Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. Uploader claims "de minimis" on User talk:Sandstein, but obviously COM:DM cannot apply to this photo. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader comment: There is no copyrighted content here. The coat of arms of Basel is in the public domain, as is the design of a traditional Basler Fasnacht drum (see, e.g., File:BS-57-20.jpg). Even if there should be any copyrighted content, it is de minimis. In addition, this nomination appears to be made in bad faith. Pieter Kuiper seems to want to make a COM:POINT here because he disagrees with my nomination for deletion of several actual derivative works at Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10. Sandstein (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, please avoid suggestions as the latter one, as they don't help your cause, whether they are true or not. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The design of the can with the zippers (or whatever that is) and especially the photo is of course protected by copyright. And yes, this was in reaction to the "von oben" attitude in Sandstein's sermon (in German) on derivative works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The "design" is far too generic to be copyrightable. (Remember that Switzerland even denies copyright protection for "simple" photographies.) The COA of Basel is free and the Mässmogge are a everyday-article. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fascinating, de:Lichtbildwerk#Rechtslage in der Schweiz - the country of the Bern convention has no protection for photography! I will upload some. So this photo should be {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} instead of CC ? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't call that fascinating. When I once thought about going to court to ligitate a copyviolating company (for one of my photos on Commons, of course), a specialized Swiss lawyer convinced me that it would be futile. Some recent reviews about the conflicting situation (though all in German language): http://www.vfgonline.ch/cm_data/Fotos_vor_gericht_persoenlich_12.04.pdf, http://www.schneiderfeldmann.ch/pdf/publikationen/UG_Rechte_an_Fotografien.pdf, http://www.rwi.uzh.ch/lehreforschung/alphabetisch/vogt/publikationen/EntertainmentLaw.pdf, http://www.sic-online.ch/2005/documents/057.pdf. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the copyright situation in Switzerland is peculiar. But even if my photo would not be copyrightable under Swiss law, it was not first published in Switzerland, but here on Commons. A CC release is therefore required for the photograph as far as Commons is concerned. Sandstein (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't call that fascinating. When I once thought about going to court to ligitate a copyviolating company (for one of my photos on Commons, of course), a specialized Swiss lawyer convinced me that it would be futile. Some recent reviews about the conflicting situation (though all in German language): http://www.vfgonline.ch/cm_data/Fotos_vor_gericht_persoenlich_12.04.pdf, http://www.schneiderfeldmann.ch/pdf/publikationen/UG_Rechte_an_Fotografien.pdf, http://www.rwi.uzh.ch/lehreforschung/alphabetisch/vogt/publikationen/EntertainmentLaw.pdf, http://www.sic-online.ch/2005/documents/057.pdf. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg, but it is difficult to predict what Swiss courts would say about the packaging. A candyman had the idea of selling mässmogge in tin can with a design based on the tradition drums.
A good photo shows what is inside. And then there are the zippers. Also the creator of the photograph on the jar could argue that he put his soul into making the candy look as appatizing and enticing as artistically possible, that this is not just an amateur photo by a text journalist for the purpose of documentation, with poor quality (the glare of the flash). This photographer would argue in court that the photo expresses an atmosphere, he would call witnesses telling that this photo had the power to evoke happy memories of a Basler childhood, an art professor would expound on the aesthetic appeal of this image, etcetera. How would a court rule? The same court said that the Bob Marley snapshot was protected by copyright, see en:Swiss copyright law#Lack of originality. Difficult to predict.On Commons, COM:PRP applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)- Ok, I see now, this is not a photo on a tin, it is transparent plastic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fascinating, de:Lichtbildwerk#Rechtslage in der Schweiz - the country of the Bern convention has no protection for photography! I will upload some. So this photo should be {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} instead of CC ? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - if we regard the belts and stuff on the jar as being DM, which they certainly can be, then we're left with a jar with black and white hatching at the top, which would be PD-ineligible. Are the sweets coloured and in a clear wrapper, or in coloured wrappers? If the former, they're also PD-ineligible, and so it's fine. If the latter they're still probably PD, but it's more iffy. Cue 10 deletion requests for my photos on spurious copyright technicalities. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I am withdrawing the nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Redundant copy of File:Logo VIU.jpg with bad quality logo. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: University logo. Not text only
Of far too low quality in order to be of any use. Heavily pixelized. Glorious 93 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
obviously not really Barak Obama, some kind of joke image. Copyright status is unclear as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This is just an image taken from some website, and while the Barack Obama portrait used as a base here is not copyrighted, it has been subjected to a creative transformation that would presumptively result in a copyright. Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)- Delete as copyvio. Uploaded by user who is blocked on en.wp as abusive sock-puppet and image does not seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio/missing permission. Image is out of project scope. fetchcomms☛ 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete blantant Copy-vio some people have no shame ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Pretty clear copyvio; and even if it were used as a fair use image (and it'd have pretty limited function given the fact that it's clearly been altered to change the individual's appearance), right now it's only in use on the uploader's user page on de.wiki. Giftiger wunsch (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedied as copyvio. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It is incorrect name of the hat. Also another file crochet taqiyah already exists. Trueblue74 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Crochet taqiyah.jpg
No images. 84.61.131.141 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Empty gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/Goldcrest_Executive: No images.
