Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
flickr washing? bpovia.wiki <-> Bpo.candyhuang 78.55.104.255 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Flickr washing from her. Geagea (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
24.114.236.26 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't c any reason to delete it.--Sanandros (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No reason given. -- Common Good (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No proof Wikipedia uploader is the photographer, the compressed quality is suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep I don't see any problems with this picture. Trycatch (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like frame grabs. I could be wrong, but it's beter to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unlikely. 1216x912 is not a standard resolution for video, while it was quite common for old digital cams. Say, SONY Cybershot DSC-P20, max resolution -- 1216x912, first shipped in mid-2001. And even if it is a video (IMO -- unlikely case), I don't see a reason why suspect that uploader didn't create this video by himself. Trycatch (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alright. Seems it's a keeper then. Just wanted some second opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unlikely. 1216x912 is not a standard resolution for video, while it was quite common for old digital cams. Say, SONY Cybershot DSC-P20, max resolution -- 1216x912, first shipped in mid-2001. And even if it is a video (IMO -- unlikely case), I don't see a reason why suspect that uploader didn't create this video by himself. Trycatch (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like frame grabs. I could be wrong, but it's beter to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per Trycatch. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
wrong filename (should be chlorfenethol) Klever (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete: next time you can either tag the file with {{Rename}}, or if you have already uploaded an identical file with a different name, with {{Duplicate}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 12:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely the flickr users own work Martin H. (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: looks like a screengrab. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Hi, I uploaded this image to wikimedia commons and believe that it should be deleted as well. I am new to uploading pictures and I thought that the picture would be okay at the time but now I believe that it is definitely not her own work. Sorry about that :(Basilisk4u
Deleted. Julo (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, fuzzy, no encyclopedic value, useless Frédéric (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. Obelix (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont know the license Stanqo (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is Photo of Media Foundation Leipzig Media Award.--Stanqo (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. Copyright violation, the source doesn't claim to freely license its content. →Spiritia 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Author using Wikipedia for promotion. This is a picture of himself, non-notable. Timneu22 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Mspraveen (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
source is a copyrighted anime DHN (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - ridiculous Christmas tree of licenses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. w:Kanon soundtrack. Trycatch (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
derivative of the anime DHN (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
still copyrighted in Germany, please see category 84user (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Extremely unlikely that the uploader is entitled to release the logo of a national football federation under a CC license. Latebird (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: and too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. — Xavier, 20:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Right. — Xavier, 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Not in scope Michael Reschke (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent statue, no COM:FOP#France. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 1993 memorial: w:fr:Mémorial des guerres en Indochine. Trycatch (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Painting derivative of a non-free photo, apparently not even self-drawn but retouched in photoshop with some drawing style tools. See the tineye comparison. Martin H. (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete along with File:Lindsay Lohan drawing.jpg, File:Diana King caricature.jpg, File:Tribalistas.jpg, File:Raven-Symoné caricature.jpg, and File:Brandy caricature.jpg from the same uploader and for the same reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately the image has to be eliminated because it don't comply with rules. Truu (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. All deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio: apparently spurious claim of authorship by uploader. Comment claims that the file was uploaded on "15 july 2010' (although history says "3 September 2010"); same photo appeared on an earlier blog post (18 June 2010): see [1]. Given the dates, the June 2010 blog clearly did not copy from Commons. More to the point, it's highly unlikely that User:Bebob2009 happened to be in the lair of a Mexican drug cartel and was able to use his camera to document the dismembering depicted in the photo. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comment from nom - I note from User talk:Bebob2009 that the uploader has had several of his uploaded images deleted as copyright violations. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
wrong upload, I have upload a new one Internetsinacoso (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
redundancy/superseded by File:Bernrainkapelle.JPG --Pingelig (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Licensed under the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license at the original page. NC and ND licenses are forbidden on Commons. Apalsola t • c 11:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment However, it is possible that the file originally has been licensed under an acceptable license but the author has changed the license after the file has been uploaded to Commons. If that is the case, the file should not be deleted since Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. (That is the reason I did not mark the file as {{Copyvio}}.) --Apalsola t • c 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep. OK, it seems that User:Anomity, the uploader of the file, actually is "Eddie" at alcazarmountain.com. Moreover, the file on Commons is of higher resolution than the image at alcazarmountain.com, so alcazarmountain.com cannot be the source. Removed the deletion request. Sorry about the inconvinience. --Apalsola t • c 12:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
non-free licensing terms Himasaram (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Moreover, there is no evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
a person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
MySpace band photo, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
