Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Appears on the (NSFW) website http://www.pokazuha.ru/view/topic.cfm?key_or=794922&lenta_type=1&type=83 and as it has no extended information, this seems to be some kind of Flickr washing unless appropriate permission can be forthcoming Chzz ► 04:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- This photo may not be properly licensed. I'm not a detail person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamboniman10 (talk • contribs)
- Of course, it's not properly licensed. You can't take photograph from random websites, remove copyright notices from it, and then upload this photo under false own work claim to Commons. Trycatch (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rastrojo: Copyright violation
Sideways duplicate of File:Bridge Street Rezoning Petition.jpg Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Bridge Street Rezoning Petition.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Non mi serve più Dr Claudio radio signal 11:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Watermark Common-Man (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - not used, seems out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Advt Common-Man (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused logo with no context Santosga (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal images - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal images - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal images - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and the other three - please combine your deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
just a text, unused, seems to be a test, useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused out of scope image. ZooFari 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate, my mistake, please, delete. Karelj (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:Dachstein map.jpg
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep A window. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it is a skylight -- but shows clearly original architectural features. It is not just whole buildings that are protected by copyright, but details as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the word, skylight. A utilitarian thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it is a skylight -- but shows clearly original architectural features. It is not just whole buildings that are protected by copyright, but details as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. and copied to fr.WP Coyau (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. and copied to fr.WP Coyau (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. and copied to fr.WP Coyau (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. and copied to fr.WP Coyau (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. and copied to fr.WP Coyau (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Non free file, should be on en.wiki (error while upload) Arnaud Ramey (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tagged as speedy as uploader requests to delete own image.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Sandstein (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
duplicate Vozsoprano (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Duplicate of what? --Justass (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I need to delete the duplicate image: please I need only one image. Thanks
File in use, duplicate not named. We need a link. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copy vio of this page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also a copyvio of this Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 24 September 2010
no notability (the article in ru.wiki is deleted). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Self portrait, with no foreseeable educational purpose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Says own work at the same time it says it's Ricardo Lacsamana's painting; also only license {{own work, non-copyright restrictions that directly affect Commons|month=October|day=18|year=2009}} Prosfilaes (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}. It was uploaded without a license tag and with a {{No license since}} tag on 2009-10-18, meaning it was eligible for speedy deletion seven days later (2009-10-25). On that date, it still had the problem tag and no license before 67.161.19.130 (probably the uploader editing anonymously) broke the template the following day. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient evidence that uploader is Lacsamana. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparent professional photo from an actor's profile. An anonymous source is not sufficient to address the obvious issue of who owns the copyright of a professional photograph. Fæ (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - exif says: "Author: Dean Farrell - Orcatek.com". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Shows a copyrighted photo of a person. The uploader is surely not the photographer of the person, only of the poster. Geiserich77 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not permanently located. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-Azerbaijan at this case, because Afrasiyab Badalbeyli was died in 1976. Dinamik (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Source explictly says non commercial use only -- http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/legal.html Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
bugged file, was replaced by uploader by File:N-Dodecilbencensulfonato nuevo.svg Santosga (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
it is old picture of this person 109.243.70.45 18:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That's no reasonn for deletion Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, etc.. Frédéric (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Acciona's logo is not free. Look at http://www.acciona.es/notalegal Luispihormiguero Any problem? 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a picture of a ship! Logo is de minimis. Otherwise we would have to delete tons of images of ships and other vehicles. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded a more complete version here: File:Haarlem - Dolhuys - SinnelooseeMensche.jpg Jane023 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission and has been tagged for it since Sept 8. Obvious copyvio. Mbinebri (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
One of three obvious copyvios from uploader. Image is an advertisement; uploader likely did not have permission to upload it. Mbinebri (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Another of editor's dubious uploads - this one a film screencap taken from a fanpage. Mbinebri (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a notable person. Wikipedia article was deleted: " * 21:22, 25 September 2010 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted "Karam Pratap Singh" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" GeorgHH • talk 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Spam. Mostly plain text, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 22:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 10:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 11:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am the uploader: file can be deleted. --Nepenthes (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of French death metal band with no notability as decided here fr:Malariah - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Artist was Einar Jónsson. He died 1954. Fingalo (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No free content: image is a rendering and not created by any user. It is fair-use, which is not allowed. Jerchel (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Artist was Einar Jónsson. He died 1954. Fingalo (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Added by me but wrongly named. It is unwanted. Plucas58 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
Next time save yourself and the Admins time and trouble and just put {{Rename}} on the badly named file, as in {{rename|Coston_parish_church.jpg|Misspelled}} and an Admin or Filemover will move it.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Artist was Einar Jónsson. He died 1954. Fingalo (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Artist was Einar Jónsson. He died 1954. Fingalo (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this a notable person? GeorgHH • talk 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this a notable person? GeorgHH • talk 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a notable person, see ru.wikipedia. GeorgHH • talk 23:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Not an unknown author - A book on tube maps I have credits the artist as 'Stingemore' 212.225.108.96 23:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. F. H. Stingemore, died 1954, see initials FHS in lower left corner, also The London Transport Museum site. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure who the current copyright holder is or what its status is, but highly doubtful that uploader owns the copyright to a tobacco pack insert of a footballer. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted football club crest. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This copyrighted football crest contains a lot more than just text and simple geometric shapes. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation Malpass93 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Contains more than just text and simple shapes. eligible for copyright Ytoyoda (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Law in Brazil states that only 70 years after death of author, his/her works enter on public domain. By description itself, even the work has 70 years, which implies this photograph violates Brazilian Copyright Law. Kleiner (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 1958 is not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
promotional materials for the TV series Jewel in the Palace. Bluemask (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete. The description page refers to an OTRS permission from the architects. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had missed that, and I withdraw this nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not public domain, the photographer Heinrich Hofmann not died 70 years ago. See historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de, photographer is written on the image. Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you sure that this should be this Hoffmann (the indicated page does not indicate "Heinrich")? --Bjs (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1) The typical writing on the photo (Hoffmann, Phot.) 2) the image is also aviable in the database of the Fotoarchiv Hoffmann at the Bayrische Staatsbibliothek, image number hoff-142, an archive dedicated to Heinrich Hoffmann (1885-1957) and indicating Hoffmann as the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Art work of an living artist (see de:HA Schult ) GeorgHH • talk 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm not completely sure what I'm looking at, but it appears that each one of the images is OK as de minimis and the building is in Germany, therefore FOP applies, so the whole is OK. Or am I missing the point? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- It´s an art project by HA Schult, see de:Kaiserbauruine. It was installed only in 1999, so FOP-Germany dont fits because of non-permanently installation. --GeorgHH • talk 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but I think my analysis still works -- the individual images are de minimis and the building is FOP (I assume the building is permanent, although the images were there only in 1999). Or, do you think that the whole collection of images has a copyright separate from the individual ones? If you think so, I'll defer to your better knowledge. (Sorry, I don't read German, so the link at WP:DE doesn't help me.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- In my view the arrangement (collection) has a separate copyright because this (the arrangement) is the artwork. --GeorgHH • talk 09:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but I think my analysis still works -- the individual images are de minimis and the building is FOP (I assume the building is permanent, although the images were there only in 1999). Or, do you think that the whole collection of images has a copyright separate from the individual ones? If you think so, I'll defer to your better knowledge. (Sorry, I don't read German, so the link at WP:DE doesn't help me.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Attributing the authorship to oneself to someone's work. One wikipedian during the Request For Adminship on pl.Wiki was asked about the autorship of a file, which was uploaded by him. In the photo we can see himself. Firstly Matekm said that a Woman (girlfriend?) had taken that photo. So then he was asked again "Who is the autor of that photo?" Matekm changed his mind, and has said that he was the author.
