Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
converted to DR by me from a speedy by LGR109 for "artist Herbert Knötel died only in 1963". --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- komisch,komisch, daß den aber auch so keiner kennt - ziehe meinen Widerspruch zurück und bekenne mich des Irrtums schuldig. Kann wieder weg. Löschung war rechtens. -- Steinbeisser (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader agrees to deletion. Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This file is too bad for dutch users, whether they're blind or not. The english words are even wrong pronounced. All the words have an too dutch dialect sound. MaanMeis (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep, in use. –Tryphon☂ 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the point; the spoken article is quite bad, so it should be removed from the page. This, however, is not possible because there is a editwar going on, and the article has been protected by an admin... Greetings, Kthoelen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not the place to settle this. As long as the file is in use on another project, we have to keep it. And even if it's not in use anymore, if there's no replacement, I'm pretty sure it will be kept. –Tryphon☂ 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the point; the spoken article is quite bad, so it should be removed from the page. This, however, is not possible because there is a editwar going on, and the article has been protected by an admin... Greetings, Kthoelen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close, file is in use and other people found it OK. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is a discussion about this issue going on on nl.wiki, which isn't even close to being finished. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete even though file is in use I am in favour of deletion. The pronunciation of the English names in the article is of such pour quality that it is oftimes hilarious to listen to... which is not the purpose of the ogg-files. This file does not add any value to Wikipedia, quite the contrary even, to my opinion. Eve (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)- Delete The narrators voice is not suited for this kind of job. He is aware of this fact, but refuses to do anything about it. There are also many mistakes in the English pronunciation. Just hear how he pronounces Sinéad O'Connor, but that's just an example. Overall this recording doesn't meet Wikipedia quality standards and should be removed. --.....jeroencommons..... 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Even though the file is in use. This recording is absolutely horrible! The pronunciation of most English words is just... well, wrong I guess, not to mention the pronunciation of some of the Dutch text. Most definitely in favour of deletion. Erik1980 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As with 'bad' quality pictures, delete or replace. Michiel1972 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to make a new version, if other users approve of that. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do so VR-Land, thnx for your time in this case. --MaanMeis (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to make a new version, if other users approve of that. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per all above Sumurai8 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File in use, not to us (commons folks) to decide for the nl community here. Esby (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This file is too bad for dutch users, whether they're blind or not. The english words are even wrong pronounced. All the words have an too dutch dialect sound. MaanMeis (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. –Tryphon☂ 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the point; the spoken article is quite bad, so it should be removed from the page. This, however, is not possible because there is a editwar going on, and the article has been protected by an admin... Greetings, Kthoelen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not the place to settle this. As long as the file is in use on another project, we have to keep it. And even if it's not in use anymore, if there's no replacement, I'm pretty sure it will be kept. –Tryphon☂ 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the point; the spoken article is quite bad, so it should be removed from the page. This, however, is not possible because there is a editwar going on, and the article has been protected by an admin... Greetings, Kthoelen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close, file is in use and other people found it OK. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is a discussion about this issue going on on nl.wiki, which isn't even close to being finished. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete even though file is in use I am in favour of deletion. The pronunciation of the English names in the article is of such pour quality that it is oftimes hilarious to listen to... which is not the purpose of the ogg-files. This file does not add any value to Wikipedia, quite the contrary even, to my opinion. Eve (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The narrators voice is not suited for this kind of job. He is aware of this fact, but refuses to do anything about it. There are also many mistakes in the English pronunciation. Just hear how he pronounces Sinéad O'Connor, but that's just an example. Overall this recording doesn't meet Wikipedia quality standards and should be removed. --.....jeroencommons..... 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Even though the file is in use. This recording is absolutely horrible! The pronunciation of most English words is just... well, wrong I guess, not to mention the pronunciation of some of the Dutch text. Most definitely in favour of deletion. Erik1980 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As with 'bad' quality pictures, delete or replace. Michiel1972 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to make a new version, if other users approve of that. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do so VR-Land, thnx for your time in this case. --MaanMeis (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to make a new version, if other users approve of that. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per all above Sumurai8 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File in use, not to us (commons folks) to decide for the nl community here. Esby (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The attribution of this image is most certainly wrong. The photographer specified as an author is a wedding photographer, and the photograph was used before even in books: http://www.amazon.com/Stories-Identities-Political-Change-Charles/dp/0742518825 . VasilievVV (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio PeterSymonds (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
=== Tylenol ===
Wikipedia article. Article is not needed. Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Royal broil 04:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate name Maksim Sidorov (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:An-148 cabin 01.jpg — the same file with correct name. [[User:Maksa|Maksim Sidorov]] (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:An-148 cabin 01.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
not meant to be here Portfolio13 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Переименовать в Vitaliy Denisov3 fanSHAXTER (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OK, 
Done. Лучше использовать шаблон {{Rename}} в таких случаях. Trycatch (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This image appears to be cropped from a still capture from the Prince Royce video hosted at walmart.com. The Flickrstream appears to be run by Lunchbox Studios who may well be promoting the website but it is not clear that they are the copyright holder of the pop video. If kept (or any similar from this Flickrstream) then a release statement via OTRS would be needed. Fæ (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- No creo que la fotografía sea una captura de cuadro de algún video de los que aparecen en http://soundcheck.walmart.com/acceso-total/prince-royce, porque por lógica esto sería imposible ya que el sello con la dirección de Walmart aparece en el lado izquierdo de las fotografías, mientras que en los videos aparece en el lado derecho.
- Tiene más sentido inferir que Lunchbox Studios sería la firma contratada para realizar las fotografías, porque todas las imágenes que tiene publicadas en Flickr son para Walmart. Inhakito (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- (It's very hard for me to believe that this image is cropped from any video hosted at http://soundcheck.walmart.com/acceso-total/prince-royce, because the sign of WALMART.COM appears in the left side on the picture, meanwhile it appears on the right side in every video.) Inhakito (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "WALMART" has been added at some point as part of their promotional campaign - for example compare with this higher resolution and uncropped version: http://alante809.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Prince-Royce.jpg which rather demonstrates that this image cannot be considered original. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted –Juliancolton | Talk 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Should be TeX Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- This file seems to be unused (so far) and has irrelevant name, which might have a better use. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Two more non valid reasons for deleting a file? Most files on commons are unused at any particular instant (and this one has only just been uploaded! give it a chance :-), a poor file name might suggest we rename it, not delete it. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now it is used here. It just seems that the author/uploader didn't know how to type TeX (ar.wikipedia.org does support it -- I've just checked) and decided to use such perverted approach. There are other files ("1" to "5", "R" and, in particular, "Rrr (Medium)") from the same person. Hopefully, the author (or somebody else) will fix the article soon (I do not do that, since I don't understand how LTR and RTL text mixing works, and afraid to make mistakes), making these files absolutely useless.
An example about the file names can be seen here.
BTW, why do you want to keep it? :-)
-- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now it is used here. It just seems that the author/uploader didn't know how to type TeX (ar.wikipedia.org does support it -- I've just checked) and decided to use such perverted approach. There are other files ("1" to "5", "R" and, in particular, "Rrr (Medium)") from the same person. Hopefully, the author (or somebody else) will fix the article soon (I do not do that, since I don't understand how LTR and RTL text mixing works, and afraid to make mistakes), making these files absolutely useless.
- This file seems to be unused (so far) and has irrelevant name, which might have a better use. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you want to delete it?, it's not as though 'deleting' things on the wiki actually even saves space. I'm not able to converse in Arabic, but hopefully he will see the TeX examples now attached to each image. It must be quite frustrating for him when trying to built an article on ar-wikipedia to have his images immediately attacked - it is as though we have an allergic reaction to him posting here. Remember that Commons is here to be a resource for other wikis, not to hinder them. Yes there may be better ways to do things, but often people just want to get things done, neat and tidy can come later. I'm not quite sure about what sense these left to right formulas (as images or Tex) make in a right to left page, but presumably they are useful :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unused, out of scope as being entirely replaceable by wiki markup. –Tryphon☂ 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- These should also go, for the same reason:
- –Tryphon☂ 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Question I am not sure how easy it is to use the <math> markup on right-to-left pages such as ar:wikipedia. The TeX generated images looks fine on their pages, but I found editing a right-to-left page to add this sort of markup was very messy (and rather confusing), brackets tend to be displayed in odd places (try it :-) and it was very difficult to work out whether the formula was being correctly entered. The user presumably knows of TeX as all these images appear to have been generated using math-TeX, so I would like to first find out whether there is a problem with using it in-line on right-to-left pages. I have left a message on the user's ar:Talk page but the assistance of an ar:Admin would be helpful here. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a sitenote: For an LTR editor its not more easy or more difficult to include or edit any image link or any other link containing square brackets in RTL wikis. I always face serious difficulties if I try to replace images in any RTL wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As it looks like these images are just generated by math-TeX anyway, and the Tex appears to work (ignoring editing problems) in right-to-left pages I have stuck my keep vote. I have still not had any response from the contributor though, so don't know whether there is any other problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Info There are many more now! I wrote to the Administrators' noticeboard...