cameramen Franz Planer and Karl Freund died in the 1960s, so clips from this film are still copyrighted in Germany and cannot be accepted by Commons; suggest English wikipedia as fairuse 84user (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Correction: According to German copyright law Article 65(2) cameramen are not relevant, but the screenplay and script writers are. The screenplay writers for Die Finanzen des Großherzogs (English: The Grand Duke's Finances) were Frank Heller (died 1947) and Thea von Harbou (died 1954), so that would make this film enter the public domain at the end of 2024. Fritz Wendhausen who died in 1962 is mentioned as an uncredited writer by IMDB. -84user (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Davorin Popović (bottom left) and Jovan Dučić (bottom left center) are not Muslims (Bosniaks),they are only from Bosnia and Herzegovina. CrniBombarder!!! (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree.Tonka (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes,it`s in use,but what it has to do with a fact that picture is wrong? CrniBombarder!!! (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Pieter is very fanny. :) Also where is the source? Tonka (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now, that is indeed a good reason to delete this gallery: no evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Deletation is needed, not just becouse two images don't show Bosniaks but also becouse images are not free to use; examples:
- Džemal Bijedić
- Davorin Popović--Croata (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- This image is misleading, I don't know what the uploader thought, but it is helping spreading false facts on two men. -- Bojan Talk 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Image is incorrectly tagged with {{PD-Canada}}. The image is from a 1955 book published in France, where copyright extends 70 years pma. This image will not enter the public domain until 2025 at the earliest. Moreover, French law does not recognize works for hire, so presuming that the book identifies the artist, the copyright could extend beyond 2025 depending on the lifetime of the artist. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wknight94 talk 14:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Living person, easily replaceable by a non-copyrighted image, and there's nothing about this image that takes it beyond that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unauthorized derivative work from copyrighted film (1994). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, the film is available from the Internet Archive under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think some investigation may be required here; as I understand it, films made public at the time this one was attract copyright for 50 years unless otherwise specified. The upload to Internet Archive claims CC3.0, but there is no evidence who the uploader is, and if a creator, is relinquishing his rights to this extent, or if otherwise, that the film itself was then, and is now, free of copyright. Therefore, I regard this source with doubt, since I'm not aware how much effort Internet Archive takes to validate its uploads, whatever the claim. And for the sake of argument, this is in no way related to the content nature of the film or its participants; it's a simple (?) copyright issue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I had a look at the Internet Archive's terms of use and noticed the following:
- You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law. ...
- The Archive does not ... guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is ... noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content. In addition, the Collections are provided to you on an as-is and as-available basis. You agree that your use of the Site and the Collections is at your sole risk. You understand and agree that the Archive makes no warranty or representation regarding the accuracy, currency, completeness, reliability, or usefulness of the content in the Collections, that the Site or the Collections will meet your requirements, that access to the Collections will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free, or that defects, if any, will be corrected. We make no warranty of any kind, either express or implied. [Emphasis added.]
- The first paragraph quote above puzzles me. On the one hand, the film seems to have been released under a free licence. On the other, the website says that users can only make non-commercial and/or fair use of its content. Arguably, this makes it uncertain whether the film or stills from it can be hosted on the Commons. As for the second paragraph, in my view it reinforces Rodhullandemu's point. Essentially, the Internet Archive is assuming no responsibility for ensuring that the content hosting on its website complies with copyright requirements. While this is a pretty standard disclaimer for most content-hosting websites (I'm sure Flickr and YouTube have similar provisions in their terms of use), it means we need to be careful that the Internet Archive has not been used for the equivalent of "Flickrwashing". If the film in question had been an amateur movie, I would have been comfortable assuming in good faith that the film had been released under a free licence. However, in this case we are talking about a professionally filmed documentary. I'm not sure the uploader of the image in question has provided enough evidence that the film was properly uploaded to the Internet Archive and correctly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploaded by anon002. Not enough information to check the copyright status. Trycatch (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Hussam59
[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All are unused personal photos of the user. Other personal photos he uploaded were deleted here some time ago.-- Orionist ★ talk 03:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Request from copyright holder Kessiye (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Licenses are not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Request from copyright holder Kessiye (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Licenses are not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope. JurgenNL (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image not being used for educational purposes, unlikely to be, and thus out of scope JN466 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no model age or consent noted. Out of scope. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a great illustration of mutual lesbian masturbation (and therefore perfectly in the scope and usable !). The arguments of age and consent seem to be unvalid since the persons are not recognizable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Infringes on COM:PORN. No use other than MRB's user page. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, neither the age nor consent are required by law, nominator seems to be pursuing a personal agenda against images (including those in use on multiple projects and clearly educational) with any hint of visible bodies...even if they just happen to include a bikini. AGF seems to have gone out the window with Jimbo's new jihad against "distasteful" corners of reality. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Copy and paste rebuttal. Neither Stillwaterising nor me Tyw7 is AGF! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep useful eg. for articles about lesbian love. @Stillwaterising: No model age or consent required / AGF sufficient. @Tyw7, I hope you know the basic wiki principle en:WP:AGF. --Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes, always confusing with 3 letter short names of policies :/ --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose a new template: {{Restricted use}}, which is in use at en wiki {{Restricted use}}.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- Don't forget that this template on en.wiki is used to prevent displaying of images but only if they are heavily used for vandalism. Which is not really (I think) much of a problem on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep illustrates lesbian relationships. Apart from AGF, the girls seem to be old. Notice the wrinkles and veins in the hand of the girl in the right. It doesn't look like the hand of a young person. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons isn't censored, don't try to force your violent culture on others. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I would love to delete this as a fairly rubbish image, but we don't have many alternatives of a similar vein. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, low quality image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Was closed as keep just 5 days ago. Nominator should be slapped about with a trout. -Nard the Bard 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Non admin closure. Previous debate was only closed five days ago. Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