I have found to be against the licensing I said I didn't trust Matekm. Matek M bear a grudge against me for my statement. Still I think he is not an author of that picture, and now it's confusion. Matek M thinks that if there was no Deletion request everything is OK [1]. So I want to open Deletion request, where situation will be considered by a Commons Comunity in that copyright case. If the Woman got rid of the copyright file should be in the public domain, rather than CreativeCommons and Matekm as the author. JDavid (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Translation from RFA of Matekm
How have You taken this picture? Does Your camera have an autotriger that reacts on tought of this Wikiuser ;)? JDavid
- I would want to allude that a person which at that particular moment pressed the trigger of the camera dosn't have to be an author. Pundit
- Very intresting. I'm waiting for an answer. JDavid
- A photo was taken by a Woman :) Matekm [2] (girlfriend?) (No. Camera (by Matekm (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)))
- Who is the autor that photo? JDavid
- hmm, I thought that we have been joking of that picture, but now I see, You are asking about copyrights. Yes, I am the author of this photo ;) Matek M [3]
- Who is the autor that photo? JDavid
- A photo was taken by a Woman :) Matekm [2] (girlfriend?) (No. Camera (by Matekm (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)))
- Very intresting. I'm waiting for an answer. JDavid
- Yes, I confirm that I'm the author of this photo. There is one person that could confirm that also, but I'm not sure what procedure for that is? Email from that person is enought? By 'Woman' I meant camera that I took the photo - simple misunderstanding of my words, which sometimes happen on the net, because I thought that JDavid was joking (JDavid removed one sentence from our conversation - I added it; I also changed the translation a bit, because it was wrong - first JDavid asked me how I did this photo and because it was my PUA with a lot of question I thought it was a joke). I hope that there are peoples that confirm that making of such a photo is easier than JDacid thinks (he think that this is impossible). Cheers Matekm (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- and I hope that here are some people that understand that sometime, some people are saying something wrong (I should state from the beginning that I'm the author of this photo) Matekm (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yes, the person who takes the photo is generally the copyright holder. However I see no reason that if a photographer sets up a pose and the angle from which a photo is to be taken, and then has his wife/girlfriend/random stranger do the mechanical act of pressing the button on his camera per oral agreement, that the copyright cannot still reside with the person who set up the shot and owns the camera even if they did not physically press the shutter button. In such situations the person who presses the button may be acting more as a substitute for a timer or remote control than as an original photographic artist who expects to retain copyright of the resulting photograph. Infrogmation (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- In such situations IMO it's more like a teamwork and the copyright holders are composition creator and button presser. A person doing the mechanical act of pressing the button on his camera, also in that moment choose a instant of facial expression, move of eyelids or delay for flying bee in frame. It cannot be denied contribution of presser, which also choose holding position of camera that effects on stabilization of photo. JDavid (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that a "camera button pusher" might not sometimes make creative contributions to photographs; I'm simply arguing that the presence of a "camera button pusher" does not of necesessity negate or usurp the copyright of the person who set up the shot, owns the camera, and gave instructions as to when and where the button was pushed. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- In such situations IMO it's more like a teamwork and the copyright holders are composition creator and button presser. A person doing the mechanical act of pressing the button on his camera, also in that moment choose a instant of facial expression, move of eyelids or delay for flying bee in frame. It cannot be denied contribution of presser, which also choose holding position of camera that effects on stabilization of photo. JDavid (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the subject of a photograph cannot be the copyright holder. Kameraad Pjotr 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the Skoda logo free? Official site says that the new Skoda logo was created in 1999, but looks like it is relatively simple DW from the preexisting 1926 logo, and origin of the old logo "is shrouded in mystery" [4], so now it's likely free as {{Anonymous-EU}}. UPD: +another version of Skoda logo timeline from an official site. Trycatch (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the cited site says "author of the idea (the stylised head of an Indian wearing a headdress with five feathers) is said to be the commercial director of Škoda Plzeň, T. Maglič". We should at least verify that Mr. T. Maglič wasn't still alive after January 1, 1940. --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ideas are not copyrightable, only expressions of ideas are. And clearly "commercial director" wasn't the designer who created expression of this idea. Trycatch (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Corporate logo. Not text only
Copyright Infringement from Rosenergoatom ChNPP (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dont delete this image pls. Its images of the Centre of the Public Information Balakovo NPP. When all fotos will be loaded on this catagory (Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant), we let's send letter for reception OTRS keys for all at once. It happens in some days. Wait pls. CPI BalNpp (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have the central problem, the copyright holder is not exactly defined, also the photographer of the image. Please request these datas. So i think, the other images in the Category:Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant are to copyright infringement and there is also this problem. ChNPP (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think its not problem Dirk. The copyright holder — Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant, photographers — workers of the plant, they have not copyright on images, its term of contract. Data request of this fotos difficult, but later, little by little it happens. Hullernuc (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a big problem! Copyright violations can prosecution have. It's not my problem, but the problem of the uploader. And I know, the images of Rosatom an all subcontractors of it don't give free their images, because it's regulated in the russian law. When Rosatom say as owner and thus the employer of the People who work at Balakovo and the information centers, it's okay, than it's allright. But the user must request the premission to upload the images before the user upload the images. Thats the central problem. So I say it to CPI BalNpp on his discussion page, he has one week to request the permissions bevor I placed deletion requests in the other images because of copyright violations. Wikimedia Commons has clearly defined his rules. Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think its not problem Dirk. The copyright holder — Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant, photographers — workers of the plant, they have not copyright on images, its term of contract. Data request of this fotos difficult, but later, little by little it happens. Hullernuc (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have the central problem, the copyright holder is not exactly defined, also the photographer of the image. Please request these datas. So i think, the other images in the Category:Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant are to copyright infringement and there is also this problem. ChNPP (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- should be kept per ticket 2010110210002338 - clear permission from Rosenergoatom Rubin16 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, has OTRS permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent (after 1945) sculpture -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the sculptor's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rather anonymous 1918 sculpture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, I note that it is a memorial for both wars. If you can show that it was built after the first war, I would be happy to withdraw this, even though the question of whether the sculptor died before 1940 is unproven. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just look at the lettering. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, I note that it is a memorial for both wars. If you can show that it was built after the first war, I would be happy to withdraw this, even though the question of whether the sculptor died before 1940 is unproven. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
? Maybe I'm being dumb today, but I see nothing to tell us if
- It was built after WWI and then had the second plaque added later or
- It was built after WWII as a memorial to both wars.
The two plaques look to be about the same age, so I'd guess the latter. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The 1914-1918 inscription is on the front of the monument, the side of the obelisque that is decorated with palm leaves and a cross. On the left side, this village of about 200 inhabitants commemorated five of its sons that had not returned from the trenches; on the right three more, and a nurse, miss Marguérite Vanloo. Then, after WWII they added one more name, but the numbers in "1939-1945" are not as high and not as thin as 25 years earlier. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that the sculptor died before 1940. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted, now public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted, architect's copyright has expired. Abzeronow (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an image from the Bettmann Archive so despite being taken from a website in Swedish, the license does not apply. Since it's likely that the photographer is known and the photograph was taken in 1951, I don't believe there's any way this could have fallen into the public domain yet.Forgot about the 25 year, 20 publish Argentinian rule that would be appropriate if we can find first publication.Shell babelfish 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (Update: Full image located here)
- Keep - change license to {{PD-AR-Photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- While it's pretty clear that the photo was taken more than 25 years ago, I haven't been able to find proof of the author nor when and where it was published. If you can find those (as required by the template) I'd be happy to fix it up. Shell babelfish 06:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The law does not require the name of the photographer. There is an entry about this photo here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Right, and the date and place the photograph was taken aren't in question, just the date of any publication which I haven't been able to find. The only reason I was concerned about the author was because this was rather a famous rally and there exists the possibility that the photographer was a visiting journalist from another country which opens up a whole new set of problems, however, I'd be willing to assume that it was most likely an Argentinian who took the photo if we could sort out the publication issue. Shell babelfish 10:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The law does not require the name of the photographer. There is an entry about this photo here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- While it's pretty clear that the photo was taken more than 25 years ago, I haven't been able to find proof of the author nor when and where it was published. If you can find those (as required by the template) I'd be happy to fix it up. Shell babelfish 06:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-AR-Photo}} seems a reasonable assumption. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted, copyright has now expired. Abzeronow (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the building? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Located at Reims, France--Thcollet (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I mean, I do not see a building in the photo. No walls. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Located at Reims, France--Thcollet (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Windows PDA is not free software Quadell (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Windows Mobile (the operating system) isn't free software, however FreeOTFE4PDA (which this screenshot is of) is opensource (free) software; see [5], or the FreeOTFE article on Wikipedia. 2008Carlos (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, the copyrighted elements are de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This file, the logo of railcar manufacturer CAF, is listed on English Wikipedia as non-free. I believe that this file is likely original enough that it is not public domain as simple typeface, and therefore this is not permitted on Commons for being non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: PD text logo only three letters "CAF", typeface does not give rise to copyright Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not requesting deletion per se, but I think it should be cropped to remove the copyrighted album cover. I don't think it counts as de minimis, because the inclusion is not incidental. –Tryphon☂ 08:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The album cover is, if you take a closer look, made by the subject himself (see also here[6]) Subject seems to be founder of that band, and played[7] in it. Subject seems to be very happy in the photo and even posing for it... Sonty567 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright Infringement from Rosenergoatom ChNPP (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dont delete this image pls. Its images of the Centre of the Public Information Balakovo NPP. When all fotos will be loaded on this catagory (Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant), we let's send letter for reception OTRS keys for all at once. It happens in some days. Wait pls. CPI BalNpp (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have the central problem, the copyright holder is not exactly defined, also the photographer of the image. Please request these datas. So i think, the other images in the Category:Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant are to copyright infringement and there is also this problem. ChNPP (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think its not problem Dirk. The copyright holder — Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant, photographers — workers of the plant, they have not copyright on images, its term of contract. Data request of this fotos difficult, but later, little by little it happens. Hullernuc (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a big problem! Copyright violations can prosecution have. It's not my problem, but the problem of the uploader. And I know, the images of Rosatom an all subcontractors of it don't give free their images, because it's regulated in the russian law. When Rosatom say as owner and thus the employer of the People who work at Balakovo and the information centers, it's okay, than it's allright. But the user must request the premission to upload the images before the user upload the images. Thats the central problem. So I say it to CPI BalNpp on his discussion page, he has one week to request the permissions bevor I placed deletion requests in the other images because of copyright violations. Wikimedia Commons has clearly defined his rules. Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think its not problem Dirk. The copyright holder — Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant, photographers — workers of the plant, they have not copyright on images, its term of contract. Data request of this fotos difficult, but later, little by little it happens. Hullernuc (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have the central problem, the copyright holder is not exactly defined, also the photographer of the image. Please request these datas. So i think, the other images in the Category:Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant are to copyright infringement and there is also this problem. ChNPP (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- We've got permission from Balakovo, marked images as "OTRSreceived". Now it's been processed Rubin16 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that ChNPP is right: we can see copyright "© 2010 Rosenergoatom Concern OJSC". So we need permission from Rosenergoatom Rubin16 (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- should be kept per ticket 2010110210002338 - clear permission from Rosenergoatom Rubin16 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- great :) Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
peliculas degeloucii 188.85.79.159 11:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Question Is that an argument for deletion, please explain? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the original design. Eusebius (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Licensing issues Dereckson (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The three issues to solve
- Is this logo copyrighteable or in public domain as not copyright eligible?
