiki suggests that the uploader did not take the picture himself. Rjanag (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of a Canadian CBC television documentary, as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. The image also obviously has a needlessly racist title. Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, possible rename, The title is a direct quote from the film clip, it is in fact what makes the film clip notable. It could just as easily be referred to as "Canadian soldier referring to niggers.ogv", but I believe that title is already taken. It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sherurcij's dishonest comments above, no, I have not been chastised by admins for removing large chunks of the Somali Affair article. That is a blatant lie. I invite you all to have a look at this post to see what all of this is really about. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only files I see deleted on copyright grounds are File:Ediacaran_sea_biotics.png which was following a large-scale debate on the freedom of panorama, and whether the diorama had been created by Museum staff or outsiders, and File:Palestinian_Youth_With_Sling.png which I supported deleting because it was shown to be Flickr-laundered. Considering I have 12,000 edits, I'd hardly consider that evidence that I "don't know the meaning of properly sourcing images". Sherurcij (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's cause you just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings, Mr. Honesty. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) - not here. Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I find a folder of images on the bus, and I show them on television, do they now belong to me? Of course not, their copyright status is unchanged, since I am not the creator, and never will be. Sherurcij (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This discussion should be about the facts. I believe the several of the assertions of the nominator and those voicing delete opinions are simply incorrect. For starters, the image was not taken by the CBC. I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor Sherurcij has been able to produce evidence to prove any of your claims. No links were produced to support your assertions or anything of the sort, so your claims thus remain nothing but claims. I also find it odd that another Wiki Commons user has already accused Sherurcij of being a sockpuppet of you, yet you of all people show up on this of all conversations and without Sherurcij so much as once having contacted you for your input. Very odd indeed. I also noticed you posted only 16 minutes after Sherurcij. What gives? Middayexpress (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[10]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cpl. Adrian Harlen is a photographer for Soldier Magazine (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk) and a unit photographer for his regiment. He took the photos in question for a British press release; that is substantially different from what is the case with these files. Sherurcij (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete First published in Canada, {{PD-Somalia}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per Pieter Kuiper High Contrast (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shidane Arone.jpg

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of "Canadian news sources", as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. Middayexpress (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not from the government, but it was clearly taken in Somalia, which had no valid copyright law at the time. In Canada and the U.S. the copyright would belong to Kyle Brown, but even in that case this is about as clear a case of fair use as is imaginable and should just be moved to en.wiki. - SimonP (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You again SimonP. lol Unfortunately for you, this image as well as all of the ones above were from Canadian news sources, as the disingenuous user above has indicated -- not the Somali government. One of them even still has the CBC logo on it! As for Sherurcij's dishonest comments above, no, I have not been chastised by admins for removing large chunks of the Somali Affair article. That is a blatant lie. I invite you all to have a look at this post to see what all of this is really about. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After this vandalism, you were chastised for having "removed a lot of content that has made the article much better". That was less than an hour ago, I doubt you've forgotten it. Sherurcij (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear readers: please do have a look at my talk page for details on that "content that has made the article much better". I'm sure you'll be interested to learn what exactly makes for a "better" article according to the editors above. And also note that this user has indicated that not one, but several administrators chastised me, which is yet another untruth as I've already pointed out. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sherurcij has just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings from his talk page in a pretty transparent attempt to conceal his abominable record of uploading non-copyright violating images. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) - not here. Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Similar to the other nominated files this material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether if i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sherurcij is right in his facts. This particular image was not taken by any Canadian media or governmental entity. It was taken in a personal capacity by Private Kyle Brown while in Somalia. If it was originally self published in Somalia does this make it public domain? I'm not sure of the law here, but if the IRC experts say it is then I will accept that. - SimonP (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This discussion should be about the facts. I believe the several of the assertions of the nominator and those voicing delete opinions are simply incorrect. For starters, the image was not taken by the CBC. Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor SimonP nor Sherurcij has been able to produce evidence to prove any of your claims. No links were produced to support your assertions or anything of the sort, so your claims thus remain nothing but claims. I also find it odd that another Wiki Commons user has already accused Sherurcij of being a sockpuppet of you Geoswan, yet you of all people show up on this of all conversations and without Sherurcij so much as once having contacted you for your input. Very odd indeed. I also noticed you posted only 16 minutes after Sherurcij. What gives? Middayexpress (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geo_Swan and I are both Canadians who focus on military articles, and the copyright position of images predominantly from the War on Terror; so I doubt it's surprising that he's posting on a call for deletion of a photo related to the Canadian military...anyways, admins have already confirmed (I believe?) that we are not sockpuppets...it's just that trolls like to shout "sockpuppet!" whenever two people agree that the third person is in the wrong. Sherurcij (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "call for deletion" was tucked away in a list of items for deletion that is over two days old. I therefore fail to see how Geo Swan could've gotten wind of this discussion without having even been alerted to it, as he indeed apparently wasn't. Middayexpress (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[11]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Middayexpress, you are not the first person who has nominated images for deletion here based on the misconception that the use of a public domain image by a news agency magically transformed that image into a proprietary image.
  • Suggestion -- It is unfortunate that there are half a dozen parallel discussions, over the same basic issues. I suggest we agree to confine ourselves to making our points and counter-points in just one of these discussions. Since Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cpl McKay 1.ogv was the first nomination I, arbitrarily, suggest we continue all of these discussions there. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments above. If consensus turns out that it isn't valid, perhaps a fair use criteria would be for use on English Wikipedia at a low resolution, it certainly seems like a photograph that provides something in the article that can't be replicated. TastyCakes (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This was first published in Canada, {{PD-Somalia}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cpl McKay 1.ogv