76.121.125.205 07:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No argument given by anonymous nominator, does not rebut any of the previous arguments. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll let it run a few days, see if the IP comes back. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Dcoetzee and the previous closed requests above. — Jeff G. ツ 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of rationale for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary. Erotic. Misleading ! Monsterkillu (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per the three DRs above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept Inappropriate baseless nomination, kept per 3 previous discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW: Derivative work of the illustration on the left hand side of the image High Contrast (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's a problem, no objection for deletion. But it's a picture taken in public space, for public information... --Jean Housen 08:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I personally would wish to see this image here on Commons. It contains interesting information but it violates the bylaws of COM:DW. Unfortunately. --High Contrast (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is there any FOP in Jordan? Or might copyright have expired per COM:L#Jordan? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - without a publication date we won't know - Jcb (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This building is in construction and, in my opinion, is not close enough to its overall final aspect to bear any of the artistic value that would be infringed by this picture. For previous discussions about the copyright status of buildings in construction, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa.
- Comment Please don't delete before discussion at the Vilage Pump is concluded. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As is. But you could Keep this picture if you crop it around the Index which is in construction. For previous discussions about the copyright status of buildings in construction, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. — Xavier, 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose No FoP in Dubai is disputed. --Jklamo (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Earlier deletion nomination was closed as kept but with no reason, while Xavier's comment was to keep only if copyrighted elements cropped away, see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. My opinion is this needs cropping to isolate the building parts that are under construction and not yet showing their final architectural appearance. The foreground buildings also need cropping or blurring unless their copyright can be shown to have expired. 84user (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am also adding File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.jpg to this nomination because, although cropped, it still appears to include too much of the completed architectural work. -84user (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC) And, I just noticed that earlier images more appropriately cropped already existed, see Category:Rose Tower. -84user (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the basis for this nomination. Under US law, which is controlling, all buildings, whether copyrighted or not, can be photographed and the images used, as Freedom on Panorama applies. What is the argument for the "copyrighted elements" not being allowed in these images? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not seeing a copyright issue here. If there's no freedom of panorama in the UAE, then that needs proof of which of those buildings would be affected, and the only possible issue I see is the tiny logo on one building, which likely passes de minimis anyway. Wizardman 16:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, and the buildings affected are the tall one in the background and the shorter one to its left, and possibly the buildings in the foreground. The earlier nomination was closed as keep, probably because the situation was unclear in 2010. Later in 2010 and 2011, lengthy discussions concluded that there is no FOP, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Arab Emirates and Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute. Unless a free license is provided by the architects of those buildings, they should be cropped away, leaving just the building under construction, and maybe the top part of the background building. Otherwise Commons would be hosting a non-free derivative work, and also (erroneously, in my opinion) claiming they are under a free license. I do not understand the comment about US law, these buildings are not in the US, and (I thought) for FOP, Commons attempts to follow the law in both the US and the country of origin (yes, I know there are problems here too). The article Commons:Freedom of panorama does not mention US law being invoked to allow otherwise infringing works. -84user (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- US law is controlling, not UAE law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, and the buildings affected are the tall one in the background and the shorter one to its left, and possibly the buildings in the foreground. The earlier nomination was closed as keep, probably because the situation was unclear in 2010. Later in 2010 and 2011, lengthy discussions concluded that there is no FOP, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Arab Emirates and Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute. Unless a free license is provided by the architects of those buildings, they should be cropped away, leaving just the building under construction, and maybe the top part of the background building. Otherwise Commons would be hosting a non-free derivative work, and also (erroneously, in my opinion) claiming they are under a free license. I do not understand the comment about US law, these buildings are not in the US, and (I thought) for FOP, Commons attempts to follow the law in both the US and the country of origin (yes, I know there are problems here too). The article Commons:Freedom of panorama does not mention US law being invoked to allow otherwise infringing works. -84user (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Reopening. See Commons:Village pump#Freedom of Panorama consensus unclear. Please provide clear reasoning for any future close of this issue. 84user (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Why are you re-starting a deletion request which was just closed? Why is deleting this so important to you? The consensus of the community is clearly to keep, and yet you keep pushing the issue. This really seems to be an issue about you, and not about the image. Is this behavior not disruptive? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you making this about him? There's no consensus here; I count 4 people to keep and 3 to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete UEA's FOP means this photo can't be kept. Until we change the policy, UEA's laws will matter as the source nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is about him because the file has been kept after two deletion requests, but he keeps on trying to get it deleted. Do we operate by consensus or not? Consensus says that we keep. Not only that, but the US laws are controlling, none other, unless you're interested in following the laws of repressive regimes. If China or North Korea says an image is illegal, do you suggest we delete it, or do you want to go by the law in the country in which the Foundation's servers reside? Please think through your opinion and don't respond in a knee-jerk fashion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- First place, saying "Please think through your opinion and don't respond in a knee-jerk fashion" is insulting and rude.