- If it's public domain, the file should be kept.
- If the logo is eligible to copyright, were it covered by this GPL license ot were it only applicable to the code?
- If it's GPL, the file should be kept and the license description rollbacked to the GPL one.
- Is this license still applies at the upload date, date as it were replaced by the the modern version "distribute with attribution where you want, but not on Wikipédia"?
- If no, the file must be deleted, as No derivative work allowed.
Regular votes
[edit]
This section includes the votes from the Commons regular contributors and from Bruno pages, the Bouml developer.
- Keep, a few text characters are not eligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Text was written using font Choc (1955) created by w:Roger Excoffon, French typeface designer. Btw, I feel very bad that the free software author got alienated from Wikipedia. Trycatch (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Someone charges 36 euros for that font ? If I understand correctly, typeface designs only have 28 years max design protection in EU law. If someone created their own font files based on the Choc design, you'd have a free font. The font users really should wake up to this extortion practice of font resellers, or am I wrong? TheDJ (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, the documentation and content of the sites of Bouml including the images (being the logo or not) are not under the GPL, contrarily to the software and the code generated for the plug-outs. This image was illegally get in 2008 while it was forbidden by the legal mentions corresponding to the current version rather than the older version dated 2007 mentioned by Dereckson. Bruno pages (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Tryphon : this logo is in PD.--Bapti ✉ 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment what's means 'PD' ? As I already said several times this image is not a logo, but you do not read my sentences you censor ... Bruno pages (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- PD means public domain. This image, whatever you want to call it, is too simple to be eligible for copyright. Even if the author didn't want to release it under a free license, it is free because you cannot copyright a few characters per se (only a complete font is copyrightable as a computer software). Just like you can't copyright a square. –Tryphon☂ 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That the image is the official logo or not, is not the problem of Commons. The current image falls under PD-Text and lacks the originality it would need to be copyrighted. It the author is forbidding the BOUML official logo to wikipedia usage, it stays its choice, but it has nothing to do with Commons here. Supposed that's not the official logo and that the official logo cannot be used for legal (and idiotic my personnal point of view here) reasons, then it fits in the scope for representing BOUML on commons. The usage that M. B Pages wants to forbid on the Wikipedias does not affect Commons here, since it is not the official logo and it is not protected by any form of copyright. Now it's up to the Wikipedias to decide which images they'll use if they decide to use any. Esby (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- May be I wrongly understood but I saw wikimedia deletes images not still referenced. The infobox used in the 3 articles about BOUML explicitly asks for the logo, so the reference of this non logo image has to be removed in these articles, so this image no more still referenced has to be removed from wikimedia. It is very strange administrators don't follow wikimedia world rules, is all of that would be a bad dream ? Bruno pages (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The policy of the wikipedias does not affects Commons and is probably not an uniform one as it might differs per project. For instance, the people of the english wiki are not the same as the ones from the fr or the fi wikis, their local policies might differ. Commons is hosting files that are suitable for any wikis and for external sites not necessarily related to wikipedias. Here, while the image concerned might be not in use in the wikipedias projects, it might be useful for something else, like a blogger, who might be seeking an image to illustrate the subject (to give an example: someone running a blog could take the image from commons, according to the licence restriction and use it accordingly to your licence, the same applies to someone tutoring other people etc.) The special restriction you added on this image is at best childlish: it targets a group of people that actually won't care about this piece of software and it will only makes your software less distributed and or used in the end, but that's your choice, even if it is silly. Now, copyright restrictions only applies to materials that can be actually copyrighted: for that they must pass the threshold of originality. Finally, for reminder, there is not policy saying that unused images have to be deleted from Commons. Esby (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- May be I wrongly understood but I saw wikimedia deletes images not still referenced. The infobox used in the 3 articles about BOUML explicitly asks for the logo, so the reference of this non logo image has to be removed in these articles, so this image no more still referenced has to be removed from wikimedia. It is very strange administrators don't follow wikimedia world rules, is all of that would be a bad dream ? Bruno pages (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly PD-textlogo. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep clearly a textual logo, which isn't eligible for copyright protection (in the US and most other countries, including european). If the author of it wants protection, he should definitely consider registering a trademark with the european trademark office (I checked, not currently registered). This will still allow Wikipedia to use the logo of course, but it will be more difficult for commercial entities to use his logos within his industry. TheDJ (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Side note, the extra conditions that the author introduces into his license for this software, might not be compatible with the Linux distribution Debian. Firefox had similar problems with Debian in the past on a topic like this. TheDJ (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- More notes. If this is not the official logo, then it shouldn't be used, but that is not the primary nomination reason. Also WE at Wikimedia Commons do not decide for the individual Wikipedia projects, wether or not something should be used, and such should be addressed on the individual projects, on the talk pages of the articles. TheDJ (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What is all this going on??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.5 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
“External” votes
[edit]
This section includes votes from IP contributors or accounts with less than 10 contributions before the RfD.
- Delete, 3 major reasons:
- This image is not the official logo for Bouml.
- The author of the image and of Bouml software is very angry with Wikipedia and its editors as he requested several times to delete it. He has announced that Bouml development is frozen due to conflict with Wikipedia (see Bouml homepage). He may completely stop the Bouml project due to that conflict, which will be very bad for Wikipedia, as Bouml is widely used in the free software and educational communities.
- That is fair... and I am a [Grand Ancien of Wikipédia] - not a reason, just kidding! And, to be honest, I personally knows Bruno Pagès and I am surprised that there is no listening and comprehension in that ridiculous story. – Valéry Beaud (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Où serait le logo officiel de Bouml ? Que serait cette image alors ?
- Look at http://bouml.free.fr/images/bouml_logo.png: this is the official logo, but it is proprietary (not under GPL!) and there is no chance now that the author allows Wikipedia to use it by courtesy. - Valéry Beaud (talk)
- Il n'y a aucune raison de céder à un quelconque chantage, même si on peut tout à fait comprendre la volonté du développeur du logiciel. Cette œuvre est de facto dans le domaine public : il n'y a pas de raison de se priver de l'utiliser si elle est utile, ce qui est le cas (pour illustrer un article de Wikipédia en l'occurrence).