It is unclear whether Whooligan is a handle for the author of the Mattoso drawing, or of a picture of the drawing - it says "fan-made picture". Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete- delete, I agree with the nom.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Fan-art based on real photo, so DW. Anyway, it was made by different person than uploader. Masur (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Non free image copied from Nokia website Max Cheung (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Original image available at:
- Nominated for speedy deletion with {{Copyvio}}.--Apalsola t • c 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: No OTRS permission since 8 September 2010
It uses copyrighted material from both a film, and Google maps 117Avenue (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt own worl. Looks like a sports poster 80.187.103.19 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- poster. delete--Motopark (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Poster
I doubt own work: Looks like a webgrab: no specific data by the author given and the resolution is typically small for a photograpg from the web 80.187.103.19 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio (as all other uploads by this user) --:bdk: 13:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The source of each image remains unclear. This collage is own work by the uploader, but the rest? 80.187.103.19 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio (as all other uploads by this user) :bdk: 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
File uploaded for promotion of A7 company. Timneu22 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 01:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I want my photo removed thanks. Heyguy2010 (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
All other files uploaded by this user are proven copyright violations; low-resolution, low quality image. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Game screenshots would require a non-anonymous copyright release. Fæ (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Game screenshots would require a non-anonymous copyright release. Fæ (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wron author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture. Useless at the moment. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture - more an article container - out of scope Martin H. (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This file does not show a subject of the types described in {{PD-RussiaExempt}} ... Could it be in the public domain? Well, yes, of course it could be. But is it? The earliest publication my (non-Russian-reading) superficial searches could find was here in the early 1960s. The image is older than that, but Russian copyright status turns on publication, and not creation, date. Always assuming, of course, that first publication was in Russia, which is not certainly the case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment from en-wiki: Since Fridman died in 1925 the file most likely falls under {{PD-RusEmpire}} or under {{PD-Old}} (70 years as it is defined in Russia). {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is also the possibility. Currently I can state no certain things about the date of publication, but anyway I don't think that this portrait of Fridman was published so long after his death as 1960s. Fridman was rather a great scientist, and the articles about him must have existed in pre-WWII Soviet publications, like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia etc. Here are some Russian links that contain similar images: [1], [2]. GreyHood 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep From this book, the photo on the cover is different. There are no image credits in this book at all, as far as I can see on google books or on Amazon. Problem is what template to choose. I would go for {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Substandard image quality (unsharp) makes an encyclopedic use impossible: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, we do have enough dic-pics, since that one is unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo is copyrighted, see here (bottom of page). Too complex for PD-textlogo. Not free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - scan from newspaper Kikos (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - scan from newspaper Kikos (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - scan from newspaper Kikos (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is this other one as well - same kind, same uploader: File:Piederumi2.jpg.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - scan from newspaper Kikos (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work; the Flickr user has no right to issue a license. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
+ ARR on Flickr Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Falls outside project scope; spam/advert, among others. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion. But, who knows, may be this guy, one day, will be famous and popular. He is it not now, anyway. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Falls outside project scope; spam/advert, among others. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete More self-promoting than the other one. Check his site (it worths): [3].--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Falls outside project scope; spam/advert, among others. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not really in scope. Anyway, it could interest someone that this "Production Company" is working at "Workout Guys: The story of men, sex, and steroids.". There are even employment opportunities! [4].--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an article, and should belong on Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Even if the user is misusing his user page and he hasn't contributed to the project yet, can we really delete a user page content? I'm not so up for that -or, better, I'm not at all for that- furthermore considering that the text used is innocuous and not potentially offensive to anyone. And, even if it were, such matters are out of our "jurisdiction" here. In my opinion, naturally. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but the freedom to design a userpage as he wants is related to contributions to our project Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, blurred photo - bad quality Santosga (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Scanned image, see e.g. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97187095/The-Washington-Post for evidence that this circulated far before the upload and the claimed date of creation Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Changed "No source" to a DR. Uploaded as "own work" but we need to know who made the icon and/or how old it is. It looks PD-old but without additional information we can not be sure. MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Highly likely PD-old; Keep when additional information is stated by the uploader that underlines my thesis. --High Contrast (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- PD-old safe. I suggest Keep Additional information is correct, this is my thesis --Alpha (my name is nobody...) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think Alpha can provide source like he done in other files, so we can be sure that this is picture of Madonna dell Elemosina and other information. Geagea (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Geagea, I think Keep , I found the source and exact quote and author.--Alpha (my name is nobody...) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Commercial logo used for advertising. Jafeluv (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Jundia_wikipedia01.jpg One of them is wrong licensed. He did not answer, so I presume a copyvio. Thanks Catfisheye (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Jundia_wikipedia.jpg One of them is wrong licensed. He did not answer, so I presume a copyvio. Thanks Catfisheye (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France; uploader tried to get this deleted (see previous versions), but it was restored several times. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is PD-old. en:David Zogg died in 1977 and looks "old" at this photo so it is probably not 70 years old. MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.Otero (talk • contribs) 2010-09-30T13:27:05 (UTC)
- Oppose The images once released are released forever. Unless there is a very good reason. Megapixie (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree. Licensed under the CC-BY-2.5. Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable. No reason to delete. --Apalsola t • c 18:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Irrevocable? No entiendo, soy el propietario del material y no quiero compartirlo más, cuál es motivo que justifique dicha irrevocabilidad? Por favor, borrar esta foto y todo el material, de mi propiedad, que he subido a este portal.--Martín Otero (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment When uploading the files, you have agreed to license them under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic (CC-BY-2.5) license. This license is irrevocable. --Apalsola t • c 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use in many places. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo/banner of uploader's company with no notability - advertising/spam Santosga (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is likely to be taken much less than 70 years ago. Quibik (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nikolai_Bogoliubov.jpeg
Changed "no source" to a DR to discuss this instead of having a edit war. Author is unknown. MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no source mentioned but I can add "The source is an unknown photographer." if that makes it better. The issue is if {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is valid. --MGA73 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There can be no doubt about the year 1936, because w:Galeazzo Ciano is wearing his airforce uniform, so this is certainly more than 70 years old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Does anybody know from which book this image came? If an author is not mentioned there, {{PD-EU-anonymous}} would apply. Kameraad Pjotr 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Since no source is provided PD requires death of Author plus 70, too small time frame(3 years) its insufficient to presume author died within 30months of taking the photo. alternative license of annon author also requires source to establish the photographs origin. see COM:SCOPE#Precautionary_principle Gnangarra 11:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Please see this page also it:File:Galeazzo Ciano-Pd-italy-473.jpg, I cannot understand italian, May be a source can be obtained.. --Common-Man | My Interactions 20:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Read this - EU template request 70 years photo of unknow author. Are author know? NO. Are photo much as 70 years old? YES. No problem! --77.48.153.172 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- No source does not equal unknown author, Prove the author is unknown by supplying the source for the photograph. Gnangarra 00:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just take {{PD-Italy}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No source does not equal unknown author, Prove the author is unknown by supplying the source for the photograph. Gnangarra 00:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} requires the proof of a publication of this picture more than 70 years ago. If the source is missing, we have neither a proof that it was published 70 years ago nor do we know if this photograph was published anonymously. It is not sufficient to know that this picture is 70 years old. {{PD-Italy}} does not apply as this photograph has artistic merit. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
While the picture doesn't pass the theshold of originality of Switzerland, it probably passes the US threshold of originality. Trycatch (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If Commons is going to apply US law to Swiss photos, all photos of copyrighted statues in Switzerland (and Germany etcetera) would have to go. But this is a photo first published in Switzerland. And that is where the photographer had to sue. And lost. She did not sue in other countries, probably because of legal advice that said there was no point in doing so. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - doesn't the US have the rule of the least term or something? If so, if published in Switzerland, and PD in Switzerland, it becomes PD in the US. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, see en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States. But this image is not protected at all in Switzerland, and the situation is comparable to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The situation has nothing to do with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Works of Afghanistan are free, because 1) Afghanistan has no copyright law 2) there are no international copyright treaties between the US and Afghanistan. Switzerland situation is completely different. In Bridgeman v. Corel the issue of copyrightability was decided under the US threshold of originality, so this picture can hardly be free in the US. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, we generally assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. The US law has (i.e.) no regulation that says that official documents of the swiss government, such as laws or currency, are free of copyright. But they're supposed to be free in the US, too. Otherwise we'd had to delete about all images of non-US currency, as they're not explicitly declared to be free in US law. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- We most certainly do not assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. That would be in direct contradiction to article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. I don't know whether this image would or would not be considered copyrighted in the U.S. If the photographer sued somebody for copyright violation on this image in a U.S. court, I see basically two possibilities: either the court would apply only U.S. law, consider the image to pass the threshold of originality (that much is IMO clear), and consider it copyrighted; or it might apply Swiss law to determine the copyright owner, find that the image was not copyrightable in Switzerland and therefore had no copyright owner, and thus deny the photographer's standing to sue at all. Which way a verdict would go is anyone's guess. Because of this I had uploaded the image at the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clear is that the photographer did not sue the BBC in the UK or in the US. This isue is economically important to Swiss photographers, and I would assume that they would have asked for legal advice on their chances in foreign courts. Which probably was not encouraging legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speculating about why the Swiss photographer chose to sue the BBC in a Swiss court is moot and rather besides the point. The question for us is just "what does that result in a Swiss court mean for the image's status in the U.S.?" Lupo 16:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clear is that the photographer did not sue the BBC in the UK or in the US. This isue is economically important to Swiss photographers, and I would assume that they would have asked for legal advice on their chances in foreign courts. Which probably was not encouraging legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- We most certainly do not assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. That would be in direct contradiction to article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. I don't know whether this image would or would not be considered copyrighted in the U.S. If the photographer sued somebody for copyright violation on this image in a U.S. court, I see basically two possibilities: either the court would apply only U.S. law, consider the image to pass the threshold of originality (that much is IMO clear), and consider it copyrighted; or it might apply Swiss law to determine the copyright owner, find that the image was not copyrightable in Switzerland and therefore had no copyright owner, and thus deny the photographer's standing to sue at all. Which way a verdict would go is anyone's guess. Because of this I had uploaded the image at the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" claim. Lupo 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, we generally assume works that are free in the source country to be free worldwide. The US law has (i.e.) no regulation that says that official documents of the swiss government, such as laws or currency, are free of copyright. But they're supposed to be free in the US, too. Otherwise we'd had to delete about all images of non-US currency, as they're not explicitly declared to be free in US law. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- The situation has nothing to do with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Works of Afghanistan are free, because 1) Afghanistan has no copyright law 2) there are no international copyright treaties between the US and Afghanistan. Switzerland situation is completely different. In Bridgeman v. Corel the issue of copyrightability was decided under the US threshold of originality, so this picture can hardly be free in the US. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, see en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States. But this image is not protected at all in Switzerland, and the situation is comparable to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me and also to Lupo (see his comment above starting with "We most certainly ...") that nobody really knows what approach a US court is likely to take. All we're doing is just speculating pointlessly.
I have to say I think the particular image here is extremely valuable to the Commons project. It is obviously a unique and irreplaceable image, and seems an excellent fit with Commons's educational goals and especially useful in any case where we need to explain Swiss copyright law. In this instance, a picture paints a thousand words. 85.94.184.115 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are several other cases where pictures are allowed on Commons based on particular terms of copyright in the countries the originate from (for example photos tagged "PD-Sweden-photo"), so I see no reason why the same principle couldn't be used for Swiss photos. /FredrikT (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nomination. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
While this is free in Switzerland as {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} it is not free in the US and as COM:L requires images to be free in both the source country and the US this needs to be deleted. LGA talkedits 08:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- You would then have to question likely all images using {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not all by any means, some others need to be reviewed, but a lot that would just need {{PD-Art}} adding to be covered in the US. LGA talkedits 12:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.: "Although the toys enjoyed no copyright protection under Japanese law, they fell within the class of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" covered by § 102(a)(5) of the Act. See § 101. Since the toys were authored by a Japanese national and first "published" (i.e. sold) in Japan, they enjoyed copyright protection under United States law from the moment they were created, see § 302(a), by virtue of both § 104(b) of the Act and Article II(1) of the U.C.C." and Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, which prevents countries from letting the threshold of originality of another country influence the copyright status in the country where protection is claimed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a never ending story with this photo, isn't it? First uploaded in 2006, deleted a few months later, uploaded again and deleted in October 2010, restored in 2011 per undeletion request, deleted and restored again in 2013 ;-) That said, although the photo has no copyright protection whatsoever in Switzerland (as the highest Swiss court ruled in the specific case of this photo), it's probably protected in the US indeed, so it does seem to go against Commons policy. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete One cannot assume that a court ruling of this nature can apply worldwide, per the precautionary principle. I've reuploaded the image as non-free to the English Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Although licensed under CCA 2.0 this is an image of a copyrighted product and package and I belive that it thus fails the copyright policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be worthwhile to move this to Wikipedia and write up a fair use rational? Please let me know if that would save time and effort. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- That could be a solution. The article that it is used in has been nominated for deletion. I just noticed that the image appeared to contravene Commons policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, another user and I are working on that article to try and fix it up before it's too late. - Hydroxonium (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- That could be a solution. The article that it is used in has been nominated for deletion. I just noticed that the image appeared to contravene Commons policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I am the original uploader. When I uploaded this, I didn't understand the rules, but after reviewing them I agree that this is copyvio on Commons. Sorry for the mistake :-( Agree with (and greatly appreciate!) Hydroxonium's idea to move to en.wp under a fair use argument. 66.218.47.109 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Tell us when you completed that solution, please. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Cropped image used in en-wiki article Captain-tucker (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There are no mottes in Waasmont, this category and its subcategories are empty. --Wimpi (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not empty (although I deleted the empty subcat) - Jcb (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It's from a 1926 film, and is sourced to Life magazine in 1965. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the still is from a film for which there appears to be no copyright renewal in the stuff scanned by Google/Gutenberg. Since renewal was required, the copyright term for the film would have ended 28 years after its publication, which is to say well before 1963. The copyright tag attached to this, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, therefore seems to be accurate. Life's 1963 reproduction of a public domain work was no more copyrightable than the things we tag {{PD-art}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to be a promotional photo, not a still from a film. Trycatch (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The film's copyrights weren't renewed. It would beggar belief to suppose that the promotional materials were renewed. More than that, it would require us to believe that they were renewed and the renewal didn't mention what they were. The only mention of Dancing Mothers is a registration concerning the play on which the film is more or less based. Nothing else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- So who's extremely stupid? That'll be me. Google have only digitised the records concerning books. Hardly surprising that I can't find films in them. On the other hand, the good people at Project Gutenberg have done a better job. The complete (less music) renewals for 1950-77 are here (huge file, expect a long, long wait). Results from that soon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Gutenberg OCRed only book-related copyright renewals (notice "RENEWAL REGISTRATIONS--LITERATURE, ART, FILM" relates only to early ca1950 volumes, when all renewals were published together), for non-book renewals see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/. Dancing Mothers was renewed: [5], but I agree with you, it's highly unlikely that this promotional shot was renewed (if it was published in 1926). Trycatch (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clearly a promotional shot, therefore distributed in 1925 or 1926. Standard copyright was for 14 years, so ran out in '39 or '40 if it wasn't renewed. However, the source for the photo is Life magazine in 1965, and that most certainly was copyrighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- But how could Life have any rights to a photograph which was already in the public domain? As it says on {{PD-art}}, the position here is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- But does the mere possibilty that the image's copyright wasn't renewed really establish it as being PD sufficiently to be used here? Since it will be PD in three years by statute law, there's no particular hurry to add it - after all, it's not like we're hurting for images of Clara Bow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I recent that. This promo of quintessential flapper Clara Bow is particularly useful as it in one blow delivers sexual aggression, smoking, drinking, high-fashion and a ruffled up bobbed hairdo. Apart from the Clara Bow wiki, The Roaring Twenties and Flapper pages, could benefit from it. I share the less paranoid copyright views above and rejects the proposed deletion.Stovelsten (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- The potential utility of an image is irrelevant to the question of whether it is valid for upload. There are rules and policies about what is allowed to be uploaded, something which, to look at your upload history, you've never really accepted, snce the majority of images there appear to me to be still covered by copyright, and a number of which have licenses that seem convenient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have a backyard too, you know. Why don't you share your own shortcomings as well? Then you remove my CN-tags from under-sourced paragraphs and call them "malicious". The CN-header - inserted by another editor - you killed off too. What is this nonsense? As usual you will now hide behind me something like "this is a forum who only concerns itself with copyright issues". Just don't!Stovelsten (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who are you? I don't know because you haven't signed your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that's better.
Now, you are correct, this is a forum that is concerned only with the provenance of an image. Also, this is Wikimedia Commons, and not English Wikipedia, so your complaints about actions taken on en.wiki are not particularly relevant here, especially as they don't concern this image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that's better.