- Secondly, there is no consensus here, as I've already pointed out. Even if there were a simple consensus, this is at least partially a copyright question, and definitely a policy one, which don't operate based on simple consensus.
- Thirdly, COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." It has said that for many years now. If you want to argue policy, please do so at Commons talk:Licensing, not here. --Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since every Wikipedia image can be used anywhere in the world, there are only two logically consistent possibilities: (1) Every image must be considered free in every jurisdiction everywhere in the world, or (2) Every image must be free in the country in which the image is hosted, i.e. the United States. The option that the image must be free in the U.S. and the locatio of the makes absolutely no sense, and is a decision which is not supported by WMF policy. Those attempting to enforce that option have created for Commons and the WMF a logical conundrum which cannot be solved, and which, if enforced to the fullest extent, will result in the evisceration of the repository. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- While this is the wrong place to discuss COM:L, already in early 2006 it stated "One consequence of these rules [of the Berne Convention] is that we should always care about the laws of the country of origin of the work."[2] Since early 2008 it contained the expressed requirement to be free "in at least the United States and in the source country of the work"[3]. Early 2010 the policy-tag has been added[4], though it had been considered as such for far longer. --Túrelio (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Has it escaped your notice that neither Wikipedia nor the Commons is a signatory to the Berne Convention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is simply not the place for this discussion. Whether or not you think it should be policy, it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- While this is the wrong place to discuss COM:L, already in early 2006 it stated "One consequence of these rules [of the Berne Convention] is that we should always care about the laws of the country of origin of the work."[2] Since early 2008 it contained the expressed requirement to be free "in at least the United States and in the source country of the work"[3]. Early 2010 the policy-tag has been added[4], though it had been considered as such for far longer. --Túrelio (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since every Wikipedia image can be used anywhere in the world, there are only two logically consistent possibilities: (1) Every image must be considered free in every jurisdiction everywhere in the world, or (2) Every image must be free in the country in which the image is hosted, i.e. the United States. The option that the image must be free in the U.S. and the locatio of the makes absolutely no sense, and is a decision which is not supported by WMF policy. Those attempting to enforce that option have created for Commons and the WMF a logical conundrum which cannot be solved, and which, if enforced to the fullest extent, will result in the evisceration of the repository. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is about him because the file has been kept after two deletion requests, but he keeps on trying to get it deleted. Do we operate by consensus or not? Consensus says that we keep. Not only that, but the US laws are controlling, none other, unless you're interested in following the laws of repressive regimes. If China or North Korea says an image is illegal, do you suggest we delete it, or do you want to go by the law in the country in which the Foundation's servers reside? Please think through your opinion and don't respond in a knee-jerk fashion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Policy is consensus on a project-wide scale, An essay or a DR is a smaller consensus, sometimes call CONLIMITED, simply bringing the matter to wider attention will fix the problem, by either enforcing the overall project-wide consensus, or changing the policy which is a summary of that consensus.
Policy over-rides the 'votes' of a few, and looking at this, voting is the only thing that is going on, a discussion involves ideas travelling in both directions, and I don't see one side as receptive to the ideas of the other. Penyulap ☏ 09:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you indeffed on en.wiki? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- what are you asking me for ? don't you know everything ? Penyulap ☏ 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you indeffed on en.wiki? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Policy is consensus on a project-wide scale, An essay or a DR is a smaller consensus, sometimes call CONLIMITED, simply bringing the matter to wider attention will fix the problem, by either enforcing the overall project-wide consensus, or changing the policy which is a summary of that consensus.