- Mik's answer (see below) is the most appropriate here. - Valéry Beaud (talk)
- What blackmail? From where do you draw it ? Bouml is frozen (may be dead) by reaction, not by blackmail. This image is fully useless in Wikepia articles, what is the interest to have in them BOUML written through a text and just below BOUML again through an image ? Articles no longer be understood without ? Bruno pages (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Un logo est une image importante au sein des connaissances sur un produit ou une société : c'est une des informations que Wikipédia doit présenter, ce qui est légalement tout à fait possible, quoiqu'en pense le gérant du logiciel.--Bapti ✉ 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your answer is completely out of scope, do you really read the answers ? this image is not a logo Bruno pages (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Un logo est une image importante au sein des connaissances sur un produit ou une société : c'est une des informations que Wikipédia doit présenter, ce qui est légalement tout à fait possible, quoiqu'en pense le gérant du logiciel.--Bapti ✉ 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Si l'image est supprimé par gentillesse, M. Pagès pourra ensuite demander que l'article de Wikipédia soit remanié pour faire la pub de Bouml, là encore "par gentillesse" ?--Bapti ✉ 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Bouml needs absolutely no advertising from Wikipedia... In your dreams perhaps :-) - Valéry Beaud (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again from where do you draw it ? There are three articles about Bouml more other articles mentioning it, some since several years, did I already ask for a change in them ? And to say what ? like Valéry said I don't need advertisement. In this pitiful story started several years ago I am the victim, and Wikipedia is the aggressor, don't try to reverse the roles Bruno pages (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipédia n'agresse qui que ce soit mais synthétise les connaissances humaines relatives à votre logiciel. Que cela plaise ou non à ceux qui développent le logiciel.--Bapti ✉ 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was assaulted few years ago when my article was deleted without any discussion nor warning, and because of several consecutive different and absurd reasons. The non respect of the Bouml license is an other aggression. You Mr Bapti you personally assault me in your previous answers through your with your baseless innuendo. It is also very rude to respond in French to a discussion in English. Bruno pages (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipédia n'agresse qui que ce soit mais synthétise les connaissances humaines relatives à votre logiciel. Que cela plaise ou non à ceux qui développent le logiciel.--Bapti ✉ 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Où serait le logo officiel de Bouml ? Que serait cette image alors ?
- Delete If the image is not the valid logo of BOUML, then what is the point of having it in Wikipedia? What is so precious about this image to defend its deletion against author's will? Mik— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.183.102 (talk • contribs) 20 août 2010 à 00:42 (UTC)
- So what exactly is the claim here? It's not the official logo, so there is no trademark issue (although we don't really care about trademark issues here), it's a succession of five letters written in a font that the software's author did not create... How can he claim copyright over this!? If it was copyrightable at all, the creator of the font would be the copyright holder. If I were to write "Bouml" in Times New Roman (and maybe I just did, depending on the font you're using in your web browser), would Bruno Pagès claim I infringed his copyright?
I can only repeat, there is no copyright for this image because there is no creativity involved, and font characters are utilitarian. –Tryphon☂ 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)- Let us consider we just care about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles here (no copyright considerations). If the author of the application claims that the image is not the logo, then putting it as the logo in Wikipedia article is misleading to readers. It does not matter whether you proove it is Public Domain or not. Mik
- But we are talking about deletion from Commons, not whether or not it should be included in Wikipedia. If the only objection now is that it's not the official logo, I don't think it's a reason to delete it; some people may think it should not be used on that Wikipedia article (or at least, not misrepresented as the official logo), but that's a different matter. –Tryphon☂ 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, all the Wikipedia sites in the special mention includes Wikimedia Bruno pages (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- But we are talking about deletion from Commons, not whether or not it should be included in Wikipedia. If the only objection now is that it's not the official logo, I don't think it's a reason to delete it; some people may think it should not be used on that Wikipedia article (or at least, not misrepresented as the official logo), but that's a different matter. –Tryphon☂ 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let us consider we just care about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles here (no copyright considerations). If the author of the application claims that the image is not the logo, then putting it as the logo in Wikipedia article is misleading to readers. It does not matter whether you proove it is Public Domain or not. Mik
- So what exactly is the claim here? It's not the official logo, so there is no trademark issue (although we don't really care about trademark issues here), it's a succession of five letters written in a font that the software's author did not create... How can he claim copyright over this!? If it was copyrightable at all, the creator of the font would be the copyright holder. If I were to write "Bouml" in Times New Roman (and maybe I just did, depending on the font you're using in your web browser), would Bruno Pagès claim I infringed his copyright?
- Delete wikimedia should respect the opinion of the original software author. This should not be just a point about legality. When someone donates/contributes to the public domain, it is done in good faith. His effort should be respected not abused.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.25.23 (talk • contribs) 21 août 2010 à 10:32 (UTC)
- Non, la volonté de M. Pagès n'a pas à interférer dans les projets Wikimedia, qui sont indépendants : il n'y a pas lieu de ne pas mettre un logo si celui-ci est dans le domaine public et utile pour illustrer un article.--Bapti ✉ 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your answer is completely out of scope, do you really read the answers ? this image is not a logo Bruno pages (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Very well, it's not a logo. That means you have even less right over it than you do already, which is pretty much zero. This is not a logo, it's five characters, and as is too simple to me copyrighted. I'm sorry you feel aggrieved about this, but simple text is not copyrightable.
- But ok, let's say we did delete this. What is to stop me going to MSPaint, spending thirty seconds and creating the exact same thing, and then uploading it here? It would be a free image, and I can legitimately claim that you did not create it. But it would be pointless - I would have no copyright on it, it's too simple. We have an image. The image is simple, and is therefore public domain. We collect free images. This image is free, and meets our scope requirements thanks to your whatever it is this is not a logo for. Therefore this should be kept... -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your answer is completely out of scope, do you really read the answers ? this image is not a logo Bruno pages (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The program is HIS. The image originated with HIM. The usage in wiki-land is about HIS program. Please do not hide behind the disingenuous appearance of concern for what is "legal" only so that you can feel like the policeman or judge - instead, simply do what is RIGHT and kindly remove the image according to HIS request... simple.
- As for the lame excuse that it is just 5 characters put together - I am sure I could string several sets of 4 or 5 characters together, as text or graphic, some more colorful than others, that would immediately be removed from these pages! But still, they would only be 5 characters in the "PD"... (does that stand for Police Department? Psychologically Disoriented? Prison Detainee? Personal Decision? Pretty Dumb...) - Robert
- As stated supra, PD stands for public domain. An image is copyrighteable only if it's original, ie it passes the threshold of originality. --Dereckson (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well that is supra-dupra, but my point was this: Whether it is copyrighteable [sic] is not the issue here - in fact, portraying this as having such a legalistic foundation is a complete mis-carrigage of Mr. Pages request. Although he may now be asking for removal of the graphic on a "copyright" basis, that has more to do with the fact that only "legal-based" claims are respected by those with ability to remove the image - it is the only path open to him in this forum! But the FACTS are:
- PD does not apply here: It is MORE than 5 characters in the public domain - It is 5 characters which constitute the name of HIS project, portrayed in a distinct graphic style which most people would mistake for his logo (I myself did so), and most importantly IT IS DISPLAYED IN THE CONTEXT OF A PAGE ABOUT HIS PROJECT.! He does not claim world-wide exclusive use of the letters B, O, U, M and L, but he does absolutely have an interest in how those letters are displayed within THIS context! His request pursuant to that interest is simple, please remove the graphic. - Robert
- PD does apply, it's a font (which appears to be either standard or at least free) used to create 5 letters and coloured. It's too simple for copyright. It doesn't matter what font you use, the letters BOUML would not be copyrightable unless you yourself put some effort into it, for instance creating the font yourself, but even then you could only claim copyright on the font, and not what it is used to create. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- What you are describing is trademark, not copyright (a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities). Something can be in the public domain and trademarked at the same time (the Coca-Cola logo for example). As TheDJ mentioned above, Bruno Pages may consider registering Bouml as a trademark, which would allow him to limit the use of this name in certain contexts, but not get this image deleted from Commons. –Tryphon☂ 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- PD does not apply here: It is MORE than 5 characters in the public domain - It is 5 characters which constitute the name of HIS project, portrayed in a distinct graphic style which most people would mistake for his logo (I myself did so), and most importantly IT IS DISPLAYED IN THE CONTEXT OF A PAGE ABOUT HIS PROJECT.! He does not claim world-wide exclusive use of the letters B, O, U, M and L, but he does absolutely have an interest in how those letters are displayed within THIS context! His request pursuant to that interest is simple, please remove the graphic. - Robert
- Well that is supra-dupra, but my point was this: Whether it is copyrighteable [sic] is not the issue here - in fact, portraying this as having such a legalistic foundation is a complete mis-carrigage of Mr. Pages request. Although he may now be asking for removal of the graphic on a "copyright" basis, that has more to do with the fact that only "legal-based" claims are respected by those with ability to remove the image - it is the only path open to him in this forum! But the FACTS are:
- As stated supra, PD stands for public domain. An image is copyrighteable only if it's original, ie it passes the threshold of originality. --Dereckson (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- As for the lame excuse that it is just 5 characters put together - I am sure I could string several sets of 4 or 5 characters together, as text or graphic, some more colorful than others, that would immediately be removed from these pages! But still, they would only be 5 characters in the "PD"... (does that stand for Police Department? Psychologically Disoriented? Prison Detainee? Personal Decision? Pretty Dumb...) - Robert
- Comment The problem is, that the existance of this picture could misled authors of wikipedia articles to use it as tho logo of bouml, which would be wrong. So there has to be found a way making clear that this image is not the loge of bouml. What about renaming the image and adding a comment to the image description, so that it gets clear that this image is not the logo of bouml? DanPB (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- there are 3 errors :
- its existence violate the license
- the description says it is the logo of Bouml
- in the column Comment of the table speaking about the license it is wrongly written GNU (I can't understand how it was possible to add the link to the page legal mention without reading it).