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of a Canadian CBC television documentary, as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. Middayexpress (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sherurcij's dishonest comments above, no, I have not been chastised by admins for removing large chunks of the Somali Affair article. That is a blatant lie. I invite you all to have a look at this post to see what all of this is really about. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sherurcij has just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings from his talk page in a pretty transparent attempt to conceal his abominable record of uploading non-copyright violating images. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) - not here. Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last four years I too have a bunch of warnings on my talk page. Quel surpise. Like Sherurcij, I have uploaded thousands of images. And during those thousands of uploads I make the occasional mistakes. Sometimes robots catch an upload that has all right info, but has extra characters that make the robot not recognize that info. Sometimes I made a good faith mistake. Sometimes I am in the clear and it is my good faith challenger who made the good faith mistake. I urge User:Middayexpress to make a greater effort to assume good faith. A few dozen warnings is a very low error rate given that Sherurcij has uploaded close to two thousand images. If you look at his upload log you will see some red-links -- most of which are to categories that no longer exist. I too have a very few innocent redlinks on my upload log too -- all attributable to a good faith mistakes, or innocent duplicates of already uploaded files. Goldarnit, good faith contributors, with a long history of good faith efforts, shouldn't be called upon to prove their good faith, when their long histories has already unequivocally established their good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This discussion should be about the facts. I believe the several of the assertions of the nominator and those voicing delete opinions are simply incorrect. For starters, the image was not taken by the CBC. I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[12]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cpl. Adrian Harlen is a photographer for Soldier Magazine (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk) and a unit photographer for his regiment. He took the photos in question for a British press release; that is all substantially different from what is the case with these files. Sherurcij (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Middayexpress, I call on you to explain your assertion that Sherurcij would have had to have got the images from the soldiers for them to remain in the public domain. If the CBC thought they could use the images because they were then in the public domain are you claiming that the CBC's use of the images somehow changes the images form public domain to proprietary? Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shidane Arone.jpg. SimonP (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion -- It is unfortunate that there are half a dozen parallel discussions, over the same basic issues. I suggest we agree to confine ourselves to making our points and counter-points in just one of these discussions. Since Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cpl McKay 1.ogv was the first nomination I, arbitrarily, suggest we continue all of these discussions here. Geo Swan (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT to the vile accusation of sockpuppetry -- Yes, another contributor did accuse Sherurcij and I of being sockpuppets a couple of years ago. I hate sockpuppetry. I asked our first accuser to offer a handsome public apology in each forum where they made the vile accusation. I request you do the same. As someone whose wikipedia edit history shows I contributed to the Somalia Affair, Clayton Matchee, Kyle Brown, and Shidane Arone articles I am frankly dumbfounded anyone would dare suggest I need to explain why I would participate in a discussion of the deletion of images related to those articles. Geo Swan (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT the UK example -- Thanks, it is interesting, and I believe it re-inforces my earlier suggestion that it is far past the time when the intellectual property lawyers the wikimedia foundation retains weighed in on what liscense applies to images taken in countries without intellectual property laws. Why did the BBC claim crown copyright? We don't know. I can show you multiple images that were taken by GIs, in performance of their duties, and, as such, should be in the public domain, which, when they are republished, are credited instead to wire services which first published them. Dilawar's family had one photo of him, taken a few months prior to his capture and murder in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. A freelance photographer published this photo, or a copy he made of it. He now claims all the intellectual property rights to it. The BBC may have applied a crown copyright due to an excess of caution, or because some relatively junior person was unaware that Afghanistan was a nation with no copyright protection -- not because the BBC's intellectual property lawyers had weighed in with an informed legal opinion. Since the wikimedia foundation has its own intellectual property lawyers, if a legal opinion is required lets rely on our own lawyers, not on our guesses as to what legal opinion other organizations' lawyers may have offered.
It is important to properly credit images, without regard to whether they are or are not in the public domain -- just to prevent situations where someone else subsequently republishes the image crediting the republisher, not the actual photographer. Shane T. McCoy worked as a photographer for the US DoD for half a decade or more, taking thousands of images the DoD later made available. But, by far the most widely used images were the very candid photos he took on January 11 2002, the day the Guantanamo camp opened. Close to half the time these images are not credited to him, and are not listed as PD, they are credited to wire services. I think this came about because some publications don't bother crediting PD images, and then other publications pick up those images, republish them under fair use, but credit the publication they took them from in an excess of caution. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We DO know why the BBC credited the Crown because all photographs taken by employees of the Crown are the copyright of the Crown unlike in the US. [13]--P.g.champion (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me -- but aren't you overlooking the complicating factor that the image was taken in a country where images are not protected by international copyright agreements? Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The CBC is not the copyright owner -- that would be the person who took the photograph/video. If this was taken by a Canadian soldier, either they own the copyright, or maybe it would be considered Canadian Crown Copyright (sort of doubt that, if this was a personal video). The question is where it was first published -- if that was by the CBC, or in Canada by anyone, then that would be the country of origin and it would be subject to Canadian copyright laws for its term. It can only be PD-Somalia if it was first published there, not just taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It sounds to me as if you agree with the interpretation that all rights to images taken in a country without copyright protection belong to the first party to publish them in a country with copyright protection. Have I got that right? That is not how we treat unpublished images taken in the USA, Canada, UK or other countries with copyright protection though, is it? Don't all the rights to unpublished images belong to the photographer, without regard to whether or not they have published them? As I have written before I think it is long past the time when we should have got an opinion from an intellectual property lawywer on images like these. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite -- the rights belong to the author, not the publisher. The "country of origin" (the country whose laws we use to determine copyright terms) is the country where it is first published with the author's permission (per the definition in the Berne Convention). So, if this was first published in Canada, then the soldier still owns the copyright (and is the only one who can license it), but it would fall under Canadian copyright law and their terms. Unless it is considered a government work, in which case Crown Copyright would apply -- not sure how the distinction is made there, but presumably personal photos etc. made by government employees are still owned by the workers, so I doubt it would. If the soldier earlier published it somehow in Somalia, then the situation would be different. If the CBC used the footage without permission, then they may still be technically "unpublished" and it gets cloudier. But, I would presume the assumption would be to use Canadian copyright law in that case (country of the author), especially if the alternative is "no copyright". Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. This is a question that has come up, over and over again, over the last couple of years, WRT to images from Afghanistan. I believe your version, is the first to offer "first published with the author's permission". The Berne Convention says that?
      • Consider the Abu Ghraib pictures. We republish many of them. If they were acquired by GIs, in performance of their duties, those images would clearly be in the public domain. But if the GIs were goofing off, if they weren't following explicit orders, then I wonder whether they really are in the public domain.
      • I direct your attention to w:File:Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port.jpg and File:Dilawar 1.jpg. These images are often credited to the first publishers, when they were taken by employees of the US government.
      • This widely republished picture of Dilawar, prior to his capture, is published with various credits, or no credit whatsoever. A couple of years ago I found a freelance photographer, who claimed he owned the rights to the picture. His explanation is that he met with Dilawar's family, and they allowed him to take their photo, or make a copy of the photo. (I can't remember which he claimed, or whether he wss clear.) How he could to have explained the implications of international copyright to illiterate people beggars the imagination. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The right to publish is one of the central tenets of copyright. If it was done without permission, then that publishing was likely a violation of copyright in the first place and would not be allowed to affect the original work's copyright status. That is highly unlikely here though -- the soldier presumably would have had to give the footage to someone. It is usually pretty hard for the first publishing to be unauthorized.
        • In looking closer, the Berne Convention says (in Article 5) that even it was first published in Somalia (or never published), Berne countries would need to use Canada as the "country of origin" because that is the nationality of the author. While that specific language is not binding in the U.S., I'm would think that would still be the case, and the U.S. would still recognize the soldier's copyright in the movie (and Canada certainly would). There is virtually no chance this would not be seen as copyrighted in the U.S.
        • The Abu Ghraib stuff could depend on the interpretation... photography was likely not their job but they were (disgustingly) doing it under what they supposedly thought their job was -- maybe the photos were supposed to further humiliate the prisoners, so maybe it could be considered as part of their "duties". Geneva Convention violations aside, I would probably side on PD-USGov, but there is certainly gray area there. I don't know how Canada would draw the line between Crown Copyright and private copyright though -- it is probably not the same as the U.S.
        • Image credits sometimes have little to do with authorship or copyright ownership -- they typically credit the source too, or the person who did the work to (for example) scan an old work and put it up online. Those folks often want recognition for the work they did too (and to identify the source), even if it was not copyrightable. One example was from the Minneapolis bridge collapse; CNN got hold of a public domain Army Corps of Engineers video of the bridge collapsing and tagged it "CNN", forcing other networks to use that same credit when they re-broadcast the footage until the Corps officially released the video to everyone later the next day. (It was technically a violation of 17 U.S.C. 403 but I doubt they cared).
        • On the picture of Dilawar... if that photographer *took* the picture, he would own the copyright, though in this day and age photos are often copied far and wide with little regard to copyright and moral rights of crediting the author. If he *copied* the photo (big big difference), then he probably would have few rights on it at all (unless he could prove some sort of license or transfer, if there was any copyright on an Afghan citizen's photo in the first place). Kinda doubt that copyright issues would really have come up. Anyways news organizations have a wide-ranging fair use-type exemptions so they can report the news, but Commons follows a far stricter definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under the Berne Convention, anything first published in Canada is protected under Canadian Copyright law, regardless of where the film was initially taken. Unless some evidence is presented that this was first published in Somalia, the PD-Somalia argument does not apply. TimVickers (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not first published in Somalia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clayton Matchee Image 2.jpg