- Delete Please, let's get it right this time. While the building on the right, still under construction, may be free of copyright (something I don't believe is correct), the other half dozen buildings in the image, including the most prominent ones, are all copyrighted and there is no FOP here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as has been raised, it fails the FoP for the United Arab Emirates. UAE has zero FoP, unlike Australia and the UK (US is some what stricter with FoP) for example which have a FoP, making it not possible for the file to be hosted here since it isn't "free" in the "home" country that it was photographed in. Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The consensus which established the COM:L policy is clear, and this image is not free in the source country of the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If I have understood the last paragraph of en:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works correctly this image might be acceptable on the English wikipedia, and as a fully acceptable image, not merely as fair use. I notice the German wikipedia article w:de:Rose Tower makes use of an image they host locally and this category for hosting other UAE images, with each image tagged with their NoCommons template (similar to the English en:Template:Do not move to Commons). A similar solution might work for the English Wikipedia. -84user (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe the already existing Wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia images using freedom of panorama could be used, all it needs is subcategorising and some more populating, as is done in the German equivalent de:Kategorie:Datei:. -84user (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Painting from living Slovakian painter. The connection between the picture providing family and the painter is not clear. Google translation says : "The picture is from a private family collection, loaded with family prílušníkom consent for publication" I have no idea what "prílušníkom" means, whether it is a proper or common noun. By the way, "consent for publication" is not enough. Consent for free license is required. --Teofilo (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No valid source; most likely not the uploader's own work. The uploader blanked the problem tag, hence nominating here instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Quem perde é o povo
[edit]
Eu é que não falo mais nada, com a eliminação desta imagem, quem perde é o povo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.127.197.119 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Who loses is the people
[edit]
I am that I do not say more nothing, with the elimination of this image, who I lose I am the people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.127.197.119 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Gomes Netto, the puppeteer behind the account that uploaded the file in question, has also been known to edit anonymously from Tele Norte Leste Participações IP addresses. (See 189.104.94.135, mentioned in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gomes Netto.) Since 187.127.197.119 is also a Tele Norte Leste Participações IP address, the above comment is most likely made by the uploader in breach of their ban. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insufficient source information to ascertain if this is public domain in its country of publication and the US; not {{PD-US}} for certain. —innotata 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep What is your problem with the source information? It says that this is from the 1924 edition of Murray's Handbook for travelers to India. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Information about where this was published is not givan, and there is no evidence this is PD in it source country and the US (the countries of publication given are India and the US, but I think this is British). —innotata 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, published in London. No reason to delete, just change the license tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- But we need detailed information—the author for instance—and explaination of how this is PD in the US. —innotata 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, published in London. No reason to delete, just change the license tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Information about where this was published is not givan, and there is no evidence this is PD in it source country and the US (the countries of publication given are India and the US, but I think this is British). —innotata 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
let it be.. its one of the rare maps of old mumbai.
Kept, PD-Old as a "work of corporate authorship". Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Still not shown where it was published and how it is PD in its source country, and the US. —innotata 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy keep What is clearly shown is that you are unable or unwilling to understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Besides it not being fully clear on author, etc., there is no explanation of how this is PD in the US. —innotata 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is claimed to be own work, but there is no indication of how this map was made. It is almost certainly a COM:DW. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader is the author of the map. See [5]. I contacted the author by email. --TMg 17:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- No response so far. It is obvious it's the same author (user name Syrbe is the family name). But you are right, the source of the map itself is not clear. If this image is deleted all other images by the author should also be deleted (no discussion for every image needed because all are similar maps). --TMg 07:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I had not noticed those, I am now adding to this DR
- File:MAC Oberlausitzer Heide- und Teichlandschaft.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MAC Oberlausitzer Gefilde.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MAC Oberlausitzer Bergland.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MAC Lausitzer Gebirge.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MAKRO.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
may be copyvio Otourly (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep honestly, I don't see any sign of copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - Google and TinEye couldn't find a duplicate - Jcb (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
may be copyvio scan ? Otourly (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent uploads by Tomascastelazo
[edit]
- File:Censored thought.jpg
- File:Example_of_photo_collage_against_censorship.jpg
- File:Internet_censoring.jpg
(First two:) Not realistically useful for educational purposes, uploaded as a WP:POINTy protest against the blocking of Mbz1. See also the deleted File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(Third:) Beyond scope as not realistically useful for educational purposes. It is very difficult to imagine how this image might be used to illustrate the concept of censorship. This image should perhaps be considered in the context of the uploader's other recent activities which seem to involve using image uploads in a WP:POINTy protest against the blocking of Mbz1. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Example of photo collage against censorship.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Censored thought.jpg, and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example of photo collage against censorship.jpg for more of the context. Adambro (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not brave enough to speedy it? Me neither. Rocket000 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- These are more marginal than the one already deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah.
But on the other hand, they are copyvios for not complying with the licenses.Rocket000 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)- As far as I understand, they are not copyvios, Tomascastelazo used his own photos for the collages. Trycatch (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I feel bad for not checking that. I just saw a bunch of photos thrown together with no sources. I don't see all of them in his gallery, but maybe that's due people uploading minor corrections or something. Apologies to Tomascastelazo. Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, they are not copyvios, Tomascastelazo used his own photos for the collages. Trycatch (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah.