- I didn't find any way to remove GNU from this table because there is no edit for it, I didn't insist because I ask for the deletion of the image itself. Bruno pages (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- A description can still be corrected, but it's not a valid reason to delete an image. I am sorry but I am going to employ harsh words: You are acting like a 8 year old child, grow up. Besides I doubt that 8 year old child would say that wikipedia fr administrators are acting like the Stasi people [8]. In other words, your attitude is a disgrace to what the free software is supposed to be, but you probably don't care, you can probably stop developping it, we just won't care, we act (as commons administrators) on legal basis and have no real time to waste on non-issues. If some people needs this software, either they'll continue the project and fork it without you either they'll use or develop something else. This is how it always worked. Ever heard on how XFree86 became Xorg? You want to mob your user basis (and actually take them in hostage) for revenge issues on other people, that's fine, but don't forget to stop that before it is too late for you: We are not going to go back on this matter, an unfriendly attitude will get you nothing, So stops these threats and don't forget the w:Streisand Effect, Esby (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- What are you speaking about ? I don't ask for to delete this image because its description is false. I confirm that I consider to modify my sentences in a discussion (not in an article) is a manipulation similar to method used by stasi, or any similar organism or non democratic government etc. I work on Bouml still 8 years, and several years before I worked on Xcoral, but you are free to imagine I work against free softwares or I don't know what a free software is or may become. You should use your analyze for your own flowerbeds, there are several reasons explaining why the number of new articles on Wikipedia decline so fast since last years, one of them is the behavior of the administrators liking so much to do exactly the reverse of what contributors expect (and this discussion perfectly illustrate that), it is also glaucous to see the hope to reject administrators whose don't have enough contributions, means whose don't reject enough contributor articles or request, working against contributors you work against Wikipedia Bruno pages (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- A description can still be corrected, but it's not a valid reason to delete an image. I am sorry but I am going to employ harsh words: You are acting like a 8 year old child, grow up. Besides I doubt that 8 year old child would say that wikipedia fr administrators are acting like the Stasi people [8]. In other words, your attitude is a disgrace to what the free software is supposed to be, but you probably don't care, you can probably stop developping it, we just won't care, we act (as commons administrators) on legal basis and have no real time to waste on non-issues. If some people needs this software, either they'll continue the project and fork it without you either they'll use or develop something else. This is how it always worked. Ever heard on how XFree86 became Xorg? You want to mob your user basis (and actually take them in hostage) for revenge issues on other people, that's fine, but don't forget to stop that before it is too late for you: We are not going to go back on this matter, an unfriendly attitude will get you nothing, So stops these threats and don't forget the w:Streisand Effect, Esby (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Legally correct or not, one might respect the wish of the creator of the five letter word. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.26.67.150 (talk) 08:44, 2010 August 23 (UTC)
- And BP probably wishes we don't host images of oil spills. We do not delete material simply by wish. In that case, you are looking for a genie in a bottle, they are very capable I was once told. TheDJ (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Pity, it was enough to have Bapti doing this kind of glaucous speculation, out of the fact doing that you surfing in dangerous waters ( the defamation is a criminal offense ), this is fully useless except to indicate who you are rather than me.Your sentence we do not delete material simply by wish isalsovery significant concerning your mood, but can you explain why it is possible in this case to ask for a deletion and why people get time to introduce all this procedure ? Do you think people reading this discussion will appreciate discovering how are the behind the scenes of Wikipedia ? Bruno pages (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)- Well we don't. We delete based on arguments, not by wish. TheDJ (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- And BP probably wishes we don't host images of oil spills. We do not delete material simply by wish. In that case, you are looking for a genie in a bottle, they are very capable I was once told. TheDJ (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Most of people just don't care if it's legal or not to keep it against author will. It's seem there has been several mistakes from wikipedia concerning this picture.
Bruno Pages is not a big company working against people liberties. For the past years, he proved to be a great contributor of the free software community. Today, he is angry about the wikipedia community and don't want to share his work with you.
As you said many times, this picture is only 5 characters put together in a particular font. It has finally no value for anyone. So, in my opinion, be smart and intelligent and remove definitely this picture.
If you absolutely want to continue to argue that you have the right to keep it against author will (which is probably true legally), recognize your errors, change the description in the picture (accordingly to Bruno Pages) and don't use this picture as the BOUML logo.
For your concern, I will continue to use BOUML application but will never look again at wikipedia the same way but this is only my point of view.B.fronton (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Our errors? you don't seem to realize the reality: there are no errors performed by Commons administrators, just a silly request from Bruno Pagès. Mr Pages can't protect something that is not boundable by copyright (or its equivalent, 'droit d'auteur' in french). The technical answer is simple: there is no reason to delete the file. The debate about the usage of the image on the Wikipedias (please note the s) is not Commons's problem. It's not to us, people of commons, being administrator or regular user to take such decision. There is also no reason for us to cede to this kind of blackmail that involves penalizing the users of the software (or any kind of users) just to please the author ego. Esby (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than continue to rant nonsense on me, why do not you really read what B.fronton wrote, for instance the sentence containing the word error ?Bruno pages (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that you want to fight for your rights but I believe that you should take into consideration the human part. You're true, you have no technical nor legal reason to delete this picture but Bruno Pagès is not a bad guy willing to hold up our freedom, he just want to be sure that no one will me mislead by this picture and he is angry against Wikipedias for using this picture as a logo. So I still keep thinking that you should delete it. I made a mix up between Wikipedias and Commons : so no error from Commons, my mistake! I just wished you could be comprehensive about the whole situation. B.fronton (talk)
- Speedy keep - like Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBISeal.png. /83.254.245.55 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete In french law, the sole name "BOUML" is protected by intellectual property (author rights) as the name of an original software. In the terms of Article L121-2 of the Intellectual property code, "Only the author is entitled to diffuse his creation... He determines the process of diffusion and prescribes the conditions of this diffusion." Thus, writing "BOUML" in a place and font that are both unapproved by Bruno Pages violates French laws. Keeping this image is liable to prosecution against the author of the involved wiki article, the wiki administrators and the wiki website hosting society. - Ojamet (talk)
- The work protected is the software (see the article L112-2 for the list of all protected kind of works). and, indeed, the work title si protected (L112-4). But the L112-4 field concerns other works, not original work quoting. I dare you to find any jurisprudence using L112-4 in another way.
- What the 112-2 really provides as protection, is that if someone develop another UML software called Bouml or UltraBouml without the Bruno Pagès consentment, it could be a copyright infrigment. It doesn't mean you can't quote the name of any work ; if so how would you publish a book or software review? --Dereckson (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is your interpretation. Article L112-4 says "Le titre d'une oeuvre de l'esprit [...] est protégé comme l'oeuvre elle-même." / "The title of a creation is protected in the same way that the creation itself". The second alinea of L112-4 gives only a special case. You will not find jurisprudence because there is very little jurisprudence about free software.
- My interpretation is that displaying "BOUML" in an way that the author does not approve is equivalent to distributing a creation protected by intellectual property without the consent of the author; it has the same moral impact than distributing the software itself without the consent of the author (which you would not imagine to do).