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of "Canadian news sources", as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sherurcij has just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings from his talk page in a pretty transparent attempt to conceal his abominable record of uploading non-copyright violating images. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that this file is in the public domain? --High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC documentary itself refers to it the work of w:Kyle Brown (Canadian solder) while stationed in Somalia, and disseminated as "trophies" of what Canadians would do to Somalis they captured. Sherurcij (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: No, of course he cannot, as it is copyrighted by CBC. One of the images even still has the CBC logo on it! Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The watermark should be removed, I'll try to do that myself. However, as others have pointed out to you, a Public Domain image shown on a news network does not make it copyrighted to the news network; every major news network ran these photographs (since they lacked copyright), that does not mean it is simultaneously copyrighted to every major news network. Sherurcij (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "watermark". It's the company's logo because you ripped that image directly from a copyrighted documentary that was aired on Canadian television. You also still have not been able to prove that this and all of the other images you ripped off from CBC television and other "Canadian news sources" are copyright-free like clearly asked to above by High Contrast. Middayexpress (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If Somalia is, like Afghanistan, not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright law, then I believe other commentators here are correct -- that those images are in the public domain. What happens when such an image is published in a country that is a signatory to international copyright agreements? I don't know. I believe it is long past the time when the wikimedia's lawyers researched this and related questions.
    1. Some people think that images taken in a country with no copyright protection are in the public domain and remain in the public domain, no matter where they are published subsequently;
    2. Some people think these images are like a gold rush -- that whoever first publishes the image in a country with copyright protection gets to claim all the rights to it, world-wide -- without regard to whether they had any real connection to it;
      • When an image is taken by an employee of a US Federal agency, in a country with no copyright protection, does the carpetbagger who first publishes it get to claim all rights, when it would be PD if it were taken anywhere else;
    3. If I understand him or her Scoobycentric, above, thinks that as the person who would own the copyright if it were published in the US or UK owns the rights to the image when they return to the US or UK.
I am strongly tempted to voice a keep. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geoswan here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[14]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cpl. Adrian Harlen is a photographer for Soldier Magazine (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk) and a unit photographer for his regiment. He took the photos in question for a British press release; that is substantially different from what is the case with these files. Sherurcij (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC is not the copyright owner -- that would be the person who took the photograph/video. If this was taken by a Canadian soldier, either they own the copyright, or maybe it would be considered Canadian Crown Copyright (sort of doubt that though). The question is where it was first published -- if that was by the CBC, or in Canada by anyone, then that would be the country of origin and it would be subject to Canadian copyright laws for its term. It can only be PD-Somalia if it was first published there, not just taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tribal_ID_17.jpg