- Delete all, per Tony's note, it seems like there is nothing wrong with using TeX. If anyone agrees (and the user gives no response), I could temporary block this user, so that there wont be a big stash of unnecessary uploads... Rehman 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Block? this user isn't doing any 'damage', they are simply uploading files to use on *pedia pages, that some people think are unnecessary are subject to deletion requests. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Temporarily block until the situation is clarified. The "damage" is not direct, but through increasing entropy. :-) The images are created by some TeX implementation, so the author definitely has (or can get) access to the TeX source. However, the file descriptions do not include the code (in fact, they are completely missing) making any reuse virtually impossible. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Info This file is an exact copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protein_detection.JPG, but claims
{{self|Cc-zero}}. That is really not good. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)- Comment This is a deletion request, the discussion is now far wider and not appropriate here, I think we should continue/move this to Administrators' noticeboard not here --Tony Wills (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, I disagree, splitting things up will only make thing more confusing; all that's being discussed here is somewhat related to one another. As per blocking, that was just an option ("If anyone agrees , and the user gives no response"). Rehman 10:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Totally the wrong place, move extraneous discussions to a better place. Duplicate uploads and blocking have absolutely *nothing* to do with closing this deletion discussion. This is a discussion about the merits of some files, not user actions, totally the wrong forum, wrong process --Tony Wills (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS there is not a "big stash" of uploads, these are generally tiny files (a few k), we're wasting more space by discussing it :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay :-) Rehman 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, I disagree, splitting things up will only make thing more confusing; all that's being discussed here is somewhat related to one another. As per blocking, that was just an option ("If anyone agrees , and the user gives no response"). Rehman 10:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Plain text replaced with TeX - replaced back I have to say, the ar.wp editor is not writing new articles but copy&pasting from en.wp, he however not copies the source text with the TeX markup but creating images of the formulas. We replaced this back in the ar.wp to the usual TeX markup. Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first version is the file from the flickr with valid license and source, but have no idea about the current version Mys 721tx (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to the edit summary of the second upload, it comes from http://www.flickr.com/photos/casapres/5562605203/sizes/o/in/set-72157626235101059/, which is clearly marked as non-free ({{Noncommercial}}). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question: is it possible to just delete the second upload?--Mys 721tx (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Both uploads are CC-BY-NC-SA, not allowed in Commons. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder not known. No source listed. Most likely a copyvio. Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. No source. False licence. Copy of promotional photo. This picture can be found on this website. Same thing with the other file uploaded by the same uploader, File:Coffee Carafe Decaf.jpg, which can be found there. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have nominated File:Coffee Carafe Decaf.jpg for deletion also. Thank you. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: delete as per nom russavia (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No source info, no author, and has already been confirmed as a copyvio. Siddharth Patil (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: delete per nom russavia (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
no permission of "Author: Sebastian Schütze" - no desciption, no cats Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently copyright violation; user claims both public domain and taken from singer's website. TenPoundHammer (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of being released under a free licence russavia (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
orphaned logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader claims COM:FOP; I cannot comment on that, since we do not know where exactly the picture has been taken, and therefore, whether it complies with the requirements of FOP in Czechia. --Mormegil (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I suppose, this photo was (or at least can be) taken somewhere in public part of the airport, then the depicted logo fall under FOP, as is clearly declared by FOP template. The uploader can be (and probably is) the copyright holder of the photo. --ŠJů (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FOP in the Czech Republic is outdoors -- "waiting rooms" and the like are specifically excluded so unless we can find out that this is outdoors at the airport, it must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
orphaned logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment See also File:LKMTlogo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:LKMTlogo.jpg
- Delete
speedy. Copyvio, such logo extraction is not covered under FOP exemptions. --Mormegil (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The socalled "FOP" in Czech Copyright Act allows not only to photograph a work placed at a public place but also to express it by a drawing or graphic. Redrawing of a logo falls under this exemption. "Do práva autorského nezasahuje ten, kdo kresbou, malbou či grafikou, fotografií nebo filmem zaznamená nebo vyjádří dílo, které je umístěno na náměstí, ulici, v parku, na veřejných cestách nebo na jiném veřejném prostranství; autorovo svolení není třeba ani pro rozmnožování, rozšiřování a sdělování veřejnosti díla takto zaznamenaného nebo vyjádřeného." --ŠJů (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Mormegil --Chmee2 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have some serious doubt that Andy Hug took this pic by himself and released it into public domain ten years after his death. Beastpack (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a press photo of notable individuals. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a professional/press photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo of an individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned book cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. No foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Cover doesn't go beyond PD-Text and could be used on the appropriate journal page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned book cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. No foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Cover doesn't go beyond PD-Text and could be used on the appropriate journal page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned book cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. No foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's in use; unfortunately the insect design goes beyond the threshold of PD-Text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Estonia - apparently no PD-old. Perhaps this should be stretched to the complete category on this building. Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:View from the Tallinn Song Festival ground tower.jpg. Lymantria (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. No FOP in Estonia russavia (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Estonia - apparently no PD-old. Perhaps this should be stretched to the complete category on this building. Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:View from the Tallinn Song Festival ground tower.jpg. Lymantria (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. No FOP in Estonia russavia (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Estonia - apparently no PD-old. Lymantria (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. No FOP in Estonia russavia (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a work by Sergey Makarov. Is the photographer and uploader Sergey Makarov himself, or did they obtain permission from him? –Tryphon☂ 09:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am the single author of this work.
- I am the photographer the initial natural model.
- I personaly improved the quality of the photo for publishing.
- I suggested the photo to Wikimedia Commons this morning. What else you want from me?
- Sergey Makarov --Segrim (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear that User:Segrim is the same person as Sergey Makarov. But since it's the case, there's no problem with this image. Thanks for clarifying. –Tryphon☂ 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that I closed it as Kept above, but another look at it raises the questions:
- Is this in scope?
- What is it intended to be?
- What is its connection with space?
- It looks like a personal creation.....
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am Sergey Makarov (SEGRIM= SErgey GRIgorjevich Makarov).
"Five_5x1" is intended to be space platform of wide tasks range. Data of my author's right for the structure is June 10, 1982. This structure was created in accordance with my "Law compatibility of quasi-ortogonal tangentially-undulated cable-stayed networks". Data of my author's right for the "Law..." is September 08, 1989. This "Law..." is under expertize in Academy of Sciencies of Russia now as my personal opening. All information on this tema you'll find on my site: http://hammer.bas.lv/. --Segrim (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete For me it sounds like an obvious pseudo-scientific technobabble. And just read his site: "applying my "law of world harmony", [...] I found a way to treat AIDS and cancer diseases" [1], "I [...] gradually entered into a state of merging with the Absolute, Absolute Knowledge", Blavatskaja, Kabbalah, energy-information field, astrology and so on. Typical fringe science. And while the pictures by themselves are nice, but I doubt they could fit in COM:SCOPE. Btw it seems that all these pictures uploaded by Segrim have nothing to do with w:Tensegrity, so I am somewhat concerned that category Category:Tensegrity is filled with all these irrelevant stuff. Trycatch (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am a solitary scientist with a very broad-minded. If Mr. Trycatch has no idea about the energy-information field and about the worlds of higher dimensions - that's his problem. However, this is not the problem of Wikimedia Commons. Buckminster Fuller himself has defined the concept of "tensegrity" as "tensed integrity". What is possible here to argue about? All of my designs - this is the real representatives on "stress unity." If you, Mr. Trycatch, want make better the definition of Fuller, the best way is to Get your new partition, determine its subject (other than the theme of "tensegrity" of Fuller) and wait for those who will support your theme. As for my treatment of AIDS and cancer, it has long been tested and applied in practice, although professionals and do not want to acknowledge my priority for this method. However, this is not a topic for discussion in this section... I hope that even in spite of your attempt to discredit me and my website information, common sense and logic will prevail. Best regards! Makarov Sergey. --Segrim (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) All the information on my site (http://hammer.bas.lv) is true and clear. However, as I understand it, because of its unusual content, it, perhaps, may be even dangerous for some weak people. It is not necessary to visit my site for people with a weak psyche. I wish you all the best! Sergei Makarov.--Segrim (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've mentioned use of pseudo-scientific terms by you and your "invention" of cure for both AIDS and cancer, only because otherwise someone may confuse you with a legit scientist (you've mentioned Russian Academy of Sciences in your first post). What about tensegrity -- see definition of w:tensegrity from Wikipedia:
Tensegrity, tensional integrity or floating compression, is a structural principle based on the use of isolated components in compression inside a net of continuous tension, in such a way that the compressed members (usually bars or struts) do not touch each other and the prestressed tensioned members (usually cables or tendons) delineate the system spatially.
- In your craft there are no "floating" compressed members that do not touch each other, compressed members are NOT disconnected as they should be. Just compare photos of your craft with any other picture in Category:Tensegrity:
-
real tensegrity -
real tensegrity -
real tensegrity -
real tensegrity -
your "tensegrity"
.jpg){kind=link}
conquest_BiH(1167).png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- There is nothing similar. Not every structure with cables or wires (e.g. a cable bridge or a tennis racquet) has something to do with tensegrity. Trycatch (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Trycatch! I'm not very skillful in English, but I will try to write as clearly as possible. After all, between us, is not a simple "domestic quarrel" but a problem that also applies to many other people. I do not know where and from who did you study, but in matters of ordinary logic you things are very bad. Let me explain: you bring out the Wikipedia definition of "Tensegrity," in which construction must necessarily have a "net of continuous tension" and "compressed members, which do not touch each other". After that, you show your "standards" in which the whole network, as such, there is absent, but all straight-line elements in all structures are in contact with each other. Exception - Kenneth Snelson’s model, in which straight-line elements in general certainly are connected in pairs into the cross-shaped elements which can not be considered nor beams, nor struts. And this is for you "the ideals of tensegrity structures"? I want to note: it is in all of my models is clearly present "a net of continuous tension"... I think you're just accustomed to thinking of tensegrity structures as only those structures that are composed of "pencils on threads" and this is your weakness. You are not open to new approaches to old things, which are very usual fore you... Let's not "fish in troubled waters" and consider not definition from Wikipedia, under which no one signed up, but the definition of tensegrity of the author of this term: What is tensegrity? "The word 'tensegrity' is an invention: a contraction of 'tensional integrity.' Tensegrity describes a structural-relationship principle in which structural shape is guarenteed by the finitely closed, comprehensively continuous, tensional behaviors of the system and not by the discontinuous and exclusively local compressional member behaviors." - Richard Buckminster Fuller (exerpt from Synergetics, p. 372.)
As my native language is Russian, I will give my translation of Fuller's definition into Russian. You have a lot of Russian-speaking colleagues, let them help you understand the definition of "tensegrity": «"Тенсегрити" – слово-изобретение: концентрированная «напряженная целостность». Тенсегрити описывает структурную взаимосвязь, в принципе, в которой конструктивная форма гарантируется совершенно закрытым, всесторонне непрерывным, напряженным поведением системы, а не разрывными и исключительно местными сжатиями в поведении ее членов.» All my structures are very precisely fit the definition of Fuller. I would like to add that Fuller considered an ordinary tree as perfect tensegrity structure in the nature. Now try to answer yourself the following questions. Have anything similar between your "pencils on threads" and the ordinary tree?" Is an ordinary sports bow a tensegrity structure? From that, can you honestly answer these questions, depends the answer to entirely different question: do you have a general moral right to judge others and to work up of them as the expert. Only the truth is written on my site. How would you on it were not kidding, it will not suffer from you. My information has already read by people from 42 countries of the world (I have statistics) and no one of them wasn't forcibly directed to my website. As for the "Academy of Science," then it would be nice if you could also have been truthful in describing my mention of it. The fact is that the April 13, 2011 the Russian Academy of Sciences (Chairman of the Board) has received from me an official letter to consider my statement on my opening in the field of mechanics, namely, the "the law compatibility of quasi-ortogonal tangentially-undulated cable-stayed networks" (priority date: September 8, 1989). Copies of my materials at the same time received the Science Secretary of Academy and director of the Institute of Mechanics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Consideration of this question is usually takes not less than six months. If you want - you can honestly write about it without any humor. Now about my other opening (which is done on the basis of my Law of the World Harmony) - a method to treat cancer and AIDS by a common electromagnetic hyperthermia. On this occasion (as you, as I understand it, is "broadly inquisitive person") I can give you the following quote from an official Information from the International Medical Center "Shahatana": «...method of "optimal resonant hyperthermia" (ORGT) is the most affordable and most effective in the treatment of cancer with minimal contraindications.» Previously, this information can be seen on the site http://WWW.NT22.BY.RU. Now the site is down, the academy "Shahatana" closed, and its chief, Professor V.V. Chekurov went to Bulgaria. When I try to call the above site, the system redirects me to the site http://www.worder.org/index.html, but I did not penetrate into its content. In the article "Hyperthermia - a blow to AIDS" (which is also on my site) the journalist Vdovenko just says, "... recognized and Makarov's priority in the discovery of the method of hyperthermia vs. the American scientist Robert Gallo." In an official report of Professor Rakhmanova also written directly about my priority in comparison with R. Gallo ... Why would you, Mr. Trycatch, do not write about it in your "memories of visiting my site?" Mr. Trycatch, believe me: all your "pseudo" and quotes that you add to my achievements, does not decorate you and do not elevate. Be honest and unemotional when you are writing about the work of others. Then you'll be more like a serious man of business than now. Since a definition of "tensegrity" you cited is very far from what was offered by Fuller, it is better to replace your definition with the definition of Fuller. This will allow all of us in the future to avoid such long discussions. Если же вы считаете себя серьезным и прогрессивным человеком, то вместо своего определения можете сразу поместить мое «обобщенное определение тенсегрити-конструкции», которое изложено мною в статье If you consider yourself a serious and progressive man, so instead of your definition you can immediately place my "generalized definition of tensegrity structures," which I described in the article «Tensegrity - it's potency». Unlike of the Fuller's definition my definition will be directly applicable to any field of science and to any field of art and I do not hesitate to sign up under him. I assure you: the future belongs to my definition. The sooner you will feel it, the better it will be for all of us. Sincerely Yours! Sergey Makarov--Segrim (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's take the definition of tensegrity by w:Kenneth Snelson, one of the most famous persons in this field (you have already mentioned him):
tensegrity describes a closed structural system composed of a set of three or more elongate compression struts within a network of tension tendons, the combined parts mutually supportive in such a way that the struts do not touch one another, but press outwardly against nodal points in the tension network to form a firm, triangulated, prestressed, tension and compression unit.
