Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
No certain date on original record cover publication, certainly not pd-ineligible. fetchcomms☛ 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Too simplistic a style, consists only of text and a logo that is not eligible for copyright. Only 3 google hits for "elephants marched around March", including the label's Myspace page[1], which indicates this record was produced shortly after 1914, so it is old enough for PD in the US and the UK. -Nard the Bard 02:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- How is the logo in the center not eligible for copyright? (I'm referring to the one that looks like a crown and two scepters.) fetchcomms☛ 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's my opinion it's not! -Nard the Bard 02:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think the only element of the label which is not simple text is the crown & scepter logo. I have added {{Trademark}} to the image description page. Infrogmation (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept Nominator withdrawn as publication date has been found and image is established to be PD. fetchcomms☛ 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This file is a duplicate of File:Girl listening to radio.gif --Dannys9 (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Speedied as duplicate. fetchcomms☛ 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Girl listening to radio.gif
Change to DR from speedy nomination which read "Low quality porn image, out of scope -- Ies (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)" --KTo288 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment--In use at ko:wiki not in the cope of Commons to editorilise other projects.}}
- Delete The image has only just been inserted in the Korean WP article. We have hundreds of quality penis images, and several dozen of the glans penis; there is surely no need for this very poor and blurry one. --JN466 20:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This very very poor quality image is not longer in use at ko:wiki and over here is easy replaced by dosens of much better images. -- Ies (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Substandard image quality. Encyclopedic use not possible. High Contrast (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable. Not particularly illustrative.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It is truly awful photo, and I would be happy to remove it, but it's in use on it.wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted... Image has now been replaced on it.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted design. fetchcomms☛ 01:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The author Martha Bolaños de Prado is from Guatemala and deceased in 1963, less than 75 years ago. fetchcomms☛ 01:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No FOP for statues in the US. Sculptor is still alive. fetchcomms☛ 02:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Author, exact date unknown, not certainly PD. fetchcomms☛ 02:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- "According to the transitional regulations of 1995, photographic images without artistic merit are exempt from copyright protection provided that they were created before 1 January 1970 (§91, 5)." Also, "Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 specifies (§70, 2) that all photographic images not considered to be 'works of art' become public domain 50 years after they were created." This image should fit to both. Erik F (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. "artistic merit or originality" given Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
error in the file name; duplicate of Ivan Alekseev award nomination, page 1.jpeg Fastboy (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, monument unveiled in 2001 thus not PD yet. A333 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed in 2000. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
With all respect to the uploader, this is a terrible photo. It is oversharp, overexposed (then levelled so half the image is grey) and completely replaceable by the much better File:313107 C North Woolwich.JPG. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image owned by the National Parks Board (NParks), a Singapore government agency, as the image states "Illustration courtesy of NParks". No evidence that uploader has permission from NParks to license the image to the Commons. Current licence ({{PD-SG-photo}}) is wrong as it only applies to photographs the copyright in which has expired. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image owned by the National Parks Board (NParks), a Singapore government agency. No evidence that uploader has permission from NParks to license the image to the Commons. The current licence ({{PD-SG-photo}}) is wrong as that only applies to photographs the copyright in which has expired. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a scan of a 1975 book (= non-PD and not free). — Yerpo Eh? 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
While it is likely the actual BackTrack kernel (Ubuntu-based OS) is under the GPL, the individual tools it runs are not all GPL. I could find nothing about licensing on their website, but apparently nobody in their forums knows either. fetchcomms☛ 02:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The network tools shown in this screenshot are distributed under the following licenses:
- Wireshark - GPL [2] (scroll far down)
- Kismet - GPL [3] (not explicitly referred to on their page but the source files name it in their headers)
- ISC DHCP - ISC license included in the source tar ([4]), granting "permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee [...], provided that the [above] copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