[edit]

No evidence for public domain. Copyright Spokane Alcohol Server Training. All rights reserved. (bottom of this page) High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is a work of the Federal Government indicating Indian-status; it is hosted on the Spokane Alcohol Server Training website as evidence of legitimate ID that would allow a customer to purchase alcohol. Sherurcij (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It seems to me that such cards would be issued by the Tribe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, US Government work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chihuly_glass_in_milwaukee.JPG

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidental background; this is not a panorama, this is an invaluable CLOSEUP that shows textured glass. No one cares about the white walls far away. --Mareklug talk 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the issue. The Chihuly sculpture is a protected art work and unless we have permission from Chihuly, it violates his copyright. I'm striking the FOP language; it isn't relevant to this image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chihuly_glass_in_the_Phoenix_Botanical_Garden.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CrystalTowers_ChihulyBridge.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, so the problem with the Chihuly Bridge of Glass image is that it is uncategorized? Or is there a "freedom of panorama" copyright issue? Or both? After reading the freedom of panorama page it appears that the image should be fine as long as the artist gave permission. I work with the artist and part of my job is to sign license agreements, etc., on his behalf. --OrcaBay — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrcaBay (talk • contribs) 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete images because they are uncategorized. The concern is the protection of the rights of artists. Photographers may not publish photographs of sculptures that are under copyright and are located in the United States unless they obtain the permission of the copyright holder (usually the artist). Please use Commons:Email templates for permission and send it to Commons:OTRS. Add "{{OTRS pending}}" to the image file page. Someone will close this discussion as "kept" and the delete tag will be removed from the file page. The photograph may have a separate copyright from the sculpture. If you are not Terry Rishel, the photographer, then the same process may be used to document that it has a valid license. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Has anything been sent to the OTRS people? If not,  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator/no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dale_Chihuly_installation_in_Missouri_Botanical_Garden_-_two_spheres.JPG

[edit]

Copyright violation; no freedom of panorama in the United States. COM:FOP#United States Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Copyright on spheres? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The color patterns on the surfaces of the sphere make them creative works and subject to copyright or so I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shidane Arone chunk 1 chunk 1.ogv

[edit]