- Delete If the movie was renewed, and the Life magazine was properly copyrighted, I don't see what grounds we have to keep this image. Maybes aren't good enough. (It won't be PD in three years; 1926 + 95 full years means it's out of copyright in 2021.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Life magazine can't copyright a public domain promotional photo. "Maybes" covers just about everything that goes on, on this planet, Wikipedia included. Pragmatism is the cure. Be bold!Parrotistic (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Reopenning DR per request on COM:UDR. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I highly doubt that 1965 in Life Magazine was the first publication of this photograph. This is definitely from a publicity photograph that would have been published around the time of the film in 1926 or maybe even late 1925. Since it would have been published in 1926, it would have unquestionably become public domain this year. It is possible that the not renewed tag was correct in regards to the original photograph. @Beyond My Ken: , @Prosfilaes: since they participated in original DR and are still active. Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Your personal feelings as to what you "highly doubt" are not evidence. Please present evidence that the image is NOT copyrighted, It's obviously a commercial image, so the presumption is that it's copyrighted until proved otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- The uncertainty of copyright renewal for the promo photo used as an argument in the previous DR is no longer a valid argument. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Info I did some research on the photograph. This file is from Google's scan of the October 8, 1965 issue of Life Magazine. https://books.google.com/books?id=10sEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false The photograph is on page 107. Page 7 credits "The Museum of Modern Art Film Library" for the photograph on page 107. The photograph is part of a 2 page obituary of Clara Bow who had died on Sept. 27, 1965. The caption reads "far right: the naughty charm that made her famous in the film It". You can also get another look at the same page at https://web.archive.org/web/20220219170312/https://www.tias.com/life-magazine-october-8-1965-hawaii--clara-bow-379072.html or https://web.archive.org/web/20220219170312im_/https://www.tias.com/stores/adateintime/origpics/4927c.jpg. As for the MOMA Film Library, this link https://www.moma.org/collection/about/curatorial-departments/film says "Founded in 1935 as the Film Library, this department’s collection now includes more than 30,000 films and 1.5 million film stills" The film itself had its copyright renewed as established in the previous DR, that copyright expired this year. I also looked into seeing if this was a promotional photograph. And I found this at Shutterstock: https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/dancing-mothers-1926-5865583a (Wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20220219171626/https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/dancing-mothers-1926-5865583a) Shutterstock lists the credit as "Paramount/Kobal/Shutterstock" which tells us that Paramount was the creator of this image (Dancing Mothers was Bow's first film with Paramount) and that this was part of the Kobal Collection which Shutterstock had acquired in 2016. PR here: https://www.shutterstock.com/press/12631 (wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20220219172050/https://www.shutterstock.com/press/12631) The press release says of the Kobal Collection "The world-renowned Kobal Collection, originally conceived from one man’s passion, preserves irreplaceable behind the scenes stills, portraits, and original posters issued by movie studios since the early days of cinema" All of this information gives evidence that this photograph was originally published in 1926 and that its copyright expired this year. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Abrenow. --Sanandros (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no description (who is this ?), gross, no encyclopedic value, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The guy is Morten Harket, a Norwegian singer, with even his own entry on various Wikipedias: [6]--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please ad these informations to the description of the file? --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no encyclopedic value --Erud (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Freely licensed picture of a notable subject. Could also be useful in depicting flipping the bird. No reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
COM:FOP says no freedom of panorama in France for sculpture. Creator of this work, Claude Villefranque, appears to be living at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can get the artist to send an OTRS authorization. (This has been proposed to the uploader, who shares a last name with the artist.) Jafeluv (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Who is painter? What is dates of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not 100% sure, but number of sources in the web state that "Битва на Лисоні" was created by w:uk:Курилас Осип Петрович (1870-1951). Sadly, he don't fall under {{PD-Ukraine}}, so if this painting indeed was created by Курилас, then it should be undeleted in 2022. Trycatch (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure it's fresh and thus it's not permitted for public usage without license. Cincerely, HOBOPOCC (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
User:SaveJPN's upload images
[edit]May be there photos are not a public domain or free image. --Prnaq (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Fuwad ca
[edit]User uploaded a lot of copyvios including some marked with "own" work so I have a bad feeling about this users upload.
Only admins can see the files that are now deleted (and the proof for the copyvios) so I know that it can be hard for non-admins to comment on this DR.
Below are all that users uploads (not yet deleted). I added numbers so that it is easier to comment. Feel free to add relevant info in the gallery.
-
10. No metadata. PD-Art. Speedy Kept, ZooFari.
Discussion
[edit]I therefore think we should delete all the files unless they are PD-old or if we find it likely that it is own work (example good metadata). --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I saw this in the missing source categories and did not delete them. Especially about the Aurangabad Airport images (#1-#3) I was not sure if http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=859098 not speaks in favor of the uploader. Regarding that skyscrapercity page:
- Same nickname (meaningless, but a possible connection)
- The user on skyscrapercity is able to provide sources and differentiate between own work and other peoples work
- If the connection between uploader Fuwad ca and skyscrapercity user Fuwad is correct a clear statement here would help us to keep this images.