- So, I don't see any violated copyrights here. --Dannys9 (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank so far. There is nothing not under the GPL so far. Hope the file can stay here. --Fake4d (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image exists only to disparage subject, no encyclopedic value or use. COM:PS explicitly prohibits attack images. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. I'd suggest Kintetsubuffalo looks at other similar deletions requests relating to images by this artist such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. That one rumbled on for a while but was eventually kept. Considering that image is critical of an individual rather than this which doesn't attack anyone in particular, I doubt the outcome of this would be that this image is deleted. However, I'll explain why I think this should be kept. I disagree that Commons:Project scope prohibits us from hosting images like this. I don't dispute the suggestion that this image was created as an attack. My interpretation would be that Commons:Project scope is intended to prohibit files which were created or uploaded here to use Commons as a platform for attacking people. This is about preventing Commons being misused, not stopping us hosting images which, whilst likely to offend, are or could be used legitimately for educational purposes. This file already seems to be used legitimately on the ar.wikipedia as an example of Latuff's work and it would appear to have further potential to be useful in similar ways on other projects. To delete this image would therefore seem to be detrimental to ar.wikipedia, other projects which could potentially use this image, and Commons as a host of educational content. In light of the outcomes of previous similar deletions requests, I would encourage Kintetsubuffalo to consider withdrawing this request and thereby avoiding the drama that would inevitably result otherwise whilst it being unlikely this would be deleted. Adambro (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think this qualifies as an "editorial cartoon" rather than an "attack image". It is does disparage, but an ideology, not an individual, and that in an editorial context, which is common in editorial cartoons. The cartoonist has articles about them in 8 languages, thus is in project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wonderful, brilliant, outstanding work of art. --Starscream (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as it is in use and by a notable artist. // Liftarn (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ggia (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm with Infrogmation when he says that the pic it's not attacking anyone in particular but it is just an illustration of a point of view about a general concept, I agree with Starscream because, for me also, the pic it's a work of art, and Liftran has a point: the picture is in use and made by a notable artist.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Useless image, with no educational use. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See above discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I did not see it. Carlos Latuff is an important drawer of pictures. I had not to nominate this image. I made a mistake. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wonderful, brilliant, outstanding work of art. etc. --Starscream (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ggia (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very descriptive and veracious image. Image that it illustrates very well the Nazi people. Ferbr1 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, non admin closure. Per previous discussion and withdrawn nomination. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality, not realistically useful. Wutsje (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No proof of authorship and bad resolution --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom - taken from somewhere Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Spam.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange personal logo - out of scope, unusable, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Space spam.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope (should be taken from the website) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I was worried: no self promoting I-look-badly-boy bands today? Thanks Cholo. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any encyclopedic value in keeping this badly faded image? Even the metadata says "copyright not specified"--whatever that means? And there is no source on panoramio for it. Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The Commons uploader states that they are the photographer, apparently they uploaded it earlier to panoramio. The "Copyright Not Specified" in the metadata I think simply means the photographer didn't set the digital metadata. The image is in use on ja:Wikipedia, suggesting it is useful. From these I would lean to keep, but I am illiterate in Japanese and so cannot fully evaluate this image and its context. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I admit that it's not the best shot of the year, but -because it's in use and it has a clear context- it is, evidently, more encyclopedic than we could suppose just watching at it. All the elements of this file indicate to me that there aren't enough clues to dispute that the uploader it's not the real author of the pic. It seems the contrary. But my impression could be anyway false. Open to other interpretations. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: OK, I withdraw this DR. But still, an Admin must consider passing the image. Hopefully this is not a problem with the closing Admin here. But, this is not necessary here. Just closing this DR here is sufficient. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence could not be proven with the given source. Essential source information is missing. --High Contrast (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a direct copy of [5] --Pethrus (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment for me it seems to be that only the data are taken - that is allowed (as far as I understand), not a direct copy Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would say it's more than data, given that even the outline was copied. --Pethrus (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not enough originality when one compares with File:Beef cuts France.