- In a nutshell it's the same thing -- "compression struts" should not touch each other. Your models don't fit in this definition. Yes, your models fit in the definition by Fuller, but it's so vague that pretty much everything could fit in it (you've cited Fuller that he considered that an ordinary tree is an example of "tensegrity"). This definition is not used in English Wikipedia for a reason, and it seems that it's not widely adopted. It will be complete mess if one will use this definition on Commons -- all bicycles, kites, trees, and so on should be included in mega-category "tensegrity" in this case.
- What is also important -- your work doesn't fit in the scope of Commons (see COM:SCOPE). To be hosted on Commons, content should be realistically useful for educational purposes, but I fail to see any realistic educational use for your content. Trycatch (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The essence is that, what is your problem: the Fuller's definition (the author of the term tensegrity) is appropriate for very many stable systems, including galaxies. You are strongly narrowed the Fuller's definition. What is your benefit, I do not know. But your road is dead-end... History will judge us. Makarov Sergey --Segrim (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - maybe tensegrity was confused with tennisgrity? - seems out of scope - Jcb (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The source is stated as "Own work www.google.fr". Which is it? If it's taken from Google (and the very low resolution makes me think it is), then it's not the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as a copyvio russavia (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Some sort of technical error. No image. Luu (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Appears to be OK now Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no freedom of panorama for vehicles in Germany [2] this image must get deleted 80.187.106.196 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ARemscheid_L%C3%BCttringhausen_-_Bauernmarkt_13_ies.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=52179262&oldid=52175468){kind=link}
- “There is no freedom of panorama for vehicles in Germany” is only an overall statement and not a reason why this particular image must be deleted. As long as it remains unexplained what particular part of the image shows something copyrighted (that might not be covered by FOP) this delition request remains incomprehensible. -- Ies (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The painting, perhaps a snake? clearly has a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of both the statue and the original design. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This and 2 other files by the same uploader looks a lot like files uploaded to http://www.standard-femina.be - was speedy requested on IRC but I think we should take it to a normal DR.
- File:Audrey Demoustier.jpg vs. http://www.standard-femina.be/fr/playerinfo.php?pl=ademoustier
- File:Julie Grégoire.jpg vs. http://www.standard-femina.be/fr/playerinfo.php?pl=jgregoire
- File:Maud_Coutereels.jpg vs. http://www.standard-femina.be/fr/playerinfo.php?pl=mcoutereels
Some of the files on Commons are a bit larger and they do not have a watermark so it is not a speedy deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The Enwiki article (where the uploader used this) says, "Richard Hopkins autograph from his autobiography My Life." - thus it seems derived from a persumably-copyrighted work Chzz ► 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Autographs are not copyrighted, and even if they were, a quick look at the Wikipedia page this is used on would have told you that the autobiography was published in the US in 1918.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Where was it published without compliance with the copyright requirements? Normaly the copyright procedure for many LIFE publications was followed, this files on google LIFE are not free. Martin H. (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This is somewhat of a borderline for a {{PD-textlogo}} claim. The claim that information confirming the "permission" (confirming that it contains no original authorship...?) has been sent to OTRS is false. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
old information Pessimist2006 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Old information about visas and other information. Pessimist2006 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Well, if it's just old information (by contrast to incorrect one), it's still useful. Trycatch (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We often keep old information as long as it is labeled -- this is, 2007. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Does not look like a permanent installation in a parkon streets, etc. thus FOP-Spain does not apply here Denniss (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a falla. It's permanent as long it's intended for being in the streets during its whole lifespan. --Coentor (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, if the license is wrong, I would change it, I've no problem about it. --Coentor (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. It isn't permanent, its natural lifetime is much longer than the time of exhibition (it isn't an ice or sand sculpture). Most images in Category:Falles have the same issue. –Tryphon☂ 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the falles have limited lifetime, as long it are burned. The goal of a falla, so, is to be installated in the streets during all its lifespan. Its natural lifetime is not only any longer than the time of exhibition, but also its lifetime is limited to the exhibition time. --Coentor (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Being destroyed afterwards doesn't mean the work was permanent. I guess most advertising posters are destroyed after the end of a publicity campaign. Nevertheless, they were only temporarily displayed, because that's the initial intent; show it for a while, and then remove/destroy it. That's temporary, and it's exactly the same as this case here. –Tryphon☂ 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the same case, as long as publicitary panels are simple objects, which are created and displayed with an economical purpouse, while the valencian falla are cultural creations for ludical purposes with an artistical bias which should be taken in consideration. The publicitary banners are destroyed because nobody cares about them, the falla burning is something intrinsecous to the celebration. If carnival masks and cars (carros) are okay to be here, simillar cultural expressions also should. --Coentor (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Being destroyed afterwards doesn't mean the work was permanent. I guess most advertising posters are destroyed after the end of a publicity campaign. Nevertheless, they were only temporarily displayed, because that's the initial intent; show it for a while, and then remove/destroy it. That's temporary, and it's exactly the same as this case here. –Tryphon☂ 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment. This whole "permanent or not" affair is ridiculous when applied to international stock characters. While you may tecnhically be right, decision should not be influenced by location and even less by someone else's presumed intent. A Mickey Mouse is a Mickey Mouse whether it's in Spain or in Burundi. They're identical (give or take an extra donut), but one is keep and another is kill. Why? Don't read me the manual, try your own explanation ... NVO (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a manifestation of the Valencian culture, as important as something permanent in other places. And I don't understand why the fact of being permanent or not is a problem to you: theater, danse, parades, Christmas decoration, Halloween, etc. are temporal but their images haven't any problem to you: Are going to ask to delete every single photo of, for example, Swan Lake? It's much less permanent, not even a day! To Valencians the fallas are as important as the Eiffel Tower to French or the Liberty's statue in NY, and it's grace is precisely that they are different each year, that they change with the moods of Valencian people an recent events. From this point of view they are much more interesting than a piece of something made bay one person and put there by a governor. Moreover, our only way to keep the fallas in memory and show them to others, even just to make them know thay they exist, are photos and images, which can be used as well to see their evolution, etc.--Slastic (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Images of this copyrighted object are only possible via the Freedom of Panorama exception. As the object is not in a permanent installation FoP does not apply here and the image has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Forget FOP -- it is very unlikely that the maker of this piece had a license to use the character -- FOP does not make a copyvio OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No permission for free use AutoIt logo. Art-top (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
this was tagged as GPL software screenshot but it is proprietary according to the enwp article. Would this be okay with {{PD-ineligible}}? Doubtful. Saibo (Δ) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of at least one unfree image: en:File:Abdus salam.gif. High on a tree (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, not understanding this throughly, you are saying the derivative work can not have en:File:Abdus salam.gif even though it seems to have the correct Fair Use criteria? What if that picture is taken out and replaced with another, THEN would the derivative work meet the necessary criteria?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, even if the inclusion of a copyrighted image on the English Wikipedia is legal as fair use, that does not mean it can be uploaded to Commons, see Commons:Fair use. The same applies to derivative works.
- Replacing it with a free image should work. File:10 Quantum Mechanics Masters.jpg seems to consist of free images only, and thus does not suffer from the same problem. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} applies to this work, as it is stated to be from a book published in Shanghai. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Um... {{PD-China}} then? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Ah. There was nothing at "Commons:Licensing#China" about "all photographs [entering] the public domain 50 years after they were first published", and I saw nothing on this in the 2010 Copyright Law. Is the template up to date? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It says it right there at Commons:Licensing#China. As for the 2010 revision... that is interesting. I'm not sure though if that is just a different translation or an actual law change. The older 2001 law says the same thing as the tag (photographic works are lumped in with cinematographic works), and this summary of the 2010 changes does not mention any real changes to that section. If it was a corporate copyright, then it's also 50 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed the reference to photographs because I saw "A cinematographic work, a work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production ..." and stopped reading. It seems there are three recent copyright laws of China dated 1990, 2001 and 2010. I do not know if they are cumulative in effect, or if the latest law is intended to supersede the earlier ones. Will have a look at them when I have time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I checked original Chinese text of Chinese Copyright Act (latest version, 2010). [3]. There isn't any amendment about 3rd sentence of Article 21 of Chinese Copyright Law, and of course, this sentence describes that a photographic work is copyrighted for 50 years since the first publication (original language: 「...、摄影作品，其发表权、本法第十条第一款第（五）项至第（十七）项规定的权利的保护期为五十年，截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的１２月３１日，...」). And I want to point out, Wikisource's English text about the 3rd sentence of Article 21, 2010 Version [4] has omission about photographic work! Maybe, this is a translator's serious mistake. So from my point of view, any violation doesn't occur in my case.--天竺鼠 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- And of course, English version text doesn't have any legal force, we must depend on original Chinese text. --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jacklee, If you don't have any opinion about my point of view, please withdraw this Deletion request. And I'll add two tags on this file, {PD-China} and {PD-Japan-oldphoto}. Because I don't know which {PD-Japan-oldphoto} or {PD-China} I have to add in such case. --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I checked original Chinese text of Chinese Copyright Act (latest version, 2010). [3]. There isn't any amendment about 3rd sentence of Article 21 of Chinese Copyright Law, and of course, this sentence describes that a photographic work is copyrighted for 50 years since the first publication (original language:
- Ah, I missed the reference to photographs because I saw "A cinematographic work, a work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production ..." and stopped reading. It seems there are three recent copyright laws of China dated 1990, 2001 and 2010. I do not know if they are cumulative in effect, or if the latest law is intended to supersede the earlier ones. Will have a look at them when I have time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It says it right there at Commons:Licensing#China. As for the 2010 revision... that is interesting. I'm not sure though if that is just a different translation or an actual law change. The older 2001 law says the same thing as the tag (photographic works are lumped in with cinematographic works), and this summary of the 2010 changes does not mention any real changes to that section. If it was a corporate copyright, then it's also 50 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Just because I haven't replied immediately doesn't mean I don't have an opinion! :-) Anyway, if there is a mistake at the website, then {{PD-China}} is the correct licence to use, and I withdraw my nomination. Do not use {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} unless the conditions mentioned on that tag are satisfied. (Just because you are uploading from Japan doesn't mean that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} automatically applies.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your response, Jacklee. OK, I'll use {PD-China}, and won't use {PD-Japan-oldphoto}. Now I'll start adding {PD-China} on (and deleting {PD-Japan-oldphoto} from) another similar files which I uploaded. --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Note that {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} is appropriate if the photograph "was published before 31 December 1956, or photographed before 1946 and not published for 10 years thereafter" in Japan. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your response, Jacklee. OK, I'll use {PD-China}, and won't use {PD-Japan-oldphoto}. Now I'll start adding {PD-China} on (and deleting {PD-Japan-oldphoto} from) another similar files which I uploaded. --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission, too complex to be PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep http://rapha.ac/rapha.gif -- Adelepedia (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no statement of licence there, nothing to say it is free for distribution and use. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep and speedy close, file is in use and other people found it OK. --Tsedeq (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- File usage is irrelevant if it's a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source site has explicit (C) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed from speedy: derivative work. --ZooFari 15:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the float is the main focus of the image. –Tryphon☂ 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed from speedy: derivative work. --ZooFari 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the sign is not covered by COM:FOP#United States, and it's certainly not de minimis. –Tryphon☂ 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Musashigaoka Jr Highschool.jpg Motoki-jj (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion gvien Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Adelepedia (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source site has explicit (C) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
142.106.20.93 16:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Spam/promo/advertising/copyvio/inappropriate-PII. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This is a wierd user page and I'm not certain what is going on here, but no reason is given for deletion and the IP who nominated it may or may not be the User. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Entropa work of art. Located inside a museum so COM:FOP#Czech Republic doesn't apply. Hard to argue de minimis given the file name and the fact that it could be cropped if the Techmania Science Center hall was the main focus of the image. –Tryphon☂ 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Could be cropped" isn't a valid argument against "de minimis". The copyright would be infringed by that who cropp or extract some detail, not be general photo.