- The upload of e.g. File:Aurangabad Airport 3.jpg, someone else image from skyscrapercity with a {{Copyrighted free use}} claim, and a very few copyvio uploads left some doubt. It appears that the user came into trouble from this uploads. He should know that he can only upload self-created works here or files that are public domain by age or that the copyright holder voluntarily released under a free license. Files like File:Bibi ka makbara.jpg look fishy too. So the required statement should also adress what files are own work but also what files are not own work, if any, so that we can sort bad images out. Otherwise I tend to delete for all except for e.g. #10 which is PD in India and the U.S. and in the country of origin, the UK per {{Pd-old}}, the only denoted author John George Bartholomew died 1920 although the file description fails to mention this. --Martin H. (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good work with # 10. Glad to see that it is speedy kept. --MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete - #6 [Link] --Common-Man | My Interactions 21:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A 3d work that is not permanently displayed in a public place matanya • talk 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you are wrong. First, it is a border case between 2D to 3D. Second, a complete replica of it is displayed on the main front of the bell tower of Jerusalem's YMCA. This clay model is was coped to stone and became a part of the building.Eddau (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Jerusalem International YMCA 1949.jpg Here it is presented in public, on 2DEddau (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC) File:YMCA_IMG_5099.JPG And here it is presented in public, on 2D againEddau (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep, there was already a debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then I don't know why to re-open this debate. Jeriby (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - 3D is not included on the UAE copyright Law --Common-Man | My Interactions 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - As per the previous deletion request. Moreover, this video has to originate in the UAE for UAE laws to apply. -- Orionist ★ talk 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where did it originate? If that's France, then you're no better off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete I don't think as per the previous deletion request is relevant; that had a lot of things to discuss, and this was a marginal one--one user even said "ZooFari suggested below that we open another DR, I'm OK with that." One of the rights of the architectural works--basically the sole one in the US--is to protect the work from other architects. The hearts and the guts of an architectural work are just as key as the flashy exterior--in fact, COM:FOP#France cites a court making basically this point, when "the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep there is no good reason for deletion Gérard Janot (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no FoP is a nonsense reason, for this is not panorama - Jcb (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Architectural copyright protects the heart and soul of a building. Especially as copyright in FOP nations show, it's there to protect the building architecturally as much as photography. This reproduces the building much as a blueprint or a non-virtual building would. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (The question in the last DR about what the country of origin is is interesting; but France offers as much protection as Dubai, and if I had to argue the case, I'd say this is a derivative work even in nations with FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, there was a 1st debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then it was kept a 2nd time here. It's not usual to re-open 3 times a deletion debate, then I will maintain my "keep" vote. Thanks. Jeriby (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is the same non-argument you used on the first debate on this file, the one above The debate on all the images was clearly broad enough that it's irrelevant; the points of law surrounding this video are distinct from the images surrounding a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - simple geometric shapes are used, this animation doesn't contain sufficient details to be a copyright infringement - Jcb (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FOP not relevant here, no textures just a 3D simple work. Why does everyone wanna delete this so much!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- FOP is not relevant here, which is why I didn't use it here. A texture wouldn't matter in the case of a statue, why should it matter in the case of a building.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Question..Is 3D works copyrighted if its COM:DW ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably not own work (es: no "trabajo propio"), surely found in internet Uhanu (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
likely a copyvio from http://www.elfarodecantabria.com/article.php3?id_article=54846 Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as clear-cut copyvio from http://www.elfarodecantabria.com/article.php3?id_article=54846 and, additionally, confession of non-ownership by uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Screenshots from French President Charles De Gaulle and the Six-Year War
[edit]- File:General jacques massu 1958.png
- File:Pierre lagaillarde 1958.png
- File:Soustelle jouhaud salan coup de mai 1958.png
- File:Algiers barricades week january 1960.ogg
- File:Algeria tense cease fire.ogg Different source; not from Charles De Gaulle and the Six-Year War
- File:Algiers uprising may 16 1958.ogg
- File:General raoul salan gg salute.png
- File:General raoul salan gg face.png
- File:General raoul salan gg profil.png
- File:General raoul salan 1958.png
- File:Jacques soustelle 1958.png
- File:Pierre lagaillarde parabarricades 1960.png
Screenshots from the documentary President Charles De Gaulle and the Six-Year War. We have absolutely no proof that the people holding the camera were employees of the US government -- and I even strongly suspect that they were not; in these conditions, the chain leading to the release into the public domain breaks somewhere between the shooting of the footage and the assembly into a Public Domain documentary. The National Archives do not host only Public Domain material, but also copyrighter material; this is likely one of these. --Rama (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Rama (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The NARA page itself says there are possible use restrictions -- "Some or all of this material may be restricted by copyright or other intellectual property right restrictions." They do not do that if authored by a US Government employee (since in that case there are no use restrictions). So per the original source, this is not PD (or at least, definitely not PD-USGov, so that tag cannot be used). Looks like someone made an incorrect assumption when uploading a copy to the unrelated archive.org and labeled it PD there, which is most likely not correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the footage included in this uncopyrighted US documentary is older than 50 years, so free according to COM:L#Algeria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Algeria did not exist as a State at the time. French law applies. Rama (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Algeria would disagree, and Commons should not care what the French think about this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why should it care more about what "the Algerians" think of it than what "the French" (?) think of it?