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I am the author of this image. It was made thanks to the image quoted through Inkscape. For me, there is no problem of right, because only information of the image was used. It is not a copy / stick. Regards ----Abalg (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think the parts limits are indeed not copyrightable, but the cow shape probably is. --Pethrus (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteLet's not kid ourselves. The cow is absolutely identical, right down to the expression on its face and the incomplete strokes at the neckline and the hooves. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, outline is copyrighted, and this diagram is a exact copy. Kameraad Pjotr 12:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, unless the logo can be shown to be under a free license (possible, but unlikely). Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, ce flicage est vraiment navrant et sans aucune utilité pratique ni juridique. La question est néanmoins posée au Conseil Général de la Charente-Maritime, très favorable à toutes les diffusions possibles de son image, évidemment. Je vous informerai de sa réponse as soon as possible.--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Un drapeau avec une licence, s’est une idée curieuse digne d’Alfred Jarry … mais, par ailleurs nous vivons une époque curieuse. Sur le principe je suis contre l’idée de la suppression de cette image, ce n’est pas à nous de nous ridiculiser. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Pour mémoire, l'objectif de Commons, c'est une médiathèque de contenus libres de droits. Il y a un certain nombre d'administrateurs qui dépensent énormément de temps pour essayer que ça soit le cas. Que vous ne souhaitiez pas faire ce travail c'est bien compréhensible, mais si vous pouviez éviter les démonstrations gratuite de mépris pour ceux qui le font, ce serait formidable. Merci d'avance. --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mépris pour mépris, le nominateur aurait peut-être apprécié une information préalable sur sa talk-page... Merci d'y penser la prochaine fois--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Les messages sont laissés automatiquement sur la page de discussion du dernier uploader. --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mépris pour mépris, le nominateur aurait peut-être apprécié une information préalable sur sa talk-page... Merci d'y penser la prochaine fois--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Réponse reçue ce jour du CG de Charente-Maritime:
Bonjour, Toute photo, quelle qu'elle soit et quel que soit l'objet représenté, est protégée par le droit d'auteur. Avant de l'utiliser vous devez avoir l'autorisation formelle de son auteur. La représentation du logo, qu'elle quelle soit, doit faire l'objet d'une demande qui précise le cadre de son utilisation (contexte, support). En espérant avoir répondu à votre question, meilleures salutations.
Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Bon... Ben désolé. Pour info il me semble que le conseil régional d'Aquitaine, qui fait figure d'exception, a mis certaines versions de son logo sous CC, mais je n'ai jamais pu trouver des déclarations claires et précises. --Eusebius (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- J'ai demandé la permission de publier la photo du drapeau quand même, on va voir.--Jebulon (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Heeeep là, pas si vite. Voici la question posée par moi même au CH de Chte-Mme:
- Bonjour, merci de votre prompte réponse.
- Heeeep là, pas si vite. Voici la question posée par moi même au CH de Chte-Mme:
Je souhaite obtenir l'autorisation de publier sur "Wikimedia Commons", dans la rubrique "Drapeaux de la Charente-Maritime" la photographie jointe (et seulement cette photographie, non le logo en lui-même), prise par moi même sur le port de La Rochelle.
Merci (la photo litigieuse en pièce jointe)
Voici la réponse reçue ce jour:
Bonjour,
Pas de problème pour cette représentation du logo dans ce contexte.
Bien cordialement
Isabelle L.
Responsable édition et achats d'espace
Direction de la communication & des Stratégies de l'Innovation
Je tiens naturellement les originaux de ces courriels à la disposition de toute personne habilitée sur "Commons" à me le réclamer, et sous réserve évidemment de l' assurance absolue du respect public de mon anonymat.
Je pense au surplus qu'il serait peut -être opportun, désormais, de supprimer le bandeau sous l'image. Qui doit s'en charger ?
Enfin, je pense qu'il convient de mettre une info adéquate (dois-je changer la licence ?) indiquant que la publication de cette photo est autorisée par son ayant-droit.
Merci !
--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Alors je le dis en préliminaire, hein, rien d'agressif ou de méprisant dans ce que je vais dire. Mais ce type d'autorisation doit être enregistré via OTRS, la plate-forme de gestion des mails de la fondation (bon ça c'est du détail, un mail ça se forwarde), mais ce genre de permission n'est valide que si elle autorise explicitement la publication sous une licence libre, c'est-à-dire permettant les oeuvres dérivées et la réutilisation commerciale (un accord explicite pour un nom de licence particulier suffit). Le texte du mail présenté ici n'en dit rien, donc des précisions sont à réclamer auprès de l'interlocuteur (et c'est toujours peu plaisant de l'embêter plusieurs fois de suite). C'est pour ça qu'on a des modèles d'e-mails tout faits, j'aurais sans doute dû en parler avant mais j'ai eu la flemme parce que vous êtes des habitués. Mea culpa. Donc voilà, il y a encore un petit mail de confirmation à demander (puis à forwarder à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), en demandant si c'est ok de publier sous telle licence.
- Au passage l'un des intérêts de la plate-forme OTRS c'est de conserver les e-mails de manière confidentielle, parce qu'on n'a pas le droit de balancer le texte d'une correspondance sur le wiki (qui est 1. un espace public et 2. sous licence libre)... --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Bonsoir
Je me doutais bien que ce ne serait pas aussi simple...