The image is not the work of the Somali government but of a Canadian CBC television documentary, as the uploader has indicated in the 'Source' entry of the image's file page. The screenshot therefore does not fall under PD-Somalia as he/she has claimed. Middayexpress (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, It is indeed Public Domain, the image was not shot by the CBC, the CBC is simply an online outlet publishing the image which was recorded on amateur video which was passed around the Somalia base. Discussion on IRC's commons channel indicated that it fits the domain of PD-Somalia. Nominating user has been chastised by admins (not myself, though I agree) for removing large chunks of context trying to whitewash the w:Somalia Affair article, calling for these deletions is just one more tactic. Sherurcij (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sherurcij's dishonest comments above, no, I have not been chastised by admins for removing large chunks of the Somali Affair article. That is a blatant lie. I invite you all to have a look at this post to see what all of this is really about. Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same user has been removing categories from these images like Category:Racism, while simultaneously referring to me as a "racist" for uploading them. Again, he has been warned by admins on WP for his actions, and is apparently now just trying to delete the images out of spite or strange personal objection. Sherurcij (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all categories from the images because they are all copyright violations and therefore should not be used. Looking at your talk page, you don't even seem to know the meaning of properly sourcing images what with all of those copyright violation warnings and deleted images you once uploaded. Give me a break. Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sherurcij has just deleted all of the other myriad copyright-violation & deleted images warnings from his talk page in a pretty transparent attempt to conceal his abominable record of uploading non-copyright violating images. Middayexpress (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention, you will see I removed the templates notifying me of AfDs which successfully were kept, or I supported deletion, or were otherwise irrelevant. I kept all relevant templates and messages. If you have an issue, raise it on my talk page (and be forewarned, in six months it will likely be removed) - not here. Sherurcij (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You had a talk page filled with nothing but image deletion warning templates. In a very transparent attempt at covering your tracks, you then proceeded to delete a whole bunch of these image deletion warning templates literally minutes after I let readers know about this so that they would take your claims of "proper sourcing" with a grain of salt. You're not fooling anyone, buddy. Middayexpress (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the templates from last year regarding File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG, File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg and File:Liberty Steak Cartoon.JPG, all of which were KEPT because they had strange people with agendas like you as their nominator. And the template reminding me that of my 12,000, I'd left File:Harpers Silence - Omar Khadr - January 2009.png uncategorised accidentally (which I then fixed), and the template pointing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Aqa Nahib Saluting Aus Troops.jpg where I supported deleting the image. Stop trying to turn this into a random personal attack against me, and focus on the issue at hand...or better, stop nominating things for deletion because you're pissed at me for some unknown reason. Sherurcij (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we are to believe now that all those myriad editors who took exception to your dubious sourcing and inappropriate naming have an agenda except you? Try selling that hogwash to someone less informed. There is no excuse for labeling a Wiki Commons image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" as you have voluntarily done. This sort of behavior is simply unacceptable no matter how much you try and justify it, and betrays more sinister motives at work over and above the obvious copyright infringements. Middayexpress (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Similar to the other nominated files this material was not taken by a Somali affiliated organization but by a foreign registered news outlet. The PD-Somalia template does not cover material taken by foreign companies/governments/independent entities, it would be as absurd as claiming BBC footage of Afghanistan is automaticly copyright free because the country has no copy right laws --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation, none of the footage was shot by a foreign news agency. I agree with you that anything BBC films in Afghanistan is copyrighted, and anything CBC shot in Somalia is copyrighted. However, I have pointed out again and again, these were self-published "trophy photos" by Trooper Kyle Brown, a "self-published" VHS Cassette created by an unknown soldier in Somalia, and another "self-published" VHS Cassette acquired by a member of the w:Vandoos from colleagues in Somalia. All of it was shot in Somalia, all of it was shot by Canadian Troops who self-published it as "trophies". So while you are right to say that a news outlet shooting footage in Somalia for release back home would be copyrighted, you are wrong to say that situation applies here. Sherurcij (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Sherene Razack. Dark Threats and White Knights: The Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping and the New Imperialism. 2004 specifically refers to the video as "made by [CAR] soldiers" in relation to Brocklebank's racist chatter. It is even available on Google Books for confirmation. So I hope that settles the issue of who created it. Sherurcij (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Actually i do understand the situation and circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This discussion should be about the facts. I believe the several of the assertions of the nominator and those voicing delete opinions are simply incorrect. For starters, the image was not taken by the CBC. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think most people familiar with the Shidane Arone case know these images were taken by the soldiers themselves. I don't believe the CBC bought them from the soldiers. If the CBC thought these images were protected by copyright they would not have broadcast them. The CBC had their lawyers vet these images. And, I believe if the wikimedia foundation's lawyers were to check these images, they would concur. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order for your claims to be plausible, then Sherurcij would have had to have gotten the screenshots directly from the soldier footage, which he of course did not. He got them from the CBC television station in Canada & other "Canadian News Sources" according to his own assertions. One of the images still even has the CBC logo on it, so there's no point in denying this. The fact is, in 1995, a journalist with CBC released a documentary on "The Somalia Affair" called "The Somalia Affair", and this documentary even won top prize for investigative reporting at the Canadian Association of Journalists Awards in 1993. It was copyrighted too by the CBC. In fact, CBC itself first broadcast the footage. This means that Sherurcij has just captured screenshots of a re-broadcasting of the footage, not of the original footage as you seem to be claiming. PD-Somalia thus obviously does not, and in fact, cannot apply to this copyrighted re-broadcasted footage. Middayexpress (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an example of a picture from Afghanistan by a British Corporal being used in a BBC article[15]. The lack of copyright laws in Afghanistan did not enable the BBC to just snatch Corporal Adrian Harlen's image and used it for their website without his or the MOD's consent, they had to credit him and on top of that clearly stressed in the photo disclaimer that the copyright belongs to him and his employer MOD. Secondly Middayexpress is spot on with regards to the use of screenshots and material featuring the CBC logo, which are from a well known documentary that is the property of CBC--Scoobycentric (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-North Korea

[edit]