- Your remark about publishing a software review messes everything. Of course you can write what you like *about* the software but you cannot do what you want with the software itself, nor with its name itself. Take a non polemic example: if you write an article about LaTeX, Leslie Lamport can request that you always write "LaTeX" and never "latex", because he is in right to think that designating his work by "latex" harms his interests. Can tou understand that ? Olivier Jamet (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- But, technically speaking, he can only ask to respect the original name (and typography) of the software, here, LaTeX, he can't forbid the usage of it to talk of it. Even when a term is trademarked, you can still use it to talk of the designated and trademarked product. The L112-4 article allows the author to choose a name for an oeuvra, not to forbid its usage by other people. This interpretation is very narrowed and would most likely be ignored, since moral rights are usually much more limited when it comes to software. Esby (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you backing your claims by relevant jurisprudence or doctrine or anything else, and not only raw law text (as you guessed by yourself the keyword is interpretation and the relevant one is the interpretation by courts for jurisprudence and copyright specialists jurists for doctrine). And about your notice about the free software lack of cases, Droit d'auteur is droit d'auteur, feel free to find any stuff related to traditional software, books, what you want copyrighteable. --Dereckson (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I won't. My point is not to show that you will be sentenced for that. My point is only to contribute with some facts because I honestly think it is an error to consider that the only issue is PD.
i) It is a fact that Bruno Pagès is owner of the software BOUML and of its name;
ii) It is a fact that displaying the name of BOUML in an unapproved manner, moreover of a website that is considered as a knowledge reference, is an infringement to the french law protecting the authors; but of course, you are free to think that it is an reasonable infringement;
iii) it is a fact that you might be prosecuted for this; but of course, it does not mean by no way that I claim you will be sentenced for this: I agree that the interpretation of the law is difficult, and above all that its application is, and relies on an expert analysis of the jurisprudence.
This being made clear, I think everybody here should transpose the case to other examples in order to get free from the irrational part of the issue (your personal opposition to Bruno Pagès):
-- what would to be done if you were requested by the author of LaTeX to write LaTeX and not latex in a WP article ? (you did not answer that question);
-- what would to be done if Dreamworks asked you remove an image lettering the word Shrek from a WP article about this picture ?
I will stop my contribution on the very point from now (I do not dream to convince you). Olivier Jamet (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I won't. My point is not to show that you will be sentenced for that. My point is only to contribute with some facts because I honestly think it is an error to consider that the only issue is PD.
- And how convenient that you left out of your quote the part about originality; your "[...]" actually reads "dès lors qu'il présente un caractère original", which is not the case here ("boum", a commons onomatopoeia, plus an "l"). Your second and third points are about trademark, not copyright. –Tryphon☂ 09:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just as relevant as saying that Shrek is not an original name since it is just a sequence of common letters of the alphabet. Olivier Jamet (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the word "Shrek" is not eligible for copyright either. –Tryphon☂ 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- "bouml" is certainly not "boum"+"l", anyone looking at the goal of bouml immediately understand that Bruno pages (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just as relevant as saying that Shrek is not an original name since it is just a sequence of common letters of the alphabet. Olivier Jamet (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Summary of why to not delete the image
[edit]
Comment because the discussion becomes very long and arguments are placed into different sections, to help playing the role of devil's advocate I try here to list as honestly as possible the arguments used by the administrators to prevent the destruction of the image (I don't list here the thesis based on the fact it is the logo of Bouml because it seems now all understand that) :
- [shared] this image is Public Domain
- [Bapti] There is no reason to yield to any blackmail, even if one can quite understand the will of the software developer (original sentence : Il n'y a aucune raison de céder à un quelconque chantage, même si on peut tout à fait comprendre la volonté du développeur du logiciel)
- [Bapti] If the image is deleted by kindness, Mr. Pages can then request that the Wikipedia should be revised to advertise Bouml again "with kindness"? (original sentence : Si l'image est supprimé par gentillesse, M. Pagès pourra ensuite demander que l'article de Wikipédia soit remanié pour faire la pub de Bouml, là encore "par gentillesse" ?)
- [Bapti] the will of M. Pagès did not interfere with Wikimedia projects, which are independent (original sentence : la volonté de M. Pagès n'a pas à interférer dans les projets Wikimedia, qui sont indépendants)
- [Esby] (B. Pagès) acting like a 8 year old child ... (B. Pagès) attitude is a disgrace to what the free software is supposed to be
[TheDJ] BP probably wishes we don't host images of oil spills.- [TheDJ] (admisnistrators) do not delete material simply by wish
I translated above the sentences given in French using google translation, I didn't apply any change on the translation results to not take the risk to change even by error the writer expression. This is only a list and summary, made to help me and readers to globally see the administrator point of view, because a sentence placed out of its context may not have the same meaning I encourage readers to also refer to the original sentences. The fact I list these reasons doesn't mean I share them and of course I encourage readers to refer to the possible answers. Bruno pages (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hey it's not about preventing the destruction of the image, but rather to find a real reason to delete it. You made an exception in your licence, specifying the medias can't be used on Wikipedias, but this can only apply to materials that are eligible to copyright. Here's the situation is clearly PD-text. Now the 8 year old argumentation: 'I forbid usage on Wikipedias because I had issues with some unindentied people a few years ago'. Now, replace Wikipedia by a country, a religion, and you should see how silly is the logic behind those kind of restriction. I honestly don't know what happened on the english wikipedia, maybe things were handled roughly, but this is not a reason for you to act like that. Wouldn't you find idiotic for me to ask for a boycott of "developpez.com" because they have a section in their forum that supports your software? This would be ridiculous, because there are no reasons for specific problems linked to you to translate to the whole scale of this site. The same would go for boycotting UML. Wikipedia is the same, it's not one Site, it's several ones, managed by different communities. You still have not understood that. Legally speaking, you said 'Wikipedias', well technically Commons is not Wikipedia, we are a free media repositery. See Commons:What Commons is not for more details. The recent Deletion Request on the french Wikipedia, was risen due to concerns for the admissibility, not because the version on the english wikipedia had been deleted a few years ago. the argumentation there were not to harm your software, rather the contrary, but you still say those people are like the Stasi? hey seriously, get real. Thanks. (Hey; concluding note, I hope you are not using Bugzilla, because it is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, like Commons or Wikipedia) Esby (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- (1) the 8 year old argumentation : initial problems with Wikipedia
aren't 8 years old but 3occurred 3 years ago, they restarted one month ago, embellished by the your/Bapti/TheDJattacks on my person. In these conditions I don't see any reason to modify the license in short term. However I will of course remove the mentions indicating you violate the license when you will stop to do that. (2) boycott : I don't understand, I never ask for a boycott of Wikipedia, it would be totally ridiculous. Wikipedia is something great and usefull and I never said this is not the case. (3) The recent Deletion Request on the french Wikipedia ... not because the version on the english wikipedia had been deleted a few years ago I never said there is a link, why do you speak about that ? (4) you still say those people are like the Stasi I never said that, my sentence was to modify my sentences in a discussion (not in an article) is a manipulation similar to method used by stasi, to say similar method and people are like the Stasi are completely different. I also suppose your sentence acting like a 8 year old child doesn't means I have 8 year old nor I have the brain of a 8 year old children, isn't it ?. To resume you and others lend me several false intentions or misunderstand my phrases, this not help ... Bruno pages (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- (1) the 8 year old argumentation : initial problems with Wikipedia
- There was a glaring error in your summary, where you confuse your initials with the name of one of the biggest oil companies in the world. I corrected this. TheDJ (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok, my mistake, I removed it from the list Bruno pages (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Summary of why to delete the image
[edit]
Comment because the discussion becomes very long and arguments are placed into different sections, to help I try here to list as honestly as possible the arguments asking for the deletion of the image
- this image is protected by the license
- this image is only few characters and doesn't have any interest by itself
- this image was only introduced in commons and articles supposing this is the logo of Bouml, today knowing it is not the logo this image would never be introduced
(I didn't placed in this list the wish being never taken into account by administrators, nor the fact to reference this image in articles in place of the logo misled because this doesn't concern Wikimedia). Bruno pages (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Summary of why wikimedia review-so-called is a futile waste of everyone's time
[edit]
Comment I will first state that I am a user of BOUML and grateful for Mr. Pages' excellent work from which I have received great benefit. But the observations I am about to express are entirely my own and have been formed solely by my brief participation in this matter.
My sympathy goes to Mr. Pages and all those who make sincere - and reasonable - requests through this channel, for they are mocked, ridiculed and all their time wasted by administrators-so-called who are enthralled by their own self image and are not capable of making a reasoned judgment.
- Mocked: TheDJ first makes the statement, "And BP probably wishes we don't host images of oil spills.", then when that is quoted by Mr. Pages, TheDJ makes the blatently and overtly disingenuous claim, "There was a glaring error in your summary, where you confuse your initials with the name of one of the biggest oil companies in the world.", pretending not to have intentionally set the trap himself... Mr. Pages graciously accepts blame, "ok, my mistake", when quite obviously he was being toyed with. I am sure TheDJ had a good laugh at the expense of all our sensibilities. I find it disgusting that he so victimizes those who come here looking for a reasoned response.