Je ne suis en aucune manière un habitué, présent depuis quelques semaines seulement sur "Commons".
- Oui, je voulais dire que vous étiez des gens que j'étais "habitué à croiser". --Eusebius (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
J'avais bien lu toutes ces pinailleries, mais je pensais que c'était uniquement destiné à décourager les contributeurs.
Pour le reste, je n'ai certes pas l'intention de réformer tout seul le système, évidemment. Mais pardon de le dire, pour ce qui est du caractère insuffisamment (ou non) explicite de l'autorisation, il s'agit là d'une traduction en français de fichues notions de droit américain, qui n'ont pas cours ni aucune valeur juridique en France. Si le Conseil Général de Charente-Maritime faisait un procès à "Commons", il le ferait en France, sous l'empire de la loi française. Et je vous garantis bien que l'autorisation que je présente ici suffirait amplement (j'ai quelques titres à prétendre celà...).
- Je vous garantis que non, mais là tout de suite j'ai pas le temps. --Eusebius (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
On va néanmoins prendre les choses à la légère, et je vais embêter encore la dame L., qui semble être d'une patience d'ange ('m'étonne pas d'une payse). Si j'arrive à enfin avoir le "droit" (je l'ai déjà) de publier mon oeuvre immortelle (légèrement noisy et vraiment pas terrible, à la révision, mais c'est marrant, je me mets à y tenir de plus en plus, là...), je m'auto décernerai une "Barnstar" spéciale.
Enfin quoi ! Vous n'êtes pas Surcouf, ni moi Anglais, pour me "bothering" à ce point !! (
)
Vous faites ça souvent ? Parce que vous devez vous faire souvent engueuler, non ?
- Oui, et oui. Administrateur sur Commons, c'est un job merveilleux. Les utilisateurs nous aiment. --Eusebius (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bon bin bon courage pour la suite, alors. Mais ne vous éloignez pas, je reviens !!
A plus !--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pour information, Mme L. a envoyé une autorisation via OTRS (ticket # 2010060410024197) qui ne peut PAS être validée (pour le moment) car elle ne semble pas avoir compris qu'elle plaçait de facto le logo de son département sous licence libre, ce qui permettrait de conserver cette photo, une œuvre dérivée du logo.--Bapti ✉ 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- C'est faux ! L'oeuvre dérivée peut être publiée sous une licence libre sans que l'oeuvre préexistante le soit, il suffit d'avoir l'accord de l'ayant-droit. C'est pour ça qu'on peut avoir des photos de tableaux sur Commons sans que les tableaux eux-mêmes soient sous licence libre. --Eusebius (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alors là, ça devient vraiment rigolo !!!
- Alors là, ça devient vraiment rigolo !!!
- C'est faux ! L'oeuvre dérivée peut être publiée sous une licence libre sans que l'oeuvre préexistante le soit, il suffit d'avoir l'accord de l'ayant-droit. C'est pour ça qu'on peut avoir des photos de tableaux sur Commons sans que les tableaux eux-mêmes soient sous licence libre. --Eusebius (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reprenons. (Il va vous falloir un peu de temps et d'attention, mais ça vaut VRAIMENT le coup !)
1)-je publie une photo d'un drapeau sur lequel on voit le logo de la Charente-Maritime. Personne ne s'avise de rien.
2)-je soumets cette image en QI, elle est proposée pour une promotion.
3)-là l'Eusèbe dit "Derivative Work", et hop "File Deletion Request", façon guillotine.
4)-Diantre ! Un peu piqué tout de même, j'écris au Conseil Général de la Charente-Maritime pour demander la permission, c'est mon département préféré vu que c'est là que je suis né. (on s'dit tout, hein?)
5)-Une dame du CG me dit d'abord que non, puis après explications que oui.
6)-Pas peu fier, je montre ici mon autorisation, mais....
7)-L'Eusèbe remet ça, et me dit que oui mais non, c'est pas comme ça qu'on fait. Le fond pourrait être bon, mais pas la forme
8)-Un tantinet agacé, je réécris à la dame sans conviction (elle a quand même autre chose à faire), m'excuse de l'embêter, mais que si elle voulait bien faire un copier-coller de mon formulaire américano-redondo-nunuche, ça serait super...