There is no verification for this PD template. --132.199.146.175 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-DPRKGov}}
{{CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK}}
Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 10:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image as a PD-North Korea, as well as a dozen more like it. I don't remember using CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK license. Must've been some sort of mistake. - Tourbillon 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A small list of a few DPRK-related images deleted recently:
  • (Deletion log); 05:43 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kim il-sung vector.svg" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
  • (Deletion log); 05:43 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Il Sung.jpg" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
  • (Deletion log); 05:43 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:DPRKMedic.JPG" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
  • (Deletion log); 05:42 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:SeoulHeavyTanks.JPG" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
  • (Deletion log); 05:42 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kim Il Sung Colour.jpg" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
  • (Deletion log); 05:42 . . Tryphon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kim Il Sung.jpg" (Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK)
I believe that not all used only Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK, but were used in conjunction with other licenses, such as the "DPRKGov" template. For example, "File:DPRKMedic.JPG" and "File:SeoulHeavyTanks.JPG" were both DPRK Government works, and thus had the DPRKGov template alongside the FreeUseDPRK template. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with "PD-DPRKGov", since this template makes the former redundant. The latter is also more detailed as to how the licensing is based on from the DPRK copyright law. This means that all images tagged with this template should be retagged, replacing the older template with the DPRKGov one, where applicable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson

[edit]

This is a multiple request for the following images:

  1. File:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg
  2. File:CRB002539.jpg
  3. File:Cloudy day Halgrimmskirkja Reykjavik 2005.JPG
  4. File:Hallgrimskirkja MDR.jpg
  5. File:Hallgrimskirkja whole small.jpg
  6. File:Hallgrimskirkja.jpg
  7. File:Hallgrimskirkja15.JPG
  8. File:HallgrimskirkjaFromDistant.jpg
  9. File:HallgrimskirkjaProfile.jpg
  10. File:Hallgrimskirkjaleaves.jpg
  11. File:Hallgrímskirkja 2.JPG
  12. File:Hallgrímskirkja interior.jpg
  13. File:Hallgrímskirkja.JPG
  14. File:Iceland-Reykjavik-Hallgrimskirkja-1.jpg
  15. File:Iceland-Reykjavik2-July 2000.jpg
  16. File:Iceland-Reykjavik4-July 2000.jpg
  17. File:LeifurEriksonInFrontOfHalgrimmsKirkja.jpg
  18. File:Reykjavik Cathedral.jpg
  19. File:Stytta af Leifi Eiríkssyni með Hallgrímskirkju í baksýn.JPG
  20. File:Akureyrarkirkja1.jpg
  21. File:Akureyrarkirkja2.jpg
  22. File:Akureyrarkirkja5.jpg
  23. File:Akureyrarkirkja6.jpg
  24. File:Akureyrarkirkja7.jpg
  25. File:AkureyriLutheran.JPG
  26. File:Iceland Akureyri 4956.JPG
  27. File:Iceland-Akureyri2-July 2000.jpg
  28. File:Iceland2008-Akureyri.church.JPG
  29. File:Héraðsskólinn á Laugarvatni.jpg
  30. File:Landakotskirkja Reykjavik 2004.JPG
  31. File:Landakotskirkja.JPG
  32. File:Landakotskirkja01.jpg
  33. File:University of Iceland.jpg
  34. File:UniversityIceland.JPG
  35. File:UniversityIcelandSeasons.png
  36. File:Iceland-Reykjavik-National-Theatre-1.jpg
  37. File:Reykjavik Catholic church.jpg