- These are more marginal than the one already deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Leave the images, delete the user? Whether they're "educational scope" or not, there's a great big disruptive WP:POINT involved in all this, and that boil ought to be lanced. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we, as a community, allow anyone to use Commons as a forum for his/her personal agenda? Is it good for this project? Or will it cause disruption and ill-will among the contributors? --Petritap (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Questions: Is censorship a real issue in the world? If you take away the user context, is the larger issue of censorship still relevant? How do you illustrate censorship? This is my attempt, as an artist, to illustrate censorship. It has nothing to do with any other issue, although I admit the timing can be considered off. There is a censorship category. I did not invent it. Censorship is a reality in the human experience, it has always existed, it exists today and it will exist tomorrow. The funny thing, the very act of nominating these images is an act of attempted censorship. Deleting them will be an act of censorship. Please read what censorship is least you accuse me of WP:POINT. Regards. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are interesting links: [[6]] and [[7]]--Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually not hosting your personal artworks is not censorship. // Liftarn (talk)
- Commons is not "hosting" my personal artworks, I am donating them for encyclopedic purposes, just like thousands of people, and just like many other images that I´ve contributed to the effort. So deleting them would be in fact an act of censorship considering the fact that I am a regular contributor and my images are of wide used and of a wide vaiety of themes. Your rationale would make every piece of artwork subject to deletion because at the bottom of the issue is the fact that every single piece of artwork (read photographs, drawings, media files) is created by a human being and thus can be considered "personal." The interpretation of one person or even a few persons of my particular work does not constitute necessarily a widely accepted interpretation, for you have to consider many issues, such as the cultural capital of the individuals, their knowledge of the subject matter, their knowledge of history, etc., etc., and yes, not because someone may not be fit to judge objectively a particular piece of artwork, it does not necessarily means that is good either. So, in a tolerant environment, reasonable people would tend to act in such a manner that is consistent with preserving particular works, even though they may not like them in the personal level, so that the possibility of use would be preserved for others. A few years ago, the Taliban destroyed with dynamite buddist monuments in Afghanistan of incalculable worth just because they were not compatible with their religious beliefs!!! Now, if there are people in this world capable of such attrocities, it really does not surprise me that there would be people willing to censor images such as mine, for the powerful and simple reason that they just don´t like them. These particular images address a real and controversial issue in society, which is censorship. I invite you to reflect on that very issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- To further illustrate the technique of photo montages and its use, I´ve modified the original image with the text referring to a contemporary topic, internet censoring in China, that is creating controversy in academic, political, legal, business and intellectual circles. Here is a link to Amnesty International, a reputable organization to some, a villian to others. [[8]]. The file I modified can be found here: [[9]]. Happy reading. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, rejection of a donation is still not a form of censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are not being censored since you have countless other ways to disseminate your work. For example, you can start a Flickr account. I don't think it makes much sense to compare real-world censorship with having some inclusion criteria for this one little website. If by "censor" you mean delete stuff that doesn't belong here, then you're right, although I disagree with your definition. Rocket000 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_censoring.jpg){kind=link}
- This is using Commons (the image repository) as a soapbox for an editor conflict (Commons the community), it is not an "image donation". I don't see the point in having these things, and the more are thrown into our faces (this seems to be a trend of late) the more annoyed I get. I say out with it. TheDJ (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Internet censoring.jpg can probably be considered to be related to these two images. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of putting that DR in with this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- You may as well put ALL my uploads for deletion, for thay are all irrelevant. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will start this last intervention of mine in this subject with a quote from Voltaire: “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
- What is happening here is that I am being singled out for what I see are three reasons: The first one is for expressing my opinion about what I consider to be an unfair block of Mila, whom I consider a valuable contributor (more than many around here, in my opinion), and her right to express her opinions about particular works of artwork uploaded that have clear political and ideological charges against her own political and ideological beliefs.
- Her block, whether the powers that be recognize it or not, accept it or not, or worse, confuse it with any one of the thousands of possible interpretations of their actions that justify the block, is simply an act of censorship. Here you can find the meaning of the word Censorship [[10]] and here you will find the meaning of the word Censor [[11]].
- Whether it is justified or not, the act itself is an act of censorship without any other moral, ethical or legal meaning or significance. Whatever meaning that people attach to the act is the sole responsibility of the person that attaches it to the act and his/her reactions thereof. Including denial or justification.
- The second one is for pointing out clear violations of procedures by an administrator in deleting a file that I uploaded that if it had been done by mere mortals, it would be considered an act of vandalism.