9)-Cet aprème, contre toute attente je dois dire, je reçois notification que la dame a non seulement bien recopié le formulaire d'acquiescement, mais qu'elle l'a renvoyé à "permissions Commons", comme je le lui avait suggéré, avec moi en copie. Elle est quand même vachement sympa et motivée pour faire de la pub à son département à travers son logo vu sur un drapeau, non ?
10)-Très content, quand même, je m'apprête à répondre à la Dame pour me confondre en remerciements et la prier à nouveau de m'excuser et lui dire qu'elle est super, et j'ouvre ma messagerie perso pour ce faire.
11)-V'la t'y pas qu'un Zélé(*) (pas l'Eusèbe, un autre !!) m'envoie en copie un courrier qu'il lui adresse, en lui disant que oui, mais non, c'est pas bon. T'es sûr que t'as compris ? T'es bouchée ou quoi ? On te dit que c'est ton logo qu'on va publier, et t'es d'accord ? T'es pas un peu barjotte ? t'as vraiment vraiment mesuré toutes les conséquences ? Parce que le Jebulon, il te parle d'un drapeau, mais en publiant le drapeau, tu acceptes qu'on utilise ton logo, et donc précise-nous bien que c'est avec ça que tu es d'accord, mais nous on serait toi, on réfléchirait à deux fois, quand même, vu qu'un logo, c'est pas rien, on te rappelle !! En général, les autres font pas comme ça, fais gaffe et soit à c'qu'on t'dit ou quelque chose d'approchant, frôlant la menace. Moi je serais la Dame (gentille)... que je te dirais à ces gommeux que je sais ce que je fais, vu que je suis responsable à la Direction de la com. du département.
12)-Là, j'hésite entre mettre franchement le boxon (mais je ne sais pas trop comment), ou bien exploser de rigolade. Pas content quand même (j'ai un naturel râleur), je viens ici exposer ma façon de penser.
13) -Partez pas, c'est pas fini, mais là je suis largué et plus concerné, ça se passe entre Zélés(*). Car un Zélé(*) a décidé de me faire mourir de honte devant la dame (pas l'Eusèbe, ni l'autre, mais un troisième, on dirait). Il dit que oui, mais non, pas vraiment, car la dame "ne semble pas avoir compris" (vraiment trop c..., la nana) et que si on publie une oeuvre dérivée, c'est comme si on publiait "de facto" l'oeuvre elle-même. (On ne va pas se lancer dans un cours de Droit français, mais je commence vraiment à en avoir envie, là)...
14)-Et là, coup de théâtre et roulement de tambour ! L'Eusèbe il dit que les (autres) Zélés(*) se gourent, que le Jebulon, il a clairement demandé (et obtenu) la permission de publier une photo d'un drapeau sur lequel se trouve le logo de la Charente-Maritime (allez-y, c'est beau !) et pas la reproduction du logo, et que c'est pas la même chose tout à fait scrogneugneu.
15)-J'ajoute que le Jebulon n'a essayé de tromper personne, et il a toujours bien parlé du drapeau à la Dame (même qu'il a mis le lien du fichier dans son courrier, et invité ladite Dame à venir regarder cette page-ci (pour rigoler un peu, mais quand même)...)
16)-A part ça, importez des images sur "Commons", n'hésitez pas !! Vous serez bien accueillis et encouragés !!
17)- Formule choc pour conclure ? J'hésite entre "Ubu pas mort" et "amis débiles bonjour", mais ça ne serait pas gentil (notez que je ne traite personne de "débile", ça serait de la diffamation, mais c'est une autre histoire...).
(*)Zélé: entendre ici Pseudojuristus autoproclamatus sp. (les pires !!)
- Au fait, j'oublie un truc : Y'a intérêt que le concepteur du logo soit le Conseil Général lui-même, parce que sinon, si on doit retrouver le détenteur du droit moral sur l'oeuvre, on n'est pas couché !!
- Les esprits fins auront noté que j'ai tenu ce discours en 17 points. Or 17 = Charente-Maritime. Brillant, non ? Bon allez, atchao pour de nouvelles aventures. (Pendant ce temps-là, le drapeau se balade sur le web, il a été promu, et bénéficie donc du label "image de qualité". MDR...)