- Btw, the exact wording of Czech Copyright Act should be taken into consideration, not some general impressions. The Czech law says "náhodně v souvislosti se zamýšleným hlavním užitím jiného díla nebo prvku" (accidentally in relation to intended main use of an other work or element). Inasmuch as the Entropa is depicted in closed angle, it can be believed that the main goal of the photo isn't to reproduce the Entropa but depict the global situation and arrangement in the exhibition hall.
- Is this photo of the exhibition hall with Entropa a "rozmnoženina" (duplicate) of the Entropa? (Czech copyright act does not restrict "derivative works" but only "rozmnoženiny"). Not every depiction must be a "rozmnoženina". Czech copyright law is not touched by such derivative work. § 2/4 of the Czech Copyright Act says that a derivative work is a subject of copyright, but this concerns about rights of the author of the derivative work, not rights of the author of the original work. "Tím není dotčeno právo autora zpracovaného nebo přeloženého díla." - Right of the original work are not touched by the derivative work. --ŠJů (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- About the "could be cropped" argument, I meant it the other way around: if the image really was about the hall, the Entropa could be cropped out (I completely agree with what you said about de minimis otherwise). It wasn't included by accident, or just because there is no way to show the hall without including the Entropa; it's the main focus of the image. –Tryphon☂ 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that some work is accidentaly depicted on a photo does´t mean that such part of the photo can be cropped out. If you cropp all accidental elements from a photo, the resultant photo will be unrealistic and devalued. "Accidental" doesn't mean "redundant" nor "removable" but rather "fungible" or "arbitrary". An interpretation of the word "náhoda" ("accident" or "random" or "occurence" are possible translations but not exact equivalents, as well as "arbitrary" for the adjective "náhodný") is very arduous problem - "náhoda" is a relative term and an absolute "náhoda" doesn't exist. But the Copyright Act interprests it enough when it distinguishes "zamýšlené hlavní užití" (the intended main use). It can be supposed that "náhodný" means such element which can not be the intended main use. However, the word "zamýšlený" (intended) makes the law criterium subjective. On photographer can taken such photo with one main intention, and another photograph can taken (or another person can use) the photograph with utterly different main intention. Let's to rename the photo and change the description to emphasize that it's a photo of the Techmania exhibition hall (incidentally with some people and with the sculpture Entropa), not a photo of Entropa (incidentaly in Plzeň Techmania Centre). No need to injure composition and entirety of the photo. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, those blue pipes are too simple to be copyrighted and in fact, the whole construction is derived from plastic model frames. The designs of "countries" (which is definitely protected by copyrights) is hard to see, hard to make any derived work and those are "de minimis". --Pan BMP (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The information given about the picture is not accurate enough, and resolution is not as good as to be here. 94.76.233.42 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
estoy de acuerdo con la peticion, y me parece muy fundada. la imagen la subi hace tiempo y ya fue borrada por las mismas razones, aunque luego la volvi a subir "por rabia", sin que fuera eliminada. viendolo asi, doy mi visto bueno. --Mikelperezfuente (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Map really does not represent anything. The author of the map is trying to say that the map shows the ottoman conquest of bosnia. In reality it shows nothing other than current municipal borders. The map's therefore worthless and of no value whatsoever. LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Without getting into the question of whether it is useful or not, the source has a 1984 date and is therefore (C). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
conquest_BiH(1167).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
conquest_BiH(1167).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A map that is worthless. It supposedly shows that bosnia was once controlled by byzanitum? But it's ridiculous in every way imagineable. If the are was fully occupied by a past empire then there is no need to have map that shows nothing. If they controlled a part of an area then a map might be okay, but this shows nothing, only the present day municipal map. Hence this map should be deleted as it has no value whatsoever. LAz17 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
conquest_BiH(1167).png){kind=link}
- Keep It's in use at w:sr:Историја Републике Српске. We do not second-guess what other projects find useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it is not. Discussion on the talkpage quickly deemed the map inappropriate and ridiculous, as had also happened on the english wikipedia many months ago. (LAz17 (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC))
Deleted: I don't know whether it is useful or not -- I do know that it is derivative of a base map for which no credit is given. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
conquest_BiH(1167).png){kind=link}
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
BW image, low quality Ragimiri (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Actually, the quality is good and B&W is not prohibited here, even for recent images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder of this file is Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation. Original source of file is here. According to p.3 of terms and conditions for using content of their web-site image are available only for limited non-commercial, educational, and personaluse, or for fair use. Dmitry89 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think these are suitable for PD-simple, and they're certainly not own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The source file is licensed under a non-derivative license. This file is either {{Pd-ineligible}} or it is not free, its not cc-by as said on the file description unless the creator gave permission to this license (which is not indicated) Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Whatever its license status, with no cats, a useless file name, and no description, it is not useful here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.airargentinavirtual.com.ar/ "Air Argentina es un grupo de aerolíneas virtuales" - This is the logo of a group of flight simulator freaks if I understand correctly. Not useful. I had even confused it with a logo of a real argentinian airline while doing cat work. Saibo (Δ) 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Enfant maghrebins.JPG Momo95200 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion given Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This file should be deleted because a better version exists, the original upload/author has been notified, and agrees with the deletion. Bender2k14 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This file should be deleted because a better version exists, the original upload/author has been notified, and agrees with the deletion. Bender2k14 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-free sculpture - please arrange a move to EN, then delete WhisperToMe (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-free sculpture - please arrange a move to EN, then delete WhisperToMe (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo. out of scope. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
book cover/promotional artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The file was tagged with {{No permission since}} December 2010. It has a "own work" license but it is unlikely that User:Malum created it, and just in case he/she did he/she had time to reply to notices on the talk page. Image was widely used but I found a PD replacement and globally superseded it with File:Witold Gombrowicz by Bohdan Paczowski - detail.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No pages in Wikipedia use this image. And also, the resolution is bad. Laciportbus (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "Not in use" is not a reason to delete. It is true that the quality is not great, but it may be acceptable for some use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This image must be deleted. I will edit it and send another image (modified) later. Laciportbus (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use, and I don't see any reason why this image must be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Prosfilaes -- no valid reason for deletion was given Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
copied from http://masseldommia.weebly.com/masseldommia-la-peliacutecula.html, permission? Is it out of scope Ezarateesteban 23:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a poster, Is it own work? Where are the photos from? Ezarateesteban 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's my own work. Photos are taken in the city of Ceska Lipa. Of course I have these photos in full resolution separately if interested. I have created it as if it were a kind of postcard coz I like that style.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be three private contractor images -- no evidence that it is USA work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Name-08 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some may be PD, but relevant information must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of File:ARA-San-Antonio.jpg (found via TinEye). Nemo 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Photographs and media files related to ships grabbed from various websites, all uploaded with false claims of "own work". Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by MarceloGlazieur (talk · contribs). Grabbed from various web-sites. Not own work. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: stated source isn't free. Nemo 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Most of the uploads are from unfree sources, for those uploads described as "own work" the source is untrue. Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Hotalezano (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom, deleted this one, File:Pablo Casado Blanco.jpg and File:Pablo casado blanco 2.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by CHERET Laurent (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nomination and given the uploaders spam, also this files are more advertising, not educational usefull. --Martin H. (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This was logo created by one of the members of Communist Youth of Poland - Progressive Youth of Poland few years ago. It was made under copyleft licence (anyone is free to use it, copy or modify it as they want). For some reason any information about CYP-PYP have been deleted from Wikipedia and this time it probably won't be any different... Kmp1917 (TALK) 22:18, 27 March 2011
Question Assuming Kmp1917 is correct, then the nomination is not a reason to delete. There remains the question of whether the group is/was notable enough to be in scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Photos of covers of books
[edit]
The given files have the wrong licence. Files not free - a photo of the cover protected by the copyright. --Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete first. The second is probably {{PD-ineligible}}, too simple. NVO (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with NVO; first should be deleted, the second is PD-ineligible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Del one, kept one, per discussion Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by LamSeaFood (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: low quality grocery shop photos, promotional content. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. It's not the best photo ever shot, but the quality is reasonable. It could be used to illustrate an article about flower shops. I don't see exactly what it could promote: there's no brand on this pic and no element that would identify a particular shop. Can you elaborate? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not out of scope, though this might be borderline Jcb (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=420991436: Use of government time/material/facilities may not be enough to declare this a government work. I know very little about copyright, but if that is correct this picture is copyrighted and not PD unless the photographer will claim that he was ordered to take that picture (like happened with Abu Ghraib torture photos). Amalthea (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- See also File talk:Gul Mudin.jpg#Decision on Speedy deletion - Picture stays for previous discussion and declined speedy deletion. Amalthea (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete- The government only can claim a copyright if they are paying you to do the exact thing that they want the copyright for.