- Ridiculed: Then Esby, from his lofty and erudite vantage says, "Our errors? you don't seem to realize the reality: there are no errors performed by Commons administrators, just a silly request from Bruno Pages.". A man comes to this forum, the only method provided for such requests, with a real, long-standing and valid concern, only to be told that his request is "silly". And with such arrogance, "there are no errors performed by Commons administrators"!
- The whole process is very Kafka-esque and, in my studied opinion, a terrible waste of the time and energies of any serious petitioner who naively believe that their claims will be judged at least in some measure, on their merits.
Finally, what is the greater "good" that is supposedly being served by denying removal of the image in question? It originated with Mr. Pages and has no use or application to anyone other than as a logo or trademark for the BOUML project, which is the very use Mr. Pages objects to! so there is no benefit or "good" being done to anyone by keeping the image. On the other hand, Mr. Pages is obviously distressed at it's use here and some genuine benefit and "good" would be served to him, by removing the image. And if he were the only person who benefited by that then that should be sufficient reason. But it appears that at wikimedia, as in ancient Rome (to paraphrase), "all things are lawful, but to do good is not lawful." No good can possibly be served through such a process as this. - Robert
Kept. PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
independently of the licence problems still existing for me even wiki* consider they don't exist, this file is not anymore used in articles, and because it doesn't have any interest by itself it will not be reused again Bruno pages (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There are no license problems. The fact that you refuse to accept that does not make simple typography copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, we should speedy this; nothing has changed to demand that the DR be reopened in less than a month.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- something is changed : the image is not used now, I just follow recommendations of TheDJ and Derekson (I didn't remember where) Bruno pages (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, we should speedy this; nothing has changed to demand that the DR be reopened in less than a month.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy keep PD-Textlogo stays PD-Textlogo, regardless of usage. And it absolutelly clearly fits this requirement. It's just text. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- PD-Textlogo ? this picture is not a logo Bruno pages (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- {{PD-text}} if you prefer then; the reasoning is the same, it's ineligible for copyright either way. And since we don't delete images just for being unused (and there definitely is potential use for this file), keep. –Tryphon☂ 09:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- {{PD-text}} if you prefer then; the reasoning is the same, it's ineligible for copyright either way. And since we don't delete images just for being unused (and there definitely is potential use for this file),
- PD-Textlogo ? this picture is not a logo Bruno pages (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent sculpture -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the sculptor's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sculpture indoors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim Cecil (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Files:Mary I Stewart - Marie I Stuart.jpg
[edit]
- File:Mary_I_Stewart_-_Marie_I_Stuart_-_01.jpg
- File:Mary_I_Stewart_-_Marie_I_Stuart_-_02.jpg
- File:Mary_I_Stewart_-_Marie_I_Stuart_-_03.jpg
Unused files not realistically useful for an educational purpose. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all three -
and please combine your deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The source file was deleted because of missing sources (It only stated own, which meant that the user did the collage her/himself). Are all the images of commons? This goes also for this file: File:Miami Collage 20090326-2-2.png
- I will do a new collage if we don't find all the sources. Amada44 talk to me 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- All the images are from other files already on Wikipedia. I pieced together this collage. - Marc Averette (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Still missed its sources. Collages have to name all the sources (and authors and licences of used files) and be flexible to change them if the files used for it have problems. Since the needed information (example on how to do it) is still missing after half a year, it is now deleted. -- Cecil (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Modern sculpture, the image is a Derivative Work because it infringes the sculptor's copyright, no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Question - Is a big egg shape copyrightable? Would that mean that whoever managed to copyright it can now sue anybody else who makes anything looking like an egg? (And can collect royalties from supermarkets who sell small replicas of it by the dozen.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. My vote would be that this is a copyrighted sculpture -- the shape is not quite a classic egg and sculptors have generally been given very wide latitude to copyright fairly simple shapes -- but I'm not jumping up and down with conviction -- maybe 60-40 in favor of deletion. As to your second question, no. Remember that copyright only prevents copying, not independent creation. If you write a best-selling short story, and I get a billion monkeys to sit down at a billion keyboards and one of them types out a work that is identical to your short story, it is not an infringement.
- The classic case of this is Phoenix Technologies's production of BIOS code for a PC that did not infringe IBM's copyright. They did it by telling a skilled group of programmers (who had never seen IBM's code or documentation) what the code had to do. Because of the requirements that the code be small and fast, the resulting code was very similar to IBM's, but it did not infringe.
- Of course, who knows if you took a hen in a cage and placed her in view of the sculpture, then if she laid a similar egg, would it be an infringement;-)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a small copy of this, which is out of copyright. But then this is France, where they grant copyright to pyramids... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, I don't think the design is copyrighted, but I'm not sure, so deleted under the Precautionary principle. Kameraad Pjotr 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted, copyright has now expired. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if this can be PD-shape. No license. ZooFari 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent sculpture -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the sculptor's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep book cases, computers, furniture... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Delete per Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#France. (see also {[tl|Template:NoFoP-France}}). No Freedom of Panorama in France.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Photo de la bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims
À ma connaissance, cet architecte ou ses ayant-droits n'a/ont pas demandé de protection particulière de l'image de son œuvre. Cette photo a été prise à partir de la rue.
Aussi je ne vois pas en quoi elle enfreint la protection des droits à l'image.
MOSSOT (d) 28 septembre 2010 à 14:53 (CEST)
- You have it backwards -- the architect does not ask for special protection of his work, it is automatic. In order for us to use it, the architect (or his heirs, in this case) must give permission.
- It is not important that it was taken from the street because there is no Freedom of Panorama in France.
- Any photograph of an architectural work is a Derivative Work of the architecture. In countries without Freedom of Panorama, including France, the photograph is automatically an infringement.
The only way we can keep this photograph and the other photographs of the library is to get permission from Max Sainsaulieu's heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Or we could apply our policies differently, considering the spirit and mission of the projet. Remember, for Commons this is not a matter of legal obligation. It is specifically a matter of internal policies and practices of Commons.
- One objective of Commons, basically, is to make available files that are free (freely reusable). What exactly we choose to define as being free enough, and where we place the ideal equilibrium between being available enough and being free enough, those are the questions to which Commons policies try to provide answers. IMO, the general idea is well summarized in what a former Wikimedia Foundation president once said (I am paraphrasing from memory): We do not require that all Wikimedia contents be completely freely reusable in every country. That would be almost impossible and it would unduly restrict the availability for the rest of the world. What we do require is that it be reasonably freely reusable in a reasonable number of countries.
- Now, what should we do with a freely licensed photograph first published in a FoP-for-buildings country such as the US, showing a recent building situated in a no-FoP-for-buildings country such as France? I mean, what should we really do if we want to be consistent with the true spirit of the project and with the real objectives underlying its policies? The publication of the photo is perfectly legal in the US and on Commons. The only question, in this case, is where do we want to place the balance between availability and reusability. Certainly, the photograph is freely reusable in a large number of countries. So, just because it could not be freely reused in some non-FoP countries, do we want to make it completely unavailable to all the world?
- Policies should not be interpreted in ways that would cause unintended or absurd side-effects hardly consistent with the basic principles and objectives of the project. On a simple level, there are two freedom-related limitations for a file to be on Commons. Other freedom-related policies and practices merely build upon them. Firstly, there is an external obligation that the use of the file must be legal on Commons, which, practically, more or less translates into our policy that the file (and its eventual modifications) must be free in the US. That first condition is met by the photograph under discussion here. Secondly, Commons chooses to self-impose to itself, purely by internal policy, the additional limitation that the image must be freely reusable in the country where that image was first published. The photograph under discussion was first published in the US (on the Wikipedia Commons site), and so this second condition is also met.