All the above images are photographs of buildings designed by the Icelandic architect w:Guðjón Samúelsson who died in 1950. COM:FOP#Iceland states that "'freedom of panorama' images are free only for non-commercial uses" and this is backed up by Article 16 of the Icelandic Copyright Act. Article 43 of the Act also states that the duration of the copyright is for 70 years after the year of the copyright holder's death. Further to this discussion I am given to understand that Icelandic law changed the previous 50 year after death limit to 70 years and this brought previously PD images back under copyright. Therefore these images cannot be used for commercial reasons until after 31 December 2020. --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These images aren’t being used for commercial reasons, though, are they? No one’s profiting from them... Maxí (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except commons can only host images which are free to use for any purpose, including commercial. These images fail that as they are still under copyright. --JD554 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limitation to non-commercial is not allowed on the commons. According to COM:FOP#Iceland these images have to be deleted if the buildings are in Iceland (didn't check all of em) Sorry to see one of my images go. -- Chris 73 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait a day, lest TommyBee can save his images. Fingalo (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I made copies, so they may be deleted. Since Iceland is such a small country I decided to contact the government. I think they didn't see that coming. To start with I sent a mail to the Minister of Justice and her Multimedia-specialist. ASAP I will contact them personally. Lets see what happens. TommyBee (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Icelandic law, in Article 63, says The provisions of the first paragraph [stating the new law applies to old works] shall not, however, apply to measures which have already been taken or rights acquired by third parties on the basis of prior Acts. The continuing distribution to the public or public exhibition of copies of works or of performances is permitted if the making of these copies was unrestricted at the time their distribution or exhibition took place, without prejudice, however, to the provisions of Article 24 prohibiting the rental or loan of works. That would strongly imply that photographs made/published while the building was public domain (i.e. prior to the restorations taking effect) remain OK now. If that was the case, then  Keep those. According to the linked discussion, that would be several of them. The Leif Ericson statue also seems like it was a gift from the United States in the 1930s... that may not be copyrighted anymore either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I've numbered the files to make this easier) That looks promising. The ones that fall within the dates 1 January 2000 to 15 February 2006 (when PD images could be made according to Lupo in the linked discussion) should remain at least until TommyBee gets a response to his query. The others that fall outisde those dates, however, are definitely still copyrighted and still need to be deleted. The images which fall outside those dates are numbers: 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. --JD554 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I'm afraid the discussion cited is based on a misunderstanding (Lupo cites me, quite possibly I said something wrong or confusing at some point). Copyright was extended to 70 years in 1996 so Guðjón's works were never out of copyright. According to Commons policy and Icelandic law (which is of course unjust) we should delete. You could not sell postcards with these images without paying the architect's heirs (or the local collection society or something). Haukurth (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we'll have to move the images over to each Wikipedia. I'm gonna send an enquiry to a couple of ministers and Alþingi members. --Stalfur (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. That is what I thought when first looking, but since others thought that 2006 may be the date, I didn't question it too much. However the photos primarily of the statue have nothing to do with the architect of the building. That would be based on the sculptor of the statue instead (or, since it was a gift of the U.S. government in the 1930s, it may qualify as PD-USGov or PD via other U.S. rules). Those should not be deleted on the basis of the building architect's date of death. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the reason these pictures are now on death row is that they had information on the architect and got categorized. There are no doubt plenty of others that should be deleted under the same logic. Both File:Neskirkja1.JPG and File:Breidholtskirkja.JPG were, for example, no doubt designed by an architect that died less than 70 years ago (or are still living) and the image description pages don't list the architects. Haukurth (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neskirkja Architect: Ágúst Pálsson (1893-1967). Fingalo (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Breiðholtskirkja was apparently designed by a team of three people in 1977, at least one of whom I see is still active.[16] If we're to be consistent I suppose most of Category:Buildings in Iceland should be deleted (or moved to other wikis). Haukurth (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As the author of three of these images I'd say there is no real reason to hurry deleting the images. I hope, somebody might be able to sort out things reasonably and for the intermediate time we might tag those images with the apropriate information. Andreas Tille (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Am afraid that the descendants of Guðjón Samúelsson are well known for exercising their copyright, however it is questionable if Guðjón had copyright over some of the buildings, see: http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/grein.html?grein_id=48276, and he has been noted as the designer of a few buildings that he did not design but merely signed off (an Architect signing off a building is a legal requirement over there, my great-grandfather was a builder in Iceland and used GS to sign off a few of his designs). Also per an earlier discussion of manually copying files to different Wikipedias, most countries honour the Icelandic convention vis a vis, notable exception the USA, so by uploading it from another country you are still breaking copyright. And while the pics are good they are not vital are they ?
I'm not deeply enough in these copyright things to judge here, but as far as it concerns Hallgrímskirkja I'd regard this as a remarkable thing in Reykjavík and a WikiPedia page would not be really complete without such an image IMHO. BTW, for the fun of it, I would not mind presenting an image where the church is replaced by a black background and point to strange copyright laws restricting rights of a photographer :-(. Andreas Tille (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an argument for fair use could be made on each wiki. However, fair use images aren't allowed on commons. --JD554 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per COM:FOP#Iceland, unfortunately. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored in 2021 now that Guðjón Samúelsson copyright has expired. Platonides (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images in Category:Dale Chihuly located in the USA

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in the USA : see COM:FOP#United States.

I don't list individual pictures nor warn individual uploaders.

This very useful message from user:Multichill made me understand that I have an extra-slow computer and that it would be silly from me to spend time doing tasks with my slow computer while most of the people here possess extra-quick computers which can perform the same tasks much more easily and quickly than I could.

Teofilo (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the US location ones individually below, except for one that was Commons:De minimis, in my opinion, and one that I deleted immediately. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Walter. Teofilo (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted those that were in the US (FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of deleted images

_accessed via [17]. List added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/07/24&oldid=34396297"