- Keep - a US soldier in combat is a US government employee during the performance of his duties, unless specifically proven otherwise. It does not depend on whether his is performing his duties well, as long as he is "on duty." The "unless proven otherwise" part might be in the case of a desertion, or perhaps the photographer would claim that he was not on duty, that he was on R&R somewhere playing paintball. But if this is as it appears, it's obvious that a US soldier in combat is "on duty" performing work for the US government. BTW Der Spiegel cannot claim copyright to this anymore than you or I could. Smallbones (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Since my comments are linked to in the reason for this DR, I'm going to copy the citations I dug up here for ease-of-reference:
For some clarification of what actually counts as part of "official duties" (and so would be PD content), you can see an FAQ about copyright by a federal agency and a law review paper it refers to, Copyright in Government Employee Works. The law review paper in turn quotes part of the text of the 1965 Report of the Register of Copyrights which states:
- Government official or employee would not be prohibited from obtaining copyright protection for any work he produces in his private capacity outside the scope of his official duties. The use of Government time, material, or facilities would not, of itself, determine whether something is a "work of the United States Government," but the Government would then have the privilege of using the work in any event (28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)), and the unauthorized use of Government time, material, or facility could, of course, subject an employee to disciplinary action.
- The crux of the issue is that the soldier was on combat duty. He was not a typist who had some extra time before lunch and was doing his own thing at that time. Everything a soldier does during a combat assignment is part of his official duties - he doesn't have any "personal time" - all the time is "under orders" - whether he is following the orders or not. "On assignment" "on duty" "in combat" are all the same for this purpose - everything he or she does is part of his official duties. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know what statute or case law establishes that? I'm unaware of one, but please feel free to correct me. In the absence of that, however, as I (and the references I cited) pointed out it doesn't matter whether it's done on government time, by a government employee, and even with a government camera, if it wasn't done for the government. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The crux of the issue is that the soldier was on combat duty. He was not a typist who had some extra time before lunch and was doing his own thing at that time. Everything a soldier does during a combat assignment is part of his official duties - he doesn't have any "personal time" - all the time is "under orders" - whether he is following the orders or not. "On assignment" "on duty" "in combat" are all the same for this purpose - everything he or she does is part of his official duties. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the discussion (here and on en-wiki) has now established with some clarity that PD-USGov doesn't automatically apply here. It all boils down to the semantic difference between "as part of his official duties" (which is what the law actually says) versus "during the course of his official duties" (which is what some Wikipedia tag mistakenly seemed to say). The other thing I previously suggested was that there might be an argument analogous to the one we invoke here, i.e. that a civil right (such as copyright) cannot be generated through an action that is committed as part of a crime. But this tentative suggestion hasn't gained much traction so far, so if we can't rely on that we'll probably have no choice but to delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with Smallbones so it should be in the PD and many countries have laws that prohibits criminals from making money out of their crimes so they can not claim copyright over images that show them posing with the bloody corpse of 15 year old victim they just murdered. There is now also an unaltered image of Gul Mudin published in the Rolling stones in case someone still thinks blurring a face would grand Der Spiegel copyright and we could blur the face ourself if wished for. Iqinn (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are laws which prevent convicted criminals from profiting (in the monetary sense) from their crimes. As far as commercial use of the image goes, that certainly may restrict the photographer's use of this image if it was taken by someone who has been convicted (or possibly plea bargained, but that would depend on the details of the agreement), but wouldn't affect anyone who hasn't been found guilty of something yet. Do we know who actually took this picture?
- Regardless of the above, I haven't heard of any U.S. laws explicitly or implicitly restricting the ability to get copyright. If you have, can you point me to them? Since there are other remedies for copyright violation besides monetary damages (e.g., an injunction), I don't think we can simply extrapolate from "no profit" to "no copyright" unless there's some sort of statute or precedent in U.S. law. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- About the question of who took the photos: our en:FOB Ramrod kill team#Spc. Emmitt Quintal article mentions one name of a soldier who was convicted for, among other things, "keeping digital photos". Since this charge was apparently not mentioned in connection with any of the others, it seems safe to assume they are his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that pointer. Since you gave me the name I looked up his actual charges and found them here. The particular one of relevance is Charge V, on page 4, "Emmitt R. Quintal, did ... violate a lawful general order, to wit: paragraph 2f, CENTCOM General Order No. 1B, dated 13 March 2006, by wrongfully photographing and possessing visual images of human casualties." From there I tracked down that General Order, which on page 3 defines the prohibited activity of "Photographing or filming of human casualties". So if the particular image in question is from Emmitt Quintal, then there could very well be a en:Son of Sam law which applies, but I'd have to do some digging to find one. It also seems that such photographs are in direct violation of their official duties, so it can't be PD-USGov, and would rely on some sort of "no profit" law to make it just PD-US or some variant thereof. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- About the question of who took the photos: our en:FOB Ramrod kill team#Spc. Emmitt Quintal article mentions one name of a soldier who was convicted for, among other things, "keeping digital photos". Since this charge was apparently not mentioned in connection with any of the others, it seems safe to assume they are his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As a possible copyright by german Spiegel magazine, which is the immediate source of this image file, was mentioned as an additional deletion rationale earlier in this discussion, two days ago I contacted Spiegel magazine directly and asked them whether they claim any rights over this image version. In their reply of today, which has gone in full to OTRS, they did — somewhat surprisingly — request deletion of this image (version) from Commons. To be sure, in case their request is followed, this should not stop the general discussion about whether the original photography is PD-USGov or not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Did they actually say (a) they claim copyright? (b) on what grounds they claim copyright? or (c) did they request deletion for some other reason? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- They're pretty vague in their reply and just request deletion. For future reference the communication is at OTRS:5625448. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep To me it is clear that pictures taken by US soldiers are public domain, unless they're not for a specific reason. For instance, a contractor specifying that they would retain some or all of their copyrights of the work done for the US government. Pictures, like in this case, of (possible) crimes or actions against US army procedures are not such reasons. Furthermore, the copyright question can be rendered moot as the pictures themselves are the subject of a notable controversy, and thus fall under fair use in the appropriate artcle(s). Victor falk (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons and therefore irrelevant for the current discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance you could point out the flaw in my reasoning following from the sources I provided regarding "official duties" and the general order prohibiting photographs of human casualties? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- See my commnets below. Victor falk (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance you could point out the flaw in my reasoning following from the sources I provided regarding "official duties" and the general order prohibiting photographs of human casualties? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Photos taken by federal employees are only PD if taken in the course of their official duties. Individuals taking photos on their own initiative, for personal use, with private camera, while running around Afghanistan killing civilians is quite obviously not in the course of their offical duties. Just because these men are federal employees does not make all the photos they take public domain. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep PD as taken by a US soldier (US government employee) while on active duty during a combat mission at the moment the photos were taken. Iqinn (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Just because it was taken by a public employee doesn't mean it's public domain (has do be during the course of official duties and since photographing enemy dead/murder is prohibited this wasn't a part of their official duties VernoWhitney was good enough to find the relevant statute) Also, Der Spiegel is claiming copyright over the image and charging a license to use it in any way. That qualifies this image for speedy deleteV7-sport (talk)
- Comment 1 This "duty" thing is just muddling the water. From what I know of the US Army, you are not allowed to say "Hey guys, I'm taking five seconds off duty to take this snapshot to my folks back home, say cheese, OK now I'm back on duty." Or considered yourself "off duty" when smoking a cigarette against orders when it's you turn to be on watch. You might not being doing your duty but you're still on duty. That why we have pictures of personnel relaxing, like this, this, this, this and this
- Comment 2 Regarding the "against procedures" argument. US personnel is prohibited of taking and publishing certain pictures for a variety of reasons, like trophy photos in this case. Another example would be a photo of a map showing the next anti-insurgent offensive, or similar. It is still the property of the US army and classified information. If the soldier that took the picture with his iPhone puts it on his flickrstream, it still is the property of US government. It is against procedures to taker the picture to begin with and further to release it. But now it has been published (albeit involuntary from the government view point), and from then on can be freely re-published by any entity. This precedent has been well-established in precedent cases like the en:Pentagon Papers, en:United States diplomatic cables leak, the en:Abu Ghraib pictures, and others. Victor falk (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the "during the course of the person's official duties" is important (and the law). The soldiers in question were specifically ordered NOT to take photographs like this and are being charged as such. ("wrongfully photographing and possessing visual images of human casualties" thanks again VernoWhitney) Nor was their official duties to go out and shoot civilians. The files you cited as examples were taken by USN photographers who are tasked with documenting life on USN ships. Their work is public domain. And no, if a soldier takes a photo with his Iphone that is outside his official duties and posts it to his is NOT property of the DOD or US government. V7-sport (talk)
- (Edit conflict) With regards to comment 1: First, as I pointed out in my original comment, it doesn't matter whether the person is on-duty or not. Even if it did matter, your example images are pictures of someone off-duty, not pictures by someone off-duty. It's the public affairs officer's job (i.e., part of their official duties) to take such photographs which is why those are PD. Comment 2 seems to be missing the point entirely, as such a map would be a government work, so if the picture is just a faithful reproduction of it it doesn't matter whether the photographer was a soldier or just a random non-federal employee. The "precedents" you are referring to are all of images/documents created for the government, which is not the case here. Obviously leaking government documents is a violation of official duties, but those documents are already PD. Here it's the photograph itself which is a violation of official duties; there is no underlying PD government content.
- Could you (or Smallbones or Iqinn or anyone else) please point out where the citations I gave are unclear or where there are some contradictory sources which actually discuss copyright and are more reliable than just "from what I know"? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I The photographer was also on duty.
- II Pictures wrongfully taken by people on duty are still the property of the government.
- @VernoWhitney: None of documents you link even mention the word "copyright". Do you refer to the term "in possession"? "Possession" does not mean "lawful property". If I steal your wedding photography from the mantelpiece, I am in possession of it, but you are still the copyright holder. Victor falk (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the photographer was on duty is unknown, what is known is that it was prohibited to take such photos and they were not taken during the course of his/her official duties. VernoWhitney's question still stands. V7-sport (talk)
- Are you looking at the same documents I am? From where I'm sitting Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright and Copyright in Government Employee Works include the word "copyright" or some variation no less than 930 times between them... VernoWhitney (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The soldier were on duty at that time that is verified: [5], [6],[7], [8], [9] and the taking of the photos might have been prohibited does not change the fact the photos were taken while on active duty patrolling the area. Iqinn (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I've said before and is pointed out in those references I just linked to, that appears to be irrelevant, so let me repeat my question: Are the references I've provided unclear or are you aware of any sources which support your interpretation? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the photographer was on duty is unknown, what is known is that it was prohibited to take such photos and they were not taken during the course of his/her official duties. VernoWhitney's question still stands. V7-sport (talk)
footnote27. Id The Report presented the following rationale for the copyright prohibition:
The legislative history of the initial prohibition in the Printing Law of 1895 indicates that it was aimed at precluding copyright claims by private persons in their reprints of Government publications. It was apparently assumed, without discussion, that the Government itself would have no occasion to secure copyright in its publications. Most Government publications at that time consisted of official documents of an authoritative nature. When the copyright laws were consolidated in the Act of 1909, the same provision in substance was incorporated in that act. ... The Federal Government today issues a great variety and quantity of information material-technical manuals, educational guides, research reports, historical reviews, maps, motion pictures, etc. The basic argument against permitting these publications to be copyrighted is that any material produced and issued by the Government should be freely available to the public and open to the widest possible reproduction and dissemination.
p 619 The pesumption [sic] that initial ownership rights vest in the employer for hire is well established in American copyright law, and to exchange that for the uncertainties of the shop right doctrine
would not only be of dubious value to employers and employees alike, but might also reopen a number of other issues.8"
The cendi.gov site uses this interesting phrase: A government official or employee should not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter involves his government work or his professional field. The photographer was on duty, and this duty consisted eminently of not taking those pictures. Victor falk (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There seems to be a second reason why the photographs are in the public domain and the murder can not claim copyright in the US. {{PD-Afghanistan}}
They were taken in Afghanistan and show Afghan land and Afghan citizen. Iqinn (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- But they weren't first published in Afghanistan, so Afghan law is irrelevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- But they were. We are told "they [the photos] were widely distributed and disseminated between soldiers" via sneakernet. That is a broadcast in a specific medium, like IP over Avian Carriers. Victor falk (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- If by "sneakernet" you mean people making individual copies for individual friends, no, that doesn't count as publication, even if it happens repeatedly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Resolved? I found this interesting template, {{AbuGhraibPic}} that says:
This image is in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide. Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have denied this under oath.
- That's a nice quote that someone wrote for that template, I'm unaware of the legal underpinnings of it though, and the original creator (User:Quadell on enwiki) hasn't been active this year at all here or there, so I don't know that clarification would be forthcoming. In this case the government itself is charging at least one photographer with taking the pictures, so it clearly wasn't part of their official duties insofar as the government was concerned. You summed that up nicely in your above reply where you said that the photographer's "duty consisted eminently of not taking those pictures". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, too bad since he seems very knowledgeable about this type of questions. I'll leave a message informing him of this discussion anyway (he also has accounts on en:user:Quadell, wiktionary, wikisource, meta, OTRS) Ok. At least we agree that taking the pictures was a breach of the photographer's duties. The disagreement is on the consequences of that. Basically I contend it has been decided ("Scheer v. Universal Match Corp") that the "work for hire" doctrine(paraphrase: "title rights belong by default to the government" ) prevails over the "shop right" doctrine (quote p 619[10]: ...under which the employee keeps title to his work but the employer generally acquires the right to use the employee's work to the extent needed for purposes of the employer's regular business.) Victor falk (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you read the actual decision in Scherr v. Universal Match Corporation it provides significantly more detail than in the law review summation. That case concerns Army servicemen who were "relieved of their regular duties as illustrators and they ... devoted [substantially] all of their regular duty hours [to their creative work] ... The plaintiffs were assisted by two other servicemen who, in addition to the models, had been assigned as part of their regular duty to work on the project. ... During the course of the project the plaintiffs prepared and submitted progress reports to their superiors. Although the plaintiffs had complete freedom in the design, at one point the officer in charge of the project, noting what he deemed a similarity between Goodman's face and that on the statue, ordered the latter to be changed, which was done."
- I'm not seeing a good correlation between those circumstances (i.e., at the request of the deputy post commander, being reassigned to work on the project, and with extensive funding and support provided by the Army expressly for that purpose) and a work created explicitly against a lawful general order. Also, please don't quote paraphrases which are your own interpretation of sources; I think it muddies the water for others who may only read the conversation here. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Spiegel is still claiming copyright for this photo. As FPS pointed out they have requested deletion of this image.V7-sport (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Has already been worked out. If someone could claim copyright than that could only be the soldier who took the photos. Iqinn (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware that's correct (unless they bought the copyright or something?). Spiegel's contribution would be the blurring which I believe would be de minimis if it even counts as creative, and their communication which was forwarded to OTRS was just a general request for deletion and did not indicate that they thought it infringed their copyright or that they would otherwise pursue the matter. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that, if it is not property of the US government, the only possible alternative is the photographer and not the Spiegel. I also agree with VernoWhitney is also not limpid that the two cases are completely analogue, and it in what they differ if not. As a practical example of how such photographies, and a fortiori those taken unlawfully and/or against US government agencies regulations are the property of the US government, check this Description from the following en:My Lai picture, File:My_Lai_massacre3.jpg:
| “ | Photo taken by United States Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle on March 16, 1968 in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre showing mostly women and children dead on a road. The photo is copied and used in many places which mention the massacre. This particular image was copied from the KryssTal Web Site (which also shows more graphic alternate images).[1]
According to Camilla Griggers, professor of Visual Communication and Linguistics at California State University, Channel Islands:
According to John Morris, the photo editor for The New York Times at the time, Haeberle claimed that the images on his personal camera were his own copyright, but the Times and other publications printed them without payment in the "public interest", and also arguably in the public domain, produced by the U.S. Army:
|
” |
Here they were taken with government camera (corpses are routinely photograhed by armed forces in Afghanistan for purposes of identification), which makes the photgrapher's claim even weaker. That is, if there is such a claim to begin with, something I haven't any evidence of. Victor falk (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- MY Lai became public domain through the trial process. This has not been adducted and it's bverifyable that the photos were not taken during the course of the soldiers duties. The user who uploaded these has a history of ignoring copyrights and has indeed been banned for it. Obviously he doesn't care if the commons project has to defend itself against claims of using it's intellectual property. I can't understand how an image that Spiegel (which has altered the photo) is claiming copyright for is still up on the commons. V7-sport (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- V7-sport that is your second uncivil out context misrepresentation in 24h. I have never been banned for ignoring copyrights. That is a lie what is another form of incivility Wikipedia:Civility 2.(d) lying.
- Secondly there is already consensus that Der Spiegel is not claiming copyright and that they do not have the right for that. Please respect community consensus.
- I think the most editor also have agreed on that they took these photos wile on active duty patrolling the area. What was their official duty at that time.
- The point is that there is a general rule that says that government employees can theoretical claim copyright but that seems to be false in our specific case where we speak about soldiers who have not claimed copyright and who have sworn an oath and whose possible claims are irrelevant because they can be ignored in the "public interest". As demonstrated here on the talk page with the Abu Ghraib and My Lai photos. Iqinn (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I refer you to the above "two days ago I contacted Spiegel magazine directly and asked them whether they claim any rights over this image version. In their reply of today, which has gone in full to OTRS, they did — somewhat surprisingly — request deletion of this image (version) from Commons. --Túrelio I had similar results when I contacted Spiegel. You have posted copyrighted images before and had them removed, and were blocked for reverting the removal template. That is just the fact verified from the link I posted. Your general rule only is applicable to government works made during the course of government employees duties, these were not. In order to protect the Commons the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these are not copyrighted and you have completely failed to do so. This file should be removed. V7-sport (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo was taken by a US Government employee (soldier) on duty. It doesn't matter if it was his private camera, or if he took the photo without authorization, or if he first published it privately in the US. The photo is US Government property because he was a member of the US military and he took the photo on a US military operation. Because the photo is US Government property, it is public domain. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, a copy of this photo without the teen's face obscured is here. This photo should be replaced with that one. The Rolling Stone image doesn't appear to have been altered, so with that one it is less likely that an argument can be made that the publication has altered the photo and therefore made it their property. Cla68 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just because the photo was taken by a government employee doesn't mean that the photo is public domain. The relevant legal citation was posted by VernoWhitney above. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I read it. It's VernoWhitney's opinion that the legal citation applies here. I don't agree. I know because I used to be in the US military and at one time was in charge of a photography detachment. All servicemembers, at least in my service, were clearly told that any photographs or video they took on a government operation or on a government installation, even if with their own equipment, was property of the US government. The legal opinion provided by Verno applies to a select situation, much different than this one.
- Just because the photo was taken by a government employee doesn't mean that the photo is public domain. The relevant legal citation was posted by VernoWhitney above. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only valid argument I've seen so far to delete this photo is that it was altered by Spiegel and therefore copyrighted by them. To fix that, I suggest uploading the Rolling Stone copy, as it doesn't appear to have been altered. I would do it, but I've decided to wait until this deletion discussion is concluded. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, was it just the photographers who were told that, or simply all servicemembers including those who were not photographers and didn't work in a related area? It makes a difference to the scope of their official duties. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- All servicemembers. Note that Spiegel and Rolling Stone have published this and other photos taken by the soldiers without obtaining their consent. They can do so because the photos are public domain. Cla68 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, that does seem to conflict with the sources I found. The use by magazines could also be under fair use though. "Public interest" != "public domain". VernoWhitney (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- All servicemembers. Note that Spiegel and Rolling Stone have published this and other photos taken by the soldiers without obtaining their consent. They can do so because the photos are public domain. Cla68 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like something that the government is just saying in order to prevent photos like this from getting sent out, as opposed to something with an actual legal basis. It's like saying, "if you take photos of something damaging, we will confiscate them". And, in fact, that claim flies in the face of Scherr v. Universal Match Corporation, where it was ruled that a sculpture built by two soldiers in their off-hours was subject to copyright, even though they used $25K of government money and resources to build it and the physical structure was government property on display at a government facility. --UserB (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, was it just the photographers who were told that, or simply all servicemembers including those who were not photographers and didn't work in a related area? It makes a difference to the scope of their official duties. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only valid argument I've seen so far to delete this photo is that it was altered by Spiegel and therefore copyrighted by them. To fix that, I suggest uploading the Rolling Stone copy, as it doesn't appear to have been altered. I would do it, but I've decided to wait until this deletion discussion is concluded. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete"Individuals taking photos on their own initiative, for personal use, with private camera, while running around Afghanistan killing civilians is quite obviously not in the course of their offical duties. Just because these men are federal employees does not make all the photos they take public domain" as per Tom and as per Verno's well stated position. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Victor falk makes the most compelling argument for the public domain copyright, and he supports it with a secondary source. Spiegel can't claim copyright in a derivative of a public domain work. If someone uploads the unaltered photo from the Rolling Stones, then we could remove this one as duplicate.
- Also, of course, the clearly relevant precedents of Abu ghraib and My lai, which were cited in the decision to remove the speedy tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is Silver seren on English Wikipedia. I think the case has been quite clearly shown above that this image is in the public domain. Another example would be the plain fact that it was used by Der Spiegel, who is requesting the deletion. Since they don't own the copyright to the image (the photographer does), their use of it would imply that it is Public Domain, since they would otherwise be violating copyright laws themselves. 165.91.14.188 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - If the photographer is asserting copyright protection (as claimed above) and that the photo was not a work product produced for the government, we don't have anything resembling a leg to stand on. I had family members overseas in the recent wars, they took photos and sent them home. They were not assigned by anyone to take photos - they just did it to have something to remember the people they served with. No rational person would claim that those were a work product taken in the official performance of their duties. The fact that the photo, in this case, depicts someone else officially performing their duties changes nothing. At the office yesterday, somebody was in my office talking sports while I was trying to work - I was performing my official duties while he was not. --UserB (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes the doodles you scribbled on post its~during your coffee break belong to you, no to Uncle Sam. It has been addressed up-thread. No, the pictures you take as U.S. Army soldier on a combat mission belong to the government, not to you. Victor falk (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where does it say above that the photographer is claiming copyright? We have Der Spiegel asking us to remove it, but they don't own the copyright, the original photographer does. Thus, we have no copyright owner asking for us to remove it. In fact, we have no reason to believe that the image is not public domain, but your assumption about work photos, which obviously isn't proven. 165.91.15.178 22:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore; the U.S. Army regulations say that inappropriate pictures such as trophy photos will be "confiscated"; I see no reason to assume that confiscation does not include the copyrights. Victor falk (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- You acknowledge that the photos are "inappropriate" (inappropriate pictures such as trophy photos), in fact they were taken despite standing orders to not take such photographs as outlined by VernoWhitney above. Your argument basically is that These photos were taken by US employees so there is no copyright.
- 1) Well that's not the case because they were not only not performing their official duties, they were taking them against orders. The fact that they took these photos, (let alone the murder spree which isn't an official duty) disproves that these were a part of anything that these soldiers were instructed to do.
- 2) According to US copyright law that again, VernoWhitney was good enough to produce, the government can't claim blanket copyright on the works of it's employees. When they are not preforming their official duties the copyright does not belong to uncle sam and is not public domain.
- 3) Amazingly enough, the fact that Speigel IS claiming copyright has been overlooked here. 2 editors have been in contact and have gotten the same response from them. Their site states:
- © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
- Alle Rechte vorbehalten
- Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH
- They are selling licensing to the photo. Keeping these photos on the Common is just opening it up to legal proceedings.They are not public domain, the specific laws that prove that have been outlined and the copyright information is spelled out. V7-sport (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're contradicting yourself. If the photographer owns the copyright to the image, then how can Der Spiegel own the copyright? Clearly, if so, one of them is infringing on the rights of the other (likely Der Spiegel on the original photographer). Or, the more logical explanation is that the image is Public Domain, which is why Der Spiegel can use it without repercussions. 165.91.15.178 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speigel has altered the photo and it contains their intellectual property. I don't know by what legal arrangement they came by the photo, it's not for me to demonstrate. The burden of proof is on the uploaded to demonstrate it's a free image and what is proven is that they are claiming copyright and this should have been speedily deleted like the other photos from the series that were uploaded. V7-sport (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- VernoWhitney said above "Spiegel's contribution would be the blurring which I believe would be de minimis if it even counts as creative, and their communication which was forwarded to OTRS was just a general request for deletion and did not indicate that they thought it infringed their copyright or that they would otherwise pursue the matter." The OTRS ticket does not have Der Spiegel claiming copyright, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. They are not claiming copyright at all for the image, since they do not own the copyright. 165.91.15.178 01:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speigel has altered the photo and it contains their intellectual property. I don't know by what legal arrangement they came by the photo, it's not for me to demonstrate. The burden of proof is on the uploaded to demonstrate it's a free image and what is proven is that they are claiming copyright and this should have been speedily deleted like the other photos from the series that were uploaded. V7-sport (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're contradicting yourself. If the photographer owns the copyright to the image, then how can Der Spiegel own the copyright? Clearly, if so, one of them is infringing on the rights of the other (likely Der Spiegel on the original photographer). Or, the more logical explanation is that the image is Public Domain, which is why Der Spiegel can use it without repercussions. 165.91.15.178 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Whether the photographer was specifically following direct orders or not when the picture was taken seems to me to be irrelevant. As Cla68 said I think that it's well established that pictures taken by members of the U.S. military during U.S. operations are public domain. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- RE:165.91.15.178 Der Spiegel contacted the commons and has requested deletion. (that should have been the end of it) They have claimed copyright for the image on their website. Wiki-lawyering it here is easy, but you are putting the commons in the position where they might have to do it for real. And to state once more, just because they are government employees, doesn't mean that it is public domain. V7-sport (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- But we have no reason to believe that it isn't public domain. You're the one that is Wiki-lawyering the idea that it is under copyright when we have no reason to believe that it is as such. Even if Der Spiegel is attempting to claim copyright, as Verno Whitney said, the blurring of the image is a minimal change and not enough to truly hold a copyright to. It still belongs to the original photographer, who is a member of the military and took the image during an active mission. 165.91.14.35 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- RE:165.91.15.178 Der Spiegel contacted the commons and has requested deletion. (that should have been the end of it) They have claimed copyright for the image on their website. Wiki-lawyering it here is easy, but you are putting the commons in the position where they might have to do it for real. And to state once more, just because they are government employees, doesn't mean that it is public domain. V7-sport (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You state that you have no reason to believe that it is not in the public domain, there have been many reasons outlined for you. These Soldiers were not in the performance of their duties, they were going against orders and against policy. Indeed they are on trial and one of the charges against them is taking these photos. If they are going to Courts Marshall for "dereliction of duty" then no, they were not in the performance of their duties and therefore the image is not in public domain. You state that you have no reason to believe that they are copyrighted. Well the website states "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH" and "Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH" and "All our material is copyright-protected." etc, etc, and yes, Spiegel has requested that the image be removed. Even if your argument that the copyright belongs to the original photographer holds true that still doesn't mean that it's in public domain because he or she was not preforming their assigned duties, they were violating orders by taking this. Just because you may not get sued for using something doesn't mean that it is public domain. That needs to be proven before it is published here and it hasn't. Indeed, it's a slam dunk for removal since the Commons has been asked to remove it by SPIEGEL GmbH.V7-sport (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Our founder Jimbo Wales says that this image is clearly in the public domain. - Iqinn (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Forum shopping again? No one had the chance to make their case there because you didn't post notification. V7-sport (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody made a case there. I posted Jimbo a link to exactly this discussion here and our founder Jimbo said this image is clearly in the public domain. Iqinn (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Forum shopping again? No one had the chance to make their case there because you didn't post notification. V7-sport (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly in the line of duty, this is not some holiday snap, it's a professional soldier in the line performing their professional duties, paid for by the US tax payer. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: correctly licensed, within scope, though this is a disgusting situation Jcb (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a political message, not something educational Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a actual caricature. --Агемгрон (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Caricatures don't generally have educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about this?--Агемгрон (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or it? --Агемгрон (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- And how about this and much icons and symbols?--Агемгрон (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or it? --Агемгрон (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about this?--Агемгрон (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Caricatures don't generally have educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it a mockery of some Disney puppet - like G.I.Joe but in a homosexual's attire? Looks exactly like hooker boys on the street. NVO (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I can take it as an insult, because it is my work. These dirty fantasy to do with my work do not have. --Агемгрон (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- (For NVO): Я могу воспринять это как оскорбление, поскольку это моя работа и эти грязные фантазии НИЧЕГО общего с ней не имеют. --Агемгрон (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I can take it as an insult, because it is my work. These dirty fantasy to do with my work do not have. --Агемгрон (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted photograph where original copyright may still exist.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Incomprehensible DR. What is this supposed to be a DW of? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- This picture is a scan or photograph of a copyrighted image as the resolution and quality is low and it clearly indicates that, Source is not available.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader says that this is his own photo of a painting in a specific temple. I see no reason to doubt that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader is not the painter, uploader photographed the painting in one temple...Web link.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The temple is old, the painting is not recent. (First you had written that this was a deriviative of a photo...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh..!! please read it as painting...it was a mistake......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The temple is old, the painting is not recent. (First you had written that this was a deriviative of a photo...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader is not the painter, uploader photographed the painting in one temple...Web link.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader says that this is his own photo of a painting in a specific temple. I see no reason to doubt that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- This picture is a scan or photograph of a copyrighted image as the resolution and quality is low and it clearly indicates that, Source is not available.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I had clearly stated that this is a Photograph by self of a painting in Vajreswari temple, Kangra, India. Taken with a 35 mm film camera. Print was scanned and converted to jpg image. The painting is more than 100 years old. Sankarrukku (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now the story came into picture, No valid source available that this image is free from copyright protection, No substantial evidences available to prove its 100 or 1000 years old...may be its a recent painting and the author didn't release to PD......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Sankarrukku's estimate of the age of the painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Please prove the age with published documents......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see this. I have asked for help.
Sankarrukku (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It is difficult to tell from this photograph that it is a painting on the door of a temple. Do you have other photographs showing the temple itself and the door on which the painting appears? If so, can you upload them to Flickr and let us know what the links are so editors can have a look at them? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a painting on the door of a temple. I never said that. This is one of the paintings hanging inside the temple. Sankarrukku (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- For these kind of unsourced works, a valid source need to show that the original painter is not recent and if recent this painting is released to PD...for reference please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg ......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that the painting is not a recent one that happens to have been hung inside an old temple? If the painting was created by a living artist, it will be copyrighted and the artist's permission will be required before a photograph of the painting can be uploaded to the Commons. Instead of using this photograph, can't an ancient statue or carving be used to illustrate the deity in question? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- For these kind of unsourced works, a valid source need to show that the original painter is not recent and if recent this painting is released to PD...for reference please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg ......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a painting on the door of a temple. I never said that. This is one of the paintings hanging inside the temple. Sankarrukku (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to doubt the creator--Praveen:talk 07:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Many temples in India are centuries old. Most of the sculptures and paintings in them are also similarly old. The temple in question was built in 1739. The painting might have been made any time between that date and the day the photograph was taken. But the thing is that normally, these are made by unknown painters with not even a signature to be found on them. In such cases, it is very difficult to get any sort of dating for these paintings. So rather than proving that certain paintings are old, it makes more sense for the benefit of doubt to go to the uploader: You can assume that the painting is old unless otherwise shown. Hence, unless the temple is a new one or the painting provably new, I would suggest that such photographs be retained. -- Razimantv (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons cannot keep such images in question, provide a valid source that this image is released to PD by the author or the painting is centuries old, google books can throw some light if the temples painting is listed on that......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry. I checked up with my family. This is a wall painting. This is one of three paintings of Maha Kali , Maha Lakshmi and Maha Saraswathi. The photograph was taken in 1990. Copies of these paintings adorn many temples in that area. Photographs of these painting are available for sale in shops in Kangra. There are tourist guide books and books on Tantra which have published these images. I may be able to locate one or two in the local bookshop. But like most of the Indian publications they would not have an ISBN number or LOC reference.Sankarrukku (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This painting has no artistic value. It is a common pedestrian painting. The Deity is not one of the common Hindu deities. It assumes importance only for those who are interested in Esoteric Deities. Web sites dealing with Indian Art would not even touch it with a barge pole. Again the deity does not have any uncommon or horrendous feature which some people like. The commercial value of this painting is Zilch. I wonder whether the shops are still selling copies of this painting. Not many people were buying it even 20 years back. Sankarrukku (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about this painting not being an artistic work. That is because it is not listed by any Art Historians. In the land of Kangra painting who will even take a look at an obscure work of no artistic merit? Sankarrukku (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: artistic merit is irrelevant when it comes to copyrightability. It is not the law in India or elsewhere that an artistic work has to be of a certain minimum quality or commercial value to attract copyright. So unfortunately that is not a relevant point. At the end of the day, I am troubled by the lack of evidence that the painting, which you have clarified is on the wall of the temple, is indeed as old as the temple, or at least old enough for the copyright in it to have lapsed. If we don't have evidence of when the painting was applied to the wall, then in line with the precautionary principle I think we have to assume the painting is still under copyright and so not suitable for the Commons. I will have to vote for the deletion of the image. Again, surely there must be carvings, statues and paintings that are clearly in the public domain that can be used. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- True, but if contributors that are familiar with local religious art say that the painting is old and that it has been there since forever, I would accept their judgement. I would have more doubts about these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The way I understand it, the precautionary principle does not need to be applied here. The thing with not-so-famous paintings in most temples in India is that, as I mentioned above, the painter and the time of work are not known. And no one is going to record the existence of an already existing painting unless there is a special reason to do the same. Consider the scenario in which the image is deleted right now and uploaded 100 years later on commons. Even then, perhaps nobody would have any written record that the painting was so old and editors would have to look for old photos of the same painting to prove that it is 100 years old. If the nominee - or anyone else - can suggest one reason why he thinks that this might be a new painting (other than the claim that it need not be an old painting even thought it looks old), I would support deleting the image. Otherwise I suggest that we need not be paranoid about this -- Razimantv (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is no carving, statue or painting in the public domain which could be used as a replacement for this photograph. This painting is unique. This is an esoteric Deity not known to many Hindus leave alone the Non-Hindus.Sankarrukku (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mentioned that there may be some books about this painting. Have you been able to locate one which states that this painting is unique, and indicates when the painting was created? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I said there are tourist guide books and books on Tantra which have published these images. But there would be no source or acknowledgement. Sankarrukku (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mentioned that there may be some books about this painting. Have you been able to locate one which states that this painting is unique, and indicates when the painting was created? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: unfortunately, freedom of panorama in India, like in the UK, does not extend to two-dimensional works such as paintings on walls. See "Commons:Freedom of panorama#India". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You are right. I missed the sub clause iii part while reading ... The above quote uses the following: (c) "artistic work" means-
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Since this is a painting on a Temple wall, obviously the copyright owner is the temple. So if someone can get an OTRS email from someone responsible of the Temple trust, we can keep the image here. If none of them have an email address, someone can get the OTRS email printed and get their signature on it and then email the scanned form to OTRS.
But this painting looks more like a deriviative work than an original painting of a Hindu god. In that case, like all Hindu god pictures, the originals will be undated and author will be unknown. {{PD-ineligible}} should be the right license tag on this picture, but anyone can raise a DR again with the same reasons as this one. So to keep such images in Commons, either Indian government or Commons needs to have a policy addressing all pictures for which original authorship is unknown, or at the least about paintings of God which is widely available. Until then, we can either assume good faith and keep this image or start a new mass DR for all the images in the category Hindu deities --Sreejith K (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I sympathize with the difficulty of obtaining reliable third-party evidence showing the age of such works, but the general position at the Commons is that the uploader bears the burden of showing that the file is in the public domain or licensed under a free licence. If we are to now reverse this burden for such works, this is a big change that needs to be discussed at a wider forum such as "Commons talk:Licensing" or "Commons:Village pump". The suggestion has significant implications, because there will no doubt be other users who will also claim that the new policy applies to them because of the difficulty of obtaining evidence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I had initiated a discussion here. Commons_talk:Licensing#Deletion_requests.2FFile:Mahasaraswati.jpg_.28section.29 as this issue affects almost all images in the category Hindu deities. There have been similar discussions before.
Unfortunately you can not find a replacement for this image which is used for explaining the iconography of Mahasaraswathi. The Wikipedia articles will be poorer if this image is deleted. Sankarrukku (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about this not being an artistic work to explain the reasons why this work has not come to the notice of art historians. I am sure there are frescoes in some obscure churches even in Rome which have not been documented because they are not noteworthy. Sankarrukku (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Use of this image will fall under fair use, and its not allowed in commons, why don't you transfer this image from commons to local wiki under fair use claim..???? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone please delete this image im sure this is copy righted and the painting has NO historic signification especially the style it has been painted is very amateur and childish. Someone needs to look in to this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.157.191 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In Indian law The public temple is a Public Trust. The installed idol itself is held to be the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment is dedicated --—are the general public. Does this not make the wall painting public domain? Sankarrukku (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It just dose not fit in with the article and its just very awfully painted and dose not represent traditional Indian artwork in any form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm afraid that is not a sufficient reason for supporting the deletion of the image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - per various comments above, will be old enough. A temple is not a museum, exhibiting art of random painters - Jcb (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I have to say that I disagree with this decision, but I will leave it to someone else to renominate the image for deletion if they think fit. We are being asked to assume the age of the painting because from the above comments I see only bare assertions that it is very old and thus in the public domain. This is introducing a new standard that arguably has no community consensus which could have wide implications for other artworks. Also, nobody suggested that the temple was "exhibiting art of random painters". On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the work in question is a recent painting on the wall of the temple rather than an old one, and thus one which is subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
'KEPT' was not based upon a clear view on the copyright violation observed on this image, Temple paintings are not excluded from copyright... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep decision is based on the discussion above, You are just trying hard to delete this image :( --Praveen:talk 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion didn't concluded that temple paintings are excluded from copyright!!!.. "You" are just trying to keep the copyrighted image on commons.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show any single evidence, showing that any of these kind of images [most of them are already deleted :( ] are copyrighted. I am sorry, but I feel you are disrupting contibuters--Praveen:talk 11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: the onus is on an uploader to show that a file that has been uploaded is in the public domain or licensed to the Commons under an acceptable licence, not for other editors to prove that it is copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion relates to Temple wall paintings in India. In India it is not possible to prove the age of most of the temples because there are no records. Archeologists estimate the age of the temple. But then all the temples are not studied by Archeologists. The temples in India have no records of the past. Even extermely valuable Jewellery are not properly recorded leading to accusations of theft as it happened recently in the well known temple of Thirupathi. No temple has any record of the sculptures and wall paintings (Murals). The sculptures and paintings rarely if ever have a signature. Most of them are anonymous. You are told that the painting is very old. No one remembers the painting being executed. So it is not possible to produce any proof of the age of the temple or painting.Sankarrukku (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Under Indian Copyright Act 1957: Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright:...(t) "the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access [like a temple];
- This discussion relates to Temple wall paintings in India. In India it is not possible to prove the age of most of the temples because there are no records. Archeologists estimate the age of the temple. But then all the temples are not studied by Archeologists. The temples in India have no records of the past. Even extermely valuable Jewellery are not properly recorded leading to accusations of theft as it happened recently in the well known temple of Thirupathi. No temple has any record of the sculptures and wall paintings (Murals). The sculptures and paintings rarely if ever have a signature. Most of them are anonymous. You are told that the painting is very old. No one remembers the painting being executed. So it is not possible to produce any proof of the age of the temple or painting.Sankarrukku (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Clause c of Indian Copyright Act 1957 (c) "artistic work" means- (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (ii) work of architecture; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;
The Wall painting would come under clause (iii) viz. any other work of aristic craftsmanship. In Indian law, the installed idol itself is held to be the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment is dedicated --—are the general public. This is a court ruling. The Indian Cpoyright Act 1957 follows this ruling.-Sankarrukku (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: A summary of my views on the matter, which have not changed:
- I sympathize with the difficulties of proving that paintings, sculptures or other works of art in Indian temples are old enough to be in the public domain. But you are essentially asking the Commons community to depart from the well established guideline that the uploader of a file must produce adequate evidence to show that the artwork is in the public domain or freely licensed. I think such a major change requires consensus. The matter has been raised at "Commons talk:Licensing#Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg (section)", but unfortunately not enough editors have taken part in the discussion to show that there is any new consensus on the matter.
- Unfortunately, freedom of panorama in India does not apply to two-dimensional artworks such as paintings on walls. Section 52(1)(t) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 states that "The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: ... the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access". Section 2(c) states:
- "artistic work" means-
- (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
- (ii) work of architecture; and
- (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship ...
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.
- It is indeed interesting that there is a court case stating that an idol of a deity installed in a temple is the legal owner of the temple, and that the beneficiaries of the temple are members of the public. But are there any court cases establishing that the copyrights in works of art such as sculptures installed in temples and paintings on walls of temples become owned by the idol? Section 2(d)(iii) of the Copyright Act defines the author of an artistic work other than a photograph as the artist, and section 17 states: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein." There does not seem to be anything in the Act stating that artistic works in temples are not owned by the artists who created them, or that the general rules of copyright law do not apply to such artistic works.
- — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.How did you come that conclusion? Any court ruling? When the temple is owned by the idol, it follows that all that is contained in the temple including sculptures, paintings and other artistic work belongs to the temple. This court ruling as everyone knows applied to Jewelery of the idol. When it is applicable to movable things like jewelery, it definitely applies to immovable things like wall paintings. There are no cases I could locate where anyone has claimed copyright over an artistic work situated inside a temple. No one is crazy enough to do that. This clearly shows how the act is interpreted.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Indian Copyright Act is similar to the copyright laws of many Commonwealth countries, including the UK. Section 2(c)(iii) defines artistic work to mean "any other work of artistic craftsmanship", which means that a work of artistic craftsmanship does not include paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs which are mentioned in section 2(c)(i). This is clearly summarized at "Commons:Freedom of panorama#India": "Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i)." I am not aware of any specific Indian case affirming this point, but it is clear from a plain reading of the relevant provisions.
- I do not think it is safe to conclude that since there are currently no cases concerning the ownership of copyrights by idols in temples, it must be that such copyrights are held by the idols for the benefit of the public. This is reasoning from silence. Given the clear wording of the Copyright Act and our precautionary principle, we have to assume in the absence of better evidence that such works may be subject to copyright. And I don't think it is "crazy" that a claim of this nature may be made in the future and may succeed. Obviously, since there is actually a court case about the property rights of idols, it means that such legal issues are brought to court from time to time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.How did you come that conclusion? Any court ruling? When the temple is owned by the idol, it follows that all that is contained in the temple including sculptures, paintings and other artistic work belongs to the temple. This court ruling as everyone knows applied to Jewelery of the idol. When it is applicable to movable things like jewelery, it definitely applies to immovable things like wall paintings. There are no cases I could locate where anyone has claimed copyright over an artistic work situated inside a temple. No one is crazy enough to do that. This clearly shows how the act is interpreted.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The court ruling was made when the ownership of a public temple was disputed. Not the property rights of the Idol. Now it is an accepted fact. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. Significant doubt has not been proved in this case.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jacklee, I know it is not the responsibility of other editors. But I am sure Captainofhope knows all these images are in PD or atleast in PD-India, and I believe he is intentionally trying to delete all these images because it is not easy to prove age because no physical or digital records are available--Praveen:talk 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think remarks of this sort are helpful. We should stick to the facts and to Commons policies, and not question the alleged motives of editors. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its common that a nominated user get the blame for the cause, @Praveen please be reminded that this page should treat accordingly to stick with the policies of commons rather than giving a doubt eye for the nomination (If its not vandalism) Its 100% up-loader's job to prove the copyright status to commons, Up-loader failed to do so and this picture stands in fair use. If @Praveen want to keep all these images in commons it is recommend to create a consensus at new policy formation or in the village pump...Temples can be old but these pictures age is not so old (Looking at the color and style) and need to believe that this is a recent painting and creator didn't released into PD...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No one has produced adequate evidence to demonstrate that this work is in the public domain. At the very least we would either need the year it was first published or the death year of its author, or reasonable upper bounds on these based on available evidence (for example, a written account demonstrating it existed in 1890). Until such evidence is produced it must remain deleted. We do "give the uploader the benefit of the doubt" but only in matters where the uploader would actually have first-hand knowledge (such as the fact that they are the person who created the image). In matters such as this, it is instead the precautionary principle that rules. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)