- It is at this point that differences of opinion can occur. Some stretching of the second requirement has led to a drift and to a practice of requiring, not only that the photograph be free in the US and in its country of first publication, but also that the photograph be free in a third country if some building seen on the photograph was built (and therefore was originally published) in that third country. A blind use of such a practice would make unavailable to the world files that meet the principles of the project and that are free in a large number of countries in the world, just because they are not entirely free in one or a few countries. Such a practice might even tend to disregard the more basic principles of the project. When the file is legal and free in the US, is free in its country of first publication, is free in a very large number of countries, and is in-scope for Commons, it might well be a more reasonable application of the real objectives of the Commons policies to make that file available than to make it unavailable. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have some sympathy for your point of view -- I certainly don't like the lack of FOP in France, Iceland, Russia, (for sculpture) in the USA, and elsewhere and would like to be able to host those files on Commons. That being said, however, it is our firm and settled policy that files must be free in the USA and in the country of origin. This is not the place for a debate of that policy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you may have missed my main point. In my comment above, I actually took great care not to question that policy (US + origin). I merely mentioned it rapidly in passing, in order to get to the point that I actually questioned, which is the irruption of a strange practice apparently requiring that files should be free in another country that is neither the US nor the country of origin of the file. I am not convinced that that practice corresponds to something that was conciously wanted or to a firm and settled policy. Does it? But even if it does, it certainly does not seem consistent with the general logic of Commons. And if it not consistent and if it is detrimental to the project, it should be questioned. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have some sympathy for your point of view -- I certainly don't like the lack of FOP in France, Iceland, Russia, (for sculpture) in the USA, and elsewhere and would like to be able to host those files on Commons. That being said, however, it is our firm and settled policy that files must be free in the USA and in the country of origin. This is not the place for a debate of that policy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Je suppose qu'avec une telle vision du droit à l'image Google doit avoir du souci à se faire après avoir pris en photographie des kilomètres de façade à Paris et dans les grandes villes françaises et les avoir mises sur Google Maps ... Il semblerait que les juges trouvent cette interprétation restrictive du droit à l'image excessive et adoptent une jurisprudence plus souple : Photo et droit à l'image MOSSOT (d) 29 septembre 2010 à 00:16 (CEST)
- Cela n'est pas une question qui relèverait d'une quelconque obligation juridique externe. C'est une question des critères et des pratiques que le projet Wikimedia Commons se donne lui-même pour sélectionner les fichiers qu'il choisit d'offrir sur son site. Google et Commons sont des organisations complètement différentes, ont des rôles différents et choisissent de se donner des critères internes différents. Par exemple, une différence est que le projet Wikimedia Commons se donne comme rôle d'offrir des fichiers libres, alors que cela n'est pas le rôle que se donne Google. Pour Commons, cela implique un choix des images basé non seulement sur la simple légalité de leur publication sur le site, comme peut se contenter de le faire le site de Google, mais en plus sur des critères supplémentaires établis à l'intérieur du projet. Ainsi, le site Wikimedia Commons décide de se donner à lui-même des critères de sélection pour définir des conditions qu'un fichier doit rencontrer pour pouvoir être offert sur le site. Ces critères, plus ou moins arbitraires, découlent parfois de politiques internes explicites, parfois de décisions individuelles prises par des opérateurs du site. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
En parcourant Wikipedia, je constate que ce principe devrait conduire à retirer toutes les photos de La Défense, de la pyramide de Pei au palais du Louvre, les photos sur l'Institut du Monde Arabe.
Bref, tous les monuments ayant moins de 100 ans d'âge devraient voir leurs photos disparaître de Wikipedia.
Sauf à admettre que votre intervention est sélective.
Cordialement.
MOSSOT (d) 29 septembre 2010 à 10:16 (CEST)
- Oui et d'ailleurs si vous observez bien vous constaterez en effet que beaucoup de ces photos se sont fait supprimer. Vous n'avez pas du tout besoin d'encourager davantage certains opérateurs dans ce sens, certains le font déjà bien suffisamment. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
En parcourant Wikipedia, on pourrait ajouter le Centre Pompidou à Paris et à Metz, les musées Guggenheim de New-York et Bilbao .... la liste des photos qu'il faudrait supprimer de Wikipedia est impressionnante.
Sincèrement je ne comprends pas cette demande concernant la photo de la bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims, sauf à ne pas aimer l'architecte ou Carnegie.
MOSSOT (d) 29 septembre 2010 à 15:16 (CEST)
- First, Wikipedia operates under different rules from Commons -- "Fair Use" is allowed on most Wikipedias, but not here, so examples from there are not good for argument here.
- Second, some of the examples you cite -- the I.M. Pei Pyramid, for example, have been debated and kept for one of several reasons which do not apply to the Reims images.
- Third, others of your examples are not in France. The USA has Freedom of Panorama for architecture, so it is not a problem for the New York Guggenheim.
- With all of that said, however, you are quite right that there are many other images that should be deleted. I have just nominated several of those of the Centre Georges-Pompidou for deletion. Others will be deleted as Commons editors find them. It may seem unfair that your work was caught in this process, but you should know that on an average day we remove ten or twenty images for FOP violations. Commons is committed to being a safe worldwide depository of copyright-free images, so we must delete those that infringe copyright, even when we don't like it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Même chose que pour votre commentaire précédent. Il y a déjà bien suffisamment d'acharnement de certains opérateurs à supprimer ces fichiers, vous n'avez vraiment pas besoin d'en rajouter. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I try to provide complete answers to issues raised by people who appear to be new to the subject of FOP. I don't expect MOSSOT to like it -- I don't like it myself -- but I would like to have him or her understand it as thoroughly as desired. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that perhaps you believe that my last comment was replying to you. As shown by my placement of the indentation, that comment was in answer to MOSSOT's comment, not to yours. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. My French is very weak, (I claim FR-1 on my User Page, but it should probably be FR-0.5), so sometimes I don't understand. If we all obeyed the same indentation rules, it would be good, but we don't, so I am afraid I don't pay much attention to the subtleties of indentation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pour répondre aux différents commentaires, je reviens sur deux points :
1-je ne souhaite pas encourager des critiques à la suppression des photos, mais je crois qu'en les supprimant Wikipedia va rendre invisible l'architecture contemporaine en France. Cette politique de suppression limité à Wikipedia France, si je comprends bien les remarques, me paraît une interprétation de la loi sur les droits d'auteurs excessive puisque mêmes les juges reviennent dessus dans leur jurisprudence. Ayant eu l'occasion d'en discuter avec Chemetov, il avait été étonné de cette interprétation. Le droit d'auteur était pour lui un moyen de ne pas priver l'auteur d'une œuvre de la paternité de celle-ci. Dans un jugement sur une plainte de Buren sur des photos de ses célèbres colonnes du Palais-Royal, il a été débouté de son droit d'auteur par le juge. Finalement Buren a menacé d'utiliser son droit d'auteur que pour obtenir l'entretien de celles-ci par son propriétaire, l'État.
2- En France, les ouvrages d'art sont conçus avec les architectes, donc, avec la règle que Wikipedia France veut s'imposer, tous les ponts conçus en France depuis 40 ans (c'est vers 1970 que la loi a imposé l'interventon des architectes sur les ponts) tombent sous la même contrainte : à supprimer ! Plus de viaduc de Millau, plus de pont de Normandie, ... ce qui me paraît excessif. Ayant été longtemps directeur dans une entreprise de Travaux publics j'avais interrogé les architectes sur leur position sur l'usage de leur droit d'auteur sur des images de leurs ouvrages mises sur internet. Tous m'ont dit que cela ne les dérangeait pas, bien au contraire, cela faisait connaître leurs ouvrages. Tout ce qu'ils demandaient c'était d'être cités comme les auteurs du projet.
Mes interventions, un peu longues, n'ont pour but que de demander aux gestionnaires du site de revoir leur opinion sur le droit d'auteur pour que Wikipedia puisse continuer à permettre de voir et de comprendre l'architecture contemporaine.
Cordialement
MOSSOT (d) 1 octobre 2010 à 10:41 (CEST)
- Pour répondre aux différents commentaires, je reviens sur deux points :
- Thanks for explaining. My French is very weak, (I claim FR-1 on my User Page, but it should probably be FR-0.5), so sometimes I don't understand. If we all obeyed the same indentation rules, it would be good, but we don't, so I am afraid I don't pay much attention to the subtleties of indentation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that perhaps you believe that my last comment was replying to you. As shown by my placement of the indentation, that comment was in answer to MOSSOT's comment, not to yours. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I try to provide complete answers to issues raised by people who appear to be new to the subject of FOP. I don't expect MOSSOT to like it -- I don't like it myself -- but I would like to have him or her understand it as thoroughly as desired. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Two comments in response:
First, this is not Wikipedia -- it is Commons. Our Main page motto is "a database of 7,470,507 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". Because of French law, images of contemporary architecture in France are not freely usable. That is true of some other countries, not just France, but not all. So, unless we change our most basic policy, these images cannot be hosted here. That is too bad, but we did not create the law.
Second, this does not prevent these images from being used to illustrate articles in Wikipedia, since most of them allow Fair Use. They simply cannot be hosted on Commons, but must be hosted on the individual Wikipedias, with appropriate Fair Use statements at each place. I suggest that while this Deletion Request is active, you copy the image to the Wikipedias where you want to use it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom and Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#France. (see also {[tl|Template:NoFoP-France}}). No Freedom of Panorama in France.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent building -- therefore the image is a Derivative Work of the architect's copyright -- there is no FOP in France. Architect Pol Gossett died 1953. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 21:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
