Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Dubious copyright claim Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Per this threat, the uploader has raised the issue that the image is actually a copyright violation. The image is claimed to have been released into the public domain by the uploader, an implicit claim that the uploader is the rights holder and in a position to do such. As a PD dedication (and indeed most licences) is irrevocable, the user cannot withdraw this licence in the future. This leaves us with two possibilities:
- The uploader has already lied and made a false declaration of the existing licence.
- The uploader is threatening to lie in the future.
Either way, this leaves Commons, and projects using its resources, in a difficult position. The core of this whole project relies on the irrevocability of resources' licences. Users who can't be trusted (and neither of these interpretations is any form of GF action) produce resources like this that are a long-term risk for the project and its users - such a situation is best dealt with promptly, before the usage issue arises. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Oh come on. It really is no wonder people hate Commons with things like this. Uploader is clearly upset about this project in general, and especially about an earlier altercation where Liptak duped Commons into deleting all his uploads by using a legal threat. Maybe it is poor form to threaten to do the same, but there is no point in helping him off the cliff like this. Just stop. Wknight94 talk 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion request opened simply to make a POINT. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair use media isn't allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Mathonius (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied after uploader tagged it as "non-free" by him/herself. Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No source is stated for the images used in this compilation Denniss (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Esta bien, ahora citaré las fuentes de las imágenes, pero la imagen la cree para promover el crecimiento de la página en wikipedia en español (Osorno), PORFAVOR NO ELIMINEN LA IMAGEN. --186.20.7.57 01:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- In English according to Google translator: Okay, now cite the sources of images, but the image was believed to promote the growth of Spanish-language wikipedia page (Osorno), PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE IMAGE. (added by --Rosenzweig τ 16:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC))
- The first image can be found here (February 21, 2010). --Rosenzweig τ 16:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: At least the first image is a clear copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 16:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader probably doesn't own the copyright to this photo; unclear whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons (see this discussion as well). Mathonius (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- If uploader maintains her claim to be the author, surely
Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg; c/f enwiki admin noticeboard. Chzz ► 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence the uploader is not the copyright holder - previously deleted ... dear dear, this is a speedy delete. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader not copyright holder. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Haven't we been though this a dozen times before? The manifesto images are not free use. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Author = depicted person: Taken using a delayed-action shutter release? Plausible? Leyo 01:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Aeschi. That doesn't answer your plausibility question, it's perfectly possible that politicians have their own ideas about their own notability, and go for it. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
dasiy 99.157.205.9 03:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no convincing reason for deletion.--TTTNIS (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Whats the reason to delete? And if there is none Keep. Tm (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Weird border, low resolution and PNG file format suggests this was taken from a website. More detailed source info needed. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Reuters photo, incorrectly licensed on Flickr Ytoyoda (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you are the author and that it is from 2004. Seems http://www.netvasco.com.br/mauroprais/images/esporteilustrado299_lele.jpg to be a magazine cover from 1943 (if I read correctly). Saibo (Δ) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy and the architect/designer of this building certainly has not been deceased for at least 70 years....for it to be copyright free. The flickr account owner writes that this building was opened in June 2010. Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Most of the images in this category of the MAXXI structure must also be deleted since Italy does not allow exterior/interior photos of modern buildings such as this example...unless they are incidental photos such as this or this which doesn't dwell on this building. COM:DM/De Minimis likely doesn't apply since there is almost nothing incidental here. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader :
- Vega asensio (talk · contribs)
Hi, i request deletion of the version of the 3 august 2011 at 10:30 by Vega asensio. It is a different image, hosted on the same filename. Description is not correct. This drawing requires it's own informations, authors and licensing as a derivative work.
The version of the 3 august 2011 at 10:30 by Vega asensio, should not be available to the public eyes or burried in the history of uploads.--Lilyu (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted bad version, kept the rest. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
derivative work of non-free material. –Krinkletalk 06:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete it, I'll take today better pic/motive (I took it, and when I uploaded it I kind of knew it should be deleted ;) SpeedyGonsales (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
1953 photo, not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly El arquitecto peruano requires a subscription, and it's not clear that they wish to put their images into PD, or that the submitter could decide this. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
professional promo shot, very unlikely own work. Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I really like this pic, but unfortunately it fails WP:RAT as there is no indication how this qualifies for fair use. I also agree with the nominator that it's doubtful that the pic is the uploader's own work. Erpert (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Note to Erpert -- WP:RAT is not relevant here -- even if it had passed, we do not accept fair use images on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm admittedly not an expert in Australian copyright law but I think it has no provisions that patents are not copyrighted. The patent was filled in 1970 and according to espacenet exclusively in Australia. Thus the Crown copyright has not yet expired. Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Allowing this image to be an exception to copyright comes via successful application of the Berne three-step test, enforced by the TRIPS agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property). Reproduction of this image in Wikipedia is a special, specific case of fair use of a vague illustration without any techgnical detail. Without the code for the numbers on the diagram, the image is not capable of conflicting with normal exploitation of the invention, nor is it able to prejudice the rights holder. 210.7.132.79 06:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- As thankful as I am about a comment, there is no fair use on commons. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Fair use media file (film poster), which is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Mathonius (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement. See term number 4 at Terms of Use of source website Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not copyrightable. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement. See term number 4 at Terms of Use of source website Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep not copyrightable. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader probably doesn't hold the copyright of this book cover. Mathonius (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is an image of a specially signed cover by Dr Karan Singh. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- But the copyright for the portrait on the cover is either with the original photographer or with Dr Karan Singh, but not with the uploader or cover-reproducer. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should the portrait be blurred and reuploaded? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, it should be removed, either by cropping it out or by re-uploading only the portion with the autograph. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should the portrait be blurred and reuploaded? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- But the copyright for the portrait on the cover is either with the original photographer or with Dr Karan Singh, but not with the uploader or cover-reproducer. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Recent work of art; possibly even a derivative. As the US has no Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States exemption for non-buildings, this photo is a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Recent work of art; possibly even a derivative. As the US has no Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States exemption for non-buildings, this photo is a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Recent work of art; possibly even a derivative. As the US has no Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States exemption for non-buildings, this photo is a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NB: A derivative of this image is used on sv:Backslick Notwist (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of personality with no notability as per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirc Michaels - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of personality with no notability as deleted here es:Simon Colmenarez and here es:Simón Colmenarez - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of personality with no notability as deleted here en:Simon stevens - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Images from http://novosarajevo.ba are copyrighted Smooth_O (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why was it then stated that such pictures are in the public domain? It was quite a time since the upload. --Harald Haugland (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader stated that, but i'm not sure that this image is in the public domain. Maybe i am wrong but without proper source that these images are in public domain, we can't be sure. --Smooth_O (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused screenshot of software with no notability as repeatedly deleted here es:POC-CMS - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
What right does Flickr-user Cliff have to release this 1993-photo by 1994-died photographer Kevin Carter under a free license? Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded the image without reading the full description. It does seem odd, particularly as the picture is apparently famous. Might be safer to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Obvious copyvio. (Like the other material in the same flickr album.) At least, the documenting text (apparently also copied from an exhibition) makes it easy. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
new route map created at File:Mols-linien_route_map.svg Philphos (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. We generally keep historical versions for comparison, etc. Note that I have added 2011 to the file name of the new map, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong picture Lechatjaune (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? RE rillke questions? 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not out of scope but a copyvio unless the picture is PD.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Can you prove, it is a copyvio? -- RE rillke questions? 16:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: "My own artwork" as description, text across the image and not out of scope, I fear I can't follow you. -- RE rillke questions? 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? RE rillke questions? 15:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
File:D._R._Harris_-_shaving_cream,_shampoo_and_cologne_-_crema_de_afeitar,_champú_y_colonia.jpg
[edit]derivative work of copyrighted product label Warfieldian (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not a derivative work. It is as I found it on Flickr under a compatible license.--CoffeeAddict (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment:The Flickr photo itself is a derivative work, however, from the original copyrighted labels. Warfieldian (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, if I paid for a product I'd feel free to take photos of it and publish them. Unless I signed some agreement stating something else, which never happened in the last 50 years or so outside of legally dubious software EULAs. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment:The only copyrightable element seems to be the COA. I don't recognize it but it could be old enough for PD. Everything else is just plain letters. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep nothing copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: COA, PD, what do those abbreviations mean?--CoffeeAddict (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Public Domain", "Coat of Arms" (in this case it looks like the sign of en:Royal Warrant of Appointment (United Kingdom)). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: In fact, this company currently holds a Royal Warrant. It was established in 1790 and I'm not sure but I think it has held several Royal Warrants since. I don't think it's in the PD. Thank you.--CoffeeAddict (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The warrant is probably de minimis, but even if it is not, although it may have changed in 1953 (ERII crowned), it is now out of crown copyright. As noted, everything else is PD-text-logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE rillke questions? 15:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE rillke questions? 15:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence given for PD-old-70 claim. Kelly (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}; Alan E. Abrahams wrote in a 1985 book: "This photograph of Werner Goldberg was distributed by the Nazi Propaganda Ministry in 1939 with the caption of "The Perfect Aryan Soldier." " /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE rillke questions? 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a work of the US federal government. Kelly (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a work of the US federal government. Kelly (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Either it's PD or (c). RE rillke questions? 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not a work of the FBI. Kelly (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a work of the FBI. Kelly (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a work of the FBI. Kelly (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. No source is given; the description says just "Moved from Wikipedia". See [1] for a higher-resolution version of this image, though I cannot immediately determine the original source. —Bkell (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a work of the state of New Jersey, not the FBI. Kelly (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Widely widespread on the web. I doubt own work. If it is own work, read COM:OTRS, please and follow the instructions. RE rillke questions? 16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Is this really only geometric shapes and text? Zanaq (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete IMHO beyond the threshold of originality. The ellipse-like figures are not particularly simple, different of shape and variable in thickness. Clearly an artist work. Lymantria (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information to establish claimed PD license. Kelly (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader; good photo quality, very small resolution, only upload. Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Photography of a sculpture in France, country with no panorama. The creator of the sculpture died in 1975. Léna (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The text here is no valid permission for any CC license D.W. (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe an administrator could talk to Mr. Michael Targett from Flight Global to provide a proper license.Cobatfor (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The text here is no valid permission for any CC license. D.W. (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- The license discussion is en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content/Archive_3#Flight_Global_Images here but sadly I cannot see anything supporting the unrestricted CC license either. Flightglobal archive FAQ has at least a noncommercial restriction. --Denniss (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, I doubt that Flight were/are the rights holder for this image, so probably couldn't release it under a cc licence anyway. - so regretably Delete - for this image. Other flightglobal images will have to be looked at on a case by case basis - some will be pd-us as they were published pre-1923, and others pd-gov-uk or pd-unknown-uk.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe an administrator could talk to Mr. Michael Targett from Flight Global to provide a proper license or give clear answers to the rights questions. I'll try, anyway. I assume that the German photos were probably German propaganda photos. Maybe Flight Global bought the rights. But only Mr. Targett could answer this. Cobatfor (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, I doubt that Flight were/are the rights holder for this image, so probably couldn't release it under a cc licence anyway. - so regretably Delete - for this image. Other flightglobal images will have to be looked at on a case by case basis - some will be pd-us as they were published pre-1923, and others pd-gov-uk or pd-unknown-uk.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Cobatfor is free to attempt to get permission for this (and his other uploads from Flightglobal) using the procedure at COmmons:OTRS -- it is not the responsibility of Administrators to seek permissions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free artwork. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Kelly (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete as derivative work per Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. Kelly (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Months/temperatures are not correct in most of the diagrams. Warmest months are not June-July, they are the coldest months.
20:08, 6 August 2011 Pasixxxx
- First, that is not a reason to delete the whole category.
- Second, User:Pasixxxx apparently did not actually look at the various graphs -- they begin in Month 7, not Month 1, and, therefore, are probably perfectly correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work per Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. Kelly (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
with nearly 200 tineye results for different versions of this image I doubt the uploader has the rights to this football club logo - perhaps move to the enwiki under fair use claim Ww2censor (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of painting. The OTRS ticket covers the photograph, but it probably does not cover the painting. Teofilo (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
it is not Derivative work of painting. it is photo of church interior in which the painting is placed, among other things.Quahadi Añtó 12:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is true. Nevertheless, the painting is copyrighted and therefore, a photograph in which the painting is the main object (not just a small object in the background) cannot be published under a free license if the painter of the painting did not consent. The author of the photograph should therefore be contacted by the OTRS peaople having his mail address and asked for a permission by the painter. --Bjs (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple shape/text logo. ■ MMXX talk 21:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete source and author information: it is highly dubious that the uploader User:ChaseJ589 is really the copyrightholder/photographer of this file High Contrast (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - found here and here - no metadata. Uploader was a single purpose account. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a derivative work to me. Otherwise, the uploader does not explain how s/he was present to take this very iconic photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Empty category --Sirab (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
We have File:Gelpaklogo.PNG which is much better for graphics. RE rillke questions? 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Several other French buildings have been deleted, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse (Rue de Rennes).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:TourGranite Hü.JPG. This uploader has several other French FOP violations that need to be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No source, no author. . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Completed --SurfAst (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader has since provided requested info Badseed talk 09:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No source, no author . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Completed --SurfAst (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No source, no author . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Completed --SurfAst (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader has since provided requested info Badseed talk 09:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No source, no author . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Completed SurfAst (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader has since provided requested info Badseed talk 09:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I intend this deletion request as a warning against altering the colors and details of photographs. This picture can be deleted as being ot of the Scope of Wikimedia Commons, as an example of "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" (COM:SCOPE) Note that the uploader fails from providing encyclopedic details such as the location where the picture was taken. I wish this uploader will go on uploading pictures on Commons, but with the exact file as provided by his/her camera, without altering the colors and details. Teofilo (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Request withdrawn. See my reasons at the bottom of this page. Teofilo (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- A few notes:
- Mark Lane (user:Mlane78212) registered only in May and may have difficulty sorting through the swarm of templates on his page.
- Some of his files, like File:Hotel_Lion_d'Or.png, look poor and campy (this, perhaps, was intentional - "19 century oil paintings sold to Grand Tour travelers"), and some, like File:Source St. Genevieve.jpg, quite elaborate (and with proper location). A blanket ban for all?
- While I generally agree with "keep your homebrew art to yourself" message, I strongly object "exact file as provided by his/her camera" language. Right, you did not mean "exact" literally (commons does not accept "exact" raw files), but then it needs a better formula. Where's the line between acceptable image processing and "photoshop art"? NVO (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a blanket ban. Most of this user's uploads are "in use" and not deletable from Commons at present. As long as other pictures are not explicitely nominated with a {{Delete}} template on their pages, this specific request concerns only one picture. Teofilo (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - this picture was featured in a discussion on the pump, where I already saw the effect of too much filtering — I'm no expert, but learned quickly that any JPEG modification tends to make it worse for other uses. This PNG is presumably a JPEG saved as PNG, maybe Mlane78212 still has the original JPEG and could upload that? The missing location is apparently answered by category:Buildings in Orne. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- When I started the request the only category was Category:Countryside in France. Teofilo (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the provider of Hotel Lion d'Or photo and I would like to respond. Since the request concerns all my image submissions, I will respond with the general philosophy first.
| 2,800 word comment from uploader -- collapsed for the convenience of the other users of the daily log |
|---|
|
First of all, I used the art to illustrate my own submitted articles. The majority will be geographic/historic sites in Normandy, France, mainly communes or parishes in the area where I live. The English stubs for the articles exist already. Most of these historic sites are small, old limestone and granite buildings; some are coated in stained plaster, some have decorated doorways. Churches are the most interesting structures. I'm a retired person and I'm new to all this technology and jargon. I'm more interested in attracting readers to read the entire article, so I am primarily concerned with adding clarity to the text, and less so with literal images. It seems to me that there are two issues here; useful categories and altered images.
I very much agree that the categories and labels are inadequate. I didn't expect that anyone would ever want to use them because they are images of very specific places. I spent several hours with the "categories" pages yesterday and I now think I understand the system better. At first glance, categories seem very specific or very general; I always thought general was better, but maybe I'm wrong. I have begun to improve these notes. From the above delete recommendation, "a warning against altering the colors and details of photographs. This picture can be deleted as being out of the Scope of Wikimedia Commons, as an example of 'Self-created artwork without obvious educational use'". I think the intention of the writer is two-fold; firstly,to stop photos from faking reality, a situation in which the viewer doesn't know if their eyes are seeing the real thing or not. This is dishonest and I agree that an image of that nature should be deleted. The choice of an illustration style,however, instantly communicates that the image is not literal. Secondly, the intention is to stop contributors from simply adding pretty pictures or pictures of dubious quality for no real purpose. Everyone can be an artist with Photoshop. Wiki commons wants to maintain quality and I understand. This would be extremely subjective, and although it is very easy to see the difference between trained and amateur illustration images, I have no idea how to describe the difference. My education and professional background, which is explained later, should answer this. I hope "image purity" hasn't become a substitute method for avoiding this subjectivity. In addition, in every case I specifically took the photo to illustrate specific elements of my text. I knew what I wanted to say in the article and what needed to emphasized. I am new and very intimidated by all this, but I'm trying to understand the unwritten rules, and not take this personally. However, what I read on a deeper level appears to be that the purity of of image for use by others appears to be the objective for the images themselves. I thought wiki-commons was about images used for communication of the educational content of Wikipedia. The above paragraph demonstrate strong differences that manifest in executing philosophy and policy in Wiki-commons. If that is true, then there is no role here for me or anyone apart from the knowledgeable photo-techie or talented (professional) photographer. I did not choose the above illustration style solely because it was attractive. I have a degree in Communication Arts, and thus I was trained to be an illustrator and designer in order to communicate ideas. I practiced the profession for many years in advertising and publishing; therefore, I have some experience to speak from. Most of my 30 years' experience was in museums and I think I understand somewhat the concept of "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use". I’m not a professional photographer. I have neither training, nor equipment, nor the patience for excellent photography. I can crop well enough, and I try to turn my largest jpeg images into PNG images as instructed by the Help pages. I do like to use Photoshop Essentials to alter images to accomplish my communication needs in the images, but I barely understand it. Images in an encyclopedia are there for the purpose of creating interest in addition to clarifying the text; sometimes this objective is only to give an impression, sometimes it is for detail that serves to clarify or reinforce the text. Or sometimes it's there to create curiosity for reading further. It depends on the communication objective. I do agree, however, that adding the unadulterated image allows others the freedom to use the image for their own purposes. I'm not sure what the purity of original images has to do with educational communication. If I had submitted line drawings of the same subjects, I'm not sure we would be having this discussion. Line art is an abstraction, however, and a simplification. Although I can do professional quality line art, it would take many hours. And most people prefer color. I chose attractive, sometimes unrealistic color images to attract the eye and communicate clarity. As explained in the longer defense which follows this one, the future of my intended articles will be for use on "smart phones". Their use will be outdoors and on site. Line drawings or pale or dark, monochromatic photos would be nearly impossible to see in those conditions. I chose the below style of early 20th century poster art because it communicated simply, quickly, clearly, and for their easier viewing in outdoor light. Additionally, the brighter colors help create interest. Evolutionary psychologists say that we are attracted to simple, bold color for survival reasons. Should these images already in Wiki-commons now be deleted? Or only allowed to be used to talk about travel posters?
Below is a side by side image comparison. As you can see from the poster-like enhanced image below, the first image doesn't confuse the reader even with the warmer colors. The second untouched image reads as a gray smudge in the overcast day.
As I told an early contributor, I will upload the original photos, when they still exist, for anyone to use as well, but I prefer to illustrate my submissions with more attractive images. I've also reviewed my gallery and found some images that perhaps are much too attractive and were more about color than about education. As soon as I can figure out how to eliminate them, I will. If you have read this far and would like further explanation, keep reading. I live in a beautiful part of the world and believe that English speaking visitors would love to know more about what is around them. The new smart phone GPS technology, such as Wikihood, could be a useful tool for helping these visitors. All these new technologies used the same source: Wikipedia. I also noticed that the images on the smart phone were tiny and often grey or brown; detail was useless. Since I went to a good school (Auburn University) to learn how to use art to communicate, I thought I would apply it here. I give that background because I don't know any other way to qualify myself to speak to the subject with some reflection. Unfortunately, the quickness of internet technology opens the door to knee-jerk reactions and I'm trying to avoid going there. A primary rule in communication art is to know how your audience will perceive your images. In this case the audience is standing outside, looking at a tiny screen, and trying to understand what they read and see. People do like attractive rather than boring images, but people also have to see the essentials, and see them quickly, enjoy them, and move on with the article. I think the illustration styles I chose provide that. I have gone through scores of other people's images on the old buildings and countryside as well as my own images,which has confirmed my concerns. Professional photographers on repeat visits to sites in sunny weather and at various times of daylight would be able to render intriguing images. However, although I'm retired I don't have that time or training. A reader comments that that iphone screen's functionality are a server concern. I agree and I would add that is also a systems concern, in the sense that all elements of the final presentation on a small screen can contribute to the solution. That is to anticipate and satisfy the end user’s needs, i.e., outdoors, small screen, quick reading. Back to why I chose this presentation style rather than realistic photos. I chose two styles of art to communicate. One of these choices was inspired by early 20th century poster art as shown above. It attracts the eye with strong color and communicates the information very quickly and clearly, exactly what an image should do on a smart phone. I also chose the style because I could achieve it with affordable technology, and frankly, because people of all ages seem to like the results. The second style is intended to look like oil paintings. I have seen hundreds, among possibly thousands, of oil paintings in Wiki-commons, and no one seems to have problems with them. Oil paintings were considered the highest communication style for several centuries. Often,like the 1920's posters, the colors are not realistic, but we are dealing with rational adults and they recognize that images are not always photo realistic. They are not confused.
A response to my argument might be that we are talking about an encyclopedia entry and not a travel poster. My answer would be that first of all, the goal is to communicate the message, which is the same in both situations. My second argument is a technical one. Many of my photos were taken outdoors in the often rainy, overcast climate of Normandy: attractive images will be a challenge anyway. I thought I had solved my problem with the illustration style. My third argument is psychological/educational. I teach conversational English in Normandy (which luckily requires little grammar), and I plan to invite the advanced English students of all ages (I mainly teach adults, but high school teachers have expressed interest as well) to work with the local library, in order to research and submit articles on the rich trove of historic sites in the area. I plan to volunteer my time to work with them on their English translations. The students would improve their English, learn about their local history, and learn to contribute to the community by way of Wikipedia, while teaching local travelers and other interested readers about this area. The initial subjects will be writing English versions of the communes (parishes) of the region and their major historical sites. Many of these articles already exist on Wikipedia as undeveloped stubs. I doubt a college student in Sydney, Australia, or a curious reader in Birmingham, Alabama, will be looking up my intended subjects. The vast majority in the future will probably be the hordes of tourists who visit France, the top tourist destination in the world for many years, and are beginning to use the smart phones to self-guide. In case this English program is a success, I have made contacts in other regions for expanding the idea. I believe the students (particularly high school age)will be more pleased with the results if their texts are illustrated with attractive images rather than the small, stone buildings they pass every day without noticing. As part of the proposed articles, I have met with university history and archaeology professors (French, British and American), asking for help and showing them the submitted article <en:Château de la Motte, Joué du Plain> and stressing the subject content. Their unsolicited responses