--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question: est-ce qu'il existe en France le droit panoramique? Je pense que ce serait la chose la plus simple que de mettre une telle licence (si jamais: {{Template:FOP}}), cependant elle ne permet pas l'usage de l'image qui reste "protégée" par les droits d'auteur. Aliman5040 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Non, pas de droit de panorama en France, malheureusement. Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il soit d'une quelconque utilité ici d'ailleurs, mais c'est un autre débat (et complexe). --Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question: est-ce qu'il existe en France le droit panoramique? Je pense que ce serait la chose la plus simple que de mettre une telle licence (si jamais: {{Template:FOP}}), cependant elle ne permet pas l'usage de l'image qui reste "protégée" par les droits d'auteur. Aliman5040 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted logo. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose this map for deletion because it have possibly incorrect licence. Licence used for this map claims that it is free for use because 70 years passed from death of its author, but in the same time, author of this image is unknown. Due to the fact that image was created in 1906, we do not know for sure is this file free for use or not. For example, if (unknown) author was some 30 years old when he created this map in 1906 and if he died when he was let say 80 years old (in 1956), then 70 years after his death would be year 2026 and image could not be free for use before that year. 194.106.189.244 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 194.106.189.244 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I put previously the wrong license tag. Now it has the right one. --Olahus (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- licence still seems incorrect, since with this licence „authors should never disclosed their identity“ and note in the licence say: „Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.“ Your image does not have specified source or evidence that author never claimed authorship. 194.106.189.117 22:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was a single map without a specified author.--Olahus (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I repeat that note in the licence say that you have to provide source of this map and evidence that author never claimed authorship. I do not see that such evidence is presented. 194.106.189.100 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which source? It was a single map. What is so hard to understand? How should the author claim authorship when he is unspecfified and therefore unknown?--Olahus (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You did not specified from which source (book, web page, whatever) you took this map. Also, new template that you included is for anonymous author, not for unknown one. Anyway, this licence issue should be examined by some administrator. 194.106.189.149 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't taken from a book or web page. It is a loose map. And as far as the author isn't mentioned, he is anonymous. If you want to, let this licence issue be examined by an administrator. --Olahus (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- You did not specified from which source (book, web page, whatever) you took this map. Also, new template that you included is for anonymous author, not for unknown one. Anyway, this licence issue should be examined by some administrator. 194.106.189.149 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which source? It was a single map. What is so hard to understand? How should the author claim authorship when he is unspecfified and therefore unknown?--Olahus (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I repeat that note in the licence say that you have to provide source of this map and evidence that author never claimed authorship. I do not see that such evidence is presented. 194.106.189.100 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was a single map without a specified author.--Olahus (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- licence still seems incorrect, since with this licence „authors should never disclosed their identity“ and note in the licence say: „Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.“ Your image does not have specified source or evidence that author never claimed authorship. 194.106.189.117 22:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image is in the public domain; no author or source. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I propose this map for deletion because it have possibly incorrect licence. Licence used for this map claims that it is free for use because 70 years passed from death of its author and we have 4 authors mentioned here (Sc. Demetresco, C. Polyso, A.D.Atanasiu, Ed. Borcea), but we have no specified years of death of these authors. Due to the fact that uploader of this map (user Olahus) uploaded some other maps with similar licence problems (for example here he claimed that image is free for use because 70 years passed from death of its author but in the same time he specified that author is unknown and due to the fact that image was created in 1906, we do not know for sure is this file free for use or not. For example, if (unknown) author was some 30 years old when he created this map in 1906 and if he died when he was let say 80 years old (in 1956), then 70 years after his death would be year 2026 and image could not be free for use before that year). Same problem could apply to this image, i.e. there should be either clarified when exactly authors Sc. Demetresco, C. Polyso, A.D.Atanasiu and Ed. Borcea died, or if such clarification is not provided, this image should be deleted because if some of the authors died after 1940 then this image is not yet free for use. 194.106.189.244 10:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- If some of them died after 1940, delete the image. --Olahus (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Company logo, not owned by the "creator". Janders (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is a simple logotype, with two letters and basic graphics elements. Would not {{Pd-textlogo}} apply? --Kildor (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. Incomplete deletion nomination (not listed, not tagged and no notification to uploader) and bad rationale for nomination. Sweden has a high threshold of originality; File:Upphovsrätt på teknisk ritning.png was ruled by the Supreme Court as ineligible for copyright protection, and this is much, much simpler. I've removed the incorrect authorship claims and added {{Trademarked}}, so it should be fine to close this now. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as {{PD-textlogo}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