- We know nothing of the author of these images. He could very well have been a French reporter whose footage were published in France. You are just trying, once again, to wish something into the Public Domain. Rama (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Algeria would disagree, and Commons should not care what the French think about this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Algeria did not exist as a State at the time. French law applies. Rama (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it irrelevant, if it was first published in Algeria. But we would need some evidence of that. Watching parts of the newsreel, it was produced in English by "United Press Movietone News". The narrator has an American accent. Reading w:Movietone News, they produced stuff for the US, UK, and Australia. Also see w:United Press International Television News. I did not see a copyright notice in the parts I watched (neither on the title screens nor at the end). There are entities which license Movietone's stuff apparently, but if at least simultaneously published in the U.S., it may well be out of copyright there (and would require a renewal as well). More "interesting" than it first looked, although PD-USGov is not a valid tag and cannot be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, these screenshots were made by me from an US public domain video produced by the CIA and found on the archive dot org website [7]. the location is french republic because at this time algeria consisted of french departments much like today is corsica. what is the real issue with this material? what i read is "no right reserved", "creative commons", "public domain", "NARA" and "donation". Rama is nitpicking IMHO. Madame Grinderche (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the documentation you saw at the archive.org site is not correct, so you were misled into uploading them. It was produced by a private company (not the CIA), thus it is not a work of the U.S. government. The copyrights from that company are held by different companies today, it seems. They produced material for the US, UK, and Australia... if this was published in all three places, it would still be under copyright in Australia and the UK I would think, and the US would ride on whether it had a copyright notice and it was renewed. But, we don't know precisely where this version came from -- if the US Government got this copy from a UK showing, then lack of copyright notice may not mean anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also i'd like to point out that the file list's tense cease fire.ogg which was also uploaded by me has nothing to do with this documentary since it is coming from a public domain newsreel also from archive dot org. check the file's description for details please. also can't you use the "ARC Identifier 649319 / Local Identifier 263.1923" to contact the NARA and ask them if this de gaulle and the six year war documentary is really in the public domain or not instead of beating around the bush? thanks. Madame Grinderche (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- NARA's page explicitly states that it may still be under copyright -- why ask them when they already say that? It is not a work of the U.S. Government, so it is not PD via that avenue. As for File:Algeria_tense_cease_fire.ogg, yes, that is a completely different source, so the above discussion does not apply to it. Apparently Universal donated its library of newsreels to the National Archives in the 1970s. I haven't found any note about whether there are donor restrictions, which NARA allows but usually mentions if they exist. The top-level collection info is here; There are four main sub-collections under that (Newsreel Films, Outtakes, Edited Motion Picture Releases, and Production Files). Of those, the first three are marked "Restricted -- Possibly Copyright", while the last one is marked "Unrestricted". I think I found the source of this one with ARC identifier 2050474; it is also marked as "Restricted -- Possibly Copyright" (as it is part of the Edited Motion Picture Releases collection). Less sure about this one, as there clearly was a donation (and it's possible that lack of copyright notice may have placed them in the public domain first). However, NARA does not state they are public domain either. It would have also needed a renewal in 1989 or 1990, which would have been odd for something they had donated away, and I can't find it with a brief search at www.copyright.gov (and the record would be online there if it existed). However, again, PD-USGov cannot be used as a license tag. I may support that one as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or maybe {{PD-US-no notice}}. The archive.org collection page does state they were donated to the public domain, though I can't find a similar statement on NARA's site. If we go with that, we would use either PD-author or create a special tag for this collection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)