- The administrator corps has systematically refused to address that particular issue by shifting the focus of the discussion by accusing me of wikilawyering, being a dick, making a point, etc., etc., and yet, not one has acknowledged the clear violation of procedure and policy and no one has put in track the proper procedure according to policy. If this has gotten this far, it is precisely because I have not relented in this point. Had that been addressed properly, the discussion would have been confined to the central point. I provided plenty of links to pages and procedures and policy and not one single administrator seems to have taken notice.
- And now three of my files have been nominated for deletion for the simple reason that some administrators have “linked” my images to my original sin of siding with Mila. Adambro even states that my last file is “probably” linked to the affair (if it is probable, prove it). I don´t know whether to cry or laugh over that!!! If any observer were to look at any of the images there is no way in hell they would link them to Mila!!! Who the heck is Mila to a guy from Timbookook? Nobody!!!!
- The fact is, whether you like it or not, that photomontage is a legitimate technique in the world of propaganda, advertising, humor, etc., etc., and whether you find these particular images relevant is irrelevant in the wider conversation of photomontages and censorship.
- What is evident is that you all find them offensive, so I guess the technique and the images are successful, for otherwise you all would have just let them expire into oblivion, like most people just let other works slip into forgetfulness, such as the work that Mila tries to categorize. These image are so effective that they have created a mob movement for censoring them!!!
- Whatever I say about myself would be considered like tooting my own horn, so I´ll be brief on that subject. I have been an educator and accomplished artist for a long time. Don´t take my word for it, you can find references about me in the internet. By the time a lot of you go for the milk, I am on the way back with the cheese.
- You can call me names, you can censor my images, you can block me. But none of that will take away the miscarriage of justice you have bestowed upon Mila or myself. Think about that “possibility”, as Adambro would say (this is the third reason).
- So in summation, my sins are:
- 1. To be a friend of Mila.
- 2. To point out administrator misbehavior and last,
- 3. For uploading files that “probably” have to do with Mila´s dilemma.
- I invite you all to read a little bit of what the Encyclopaedic movement was all about and link it to this wiki effort [[12]] and think if your actions are consistent with the spirit of the movement.
- I am absolute certain that my uploads are consistent with the aim of Commons and I have absolutely no need for either the approval or dissapproval of obscure administrators, and if any of you take offense with this statement, I will take each of you one on one, on the real world of education and art and demostrate real life results and contributions. Any takers? You can all agree in your dark conclave of course that I am a troublemakers and have me banished. That is the easiest solution, after all. Humanity is not above such actions. Remember the Inquisition [[13]].
- This is a call to your conscience, if you have any.
- And last, I will close this last intervention of mine in this subject with the same quote from Voltaire: “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
- Respectfully submitted, for those whe deserve respect. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Images are property of the uploader, no copy vios. I see nothing wrong with the images to the extent that they should be deleted. --Muhammad (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The aggressive rhetoric above shows the provocative nature of uploads which are only here to make a point. Lycaon (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Inappropriate canvassing? Adambro (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment First of all COM:SPEEDY#Regular_deletion says that deletions of files not in scope should go through a DR and not be speedied. Therefore I think it is good that we have this DR instead of some admin just speeding the files.
- As for canvassing I think it is ok to ask other users to comment. Otherwise it would also be inappropiate when admins tells friends to comment on a post on COM:AN.
- Is this own work? If files are hosted on Commons I think the best would be to add a link to the files.
- Is this usefull? Well it is kind of funny but I really doubt that this will be anything else than a {{Userpageimage}}. --MGA73 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete files and user for violations of COM:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Come on! If you look at the page you link to you should notice this line "... However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Commons to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this essay." I really do not think that a few images like that can disrupt Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope as I can't imagine how they are useful other than for making points about either a recent block, or now, a generalized "censorship" issue. As for canvassing, I think it's not ok, especially when it involves users who support anything if it's done by someone that shares their views regardless of anything else, such as the purpose of this website (and yes I don't like when admins do it either, but thanks for giving me another reason to write COM:OTHERUSERSEXIST)... Uploading a couple images to express your views, I can easily tolerate, but parading them around, canvassing users to help fight against their deletion, wasting multiple (previously uninvolved) users' time here and elsewhere, etc. is, I hate to say it, "disruptive". It's not the images themselves, it's the behavior they are an instrument to (and are in fact their primary purpose). We're wasting too much time on this. Rocket000 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Ideologized--Miguel Bugallo 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, I thought we were only talking about the first picture. I would keep the first one but delete the other two.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sounds like a kurfluffle over nothing really, among a bunch of individuals that the wider community could care less about. Are they educational? Seems so.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Muhammad. Stellarkid (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I especially like the second one, with the w:John Stuart Mill quote. Censorship is a real issue in this world and something that we should, as educators, (which aren't we all?) work hard to eradicate. Anything creative that puts this message across is valuable. Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all three - I find these to be well within commons' current practice in terms of scope, not knowing anything about the underlying causes that inspired these works (rather like almost all commons' media) I think we should tread carefully with the handling of such material, and I like the idea of being part of a project which can embrace it. Privatemusings (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per Rocket000. –Tryphon☂ 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (note, I was asked to comment) Smacks of point-ism. I can conceive of some reasonable use for these, maybe, but it's a stretch. We give users fairly wide latitude on personal images, especially if they are productive users in other regards. I can't make up my mind if that latitude should stretch this far or not. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all three, assuming no copyvio. They refer to the current dispute obliquely enough that they could easily have other uses, so deletion doesn't seem the best sanction for any misconduct here. (I am not saying whether there was or was not any misconduct, and I don't believe this is the right venue to discuss that anyway.) --Avenue (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --HAH (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Internet_censoring.jpg, though I'm not really enamored of the other two. We should not be in the habit of putting words in the mouth of identifiable people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't like aesthetically but I don't find a reason to be deleted. Ggia (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Dodo (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing
[edit]
On a separate point from the earlier out-of-scope nomination..... The images are stated to be montages. Which makes me wonder "montages of what?". Where is this source material coming from ? Are the original pictures made by Tomascastelazo ? Are the originals already available on Commons ? TheDJ (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure about this. Tomascastelazo has said "I am the author of every image, therefore the source, the collage is mine and the individual pictures are mine". Some must already be on Commons since he's said some are featured. Adambro (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is good practice for images that are montages to include in their description a link to all the source images used. I think if these images are kept we should expect that to be done in this case. The provenance is muddy now, and it's hard to check for model releases and suchlike. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I sourced one and three, but two has only partially sources on Commons. Lycaon (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will answer this one because it has to do with authorship. The collage itself is a finished product, created from the arrangement of several photographs of my authorship. They were taken in public places so 1) no model releases are needed and 2) as long as they are used for editorial purposes they are within fair editorial use. If model realeases were necessary of images of every recognizable people, I´d love the see the model release on this, for example, uploaded by Lycaon [[14]], or this, by mattbuck [[15]], or this one adambro´s gallery [[16]], or this [[17], or this in liftarn´s gallery, [[18]]or this in TheDJ´s gallery [[19]]... and so on and so on... There is a saying in Mexico: "If the cow is mine, so is the calf". --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is rather interesting that all the examples you give seem to be related to users who have expressed concerns about these images but bizarrely that doesn't include the only person who has mentioned model releases. To say that the main requirement for you here to is to convince those with concerns that these images aren't more about stirring up Commons disputes you're not really doing yourself any favours. Adambro (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you were in my shoes and considering that my work is being censored in bunch, it is hard not to want to make sure that those that are detractors are squeeqy clean and I am not measured with a different scale. Just want to make sure that the judging field is level. I´ve given up on my request to look into administrator vandalism and clear violation of Commons policy, due to the fact that the only thing that has resulted is in administrator-sponsored censorship. Just look at this page! Not one deletion request, not two but three!!! What a deal! Three for one! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Adambro, just one last passing comment... The image in your gallery [[20]] illustrates nicely the real world use of photomontages [[21]] for propaganda purposes. Love the one of the tank. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1 was the photographer, I just extracted it from File:Demonstrations in san francisco about hamas Israel conflict 1-10-9.jpg. Adambro (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Adambro, just one last passing comment... The image in your gallery [[20]] illustrates nicely the real world use of photomontages [[21]] for propaganda purposes. Love the one of the tank. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you were in my shoes and considering that my work is being censored in bunch, it is hard not to want to make sure that those that are detractors are squeeqy clean and I am not measured with a different scale. Just want to make sure that the judging field is level. I´ve given up on my request to look into administrator vandalism and clear violation of Commons policy, due to the fact that the only thing that has resulted is in administrator-sponsored censorship. Just look at this page! Not one deletion request, not two but three!!! What a deal! Three for one! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is good practice for images that are montages to include in their description a link to all the source images used. I think if these images are kept we should expect that to be done in this case. The provenance is muddy now, and it's hard to check for model releases and suchlike. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that's what I wanted to get clarified. Better to have those double uses written down TheDJ (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Himba_lady_preparing_deodorant.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nottingham_Pride_MMB_01.JPG){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Demonstrations_in_san_francisco_about_hamas_Israel_conflict_1-10-9-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lappeenranta_Games_2009_w400m-hurdles.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_NEASTRIBAL_DILLEBURG.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adam_Curry_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep DR seems to have been opened to punish the user. Keep for peace on commons. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The DR is because I don't believe this user-created artwork is of educational use. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Since the vote is fairly split, let's assume good faith on WP:POINT, and hope that Tomas lives up to it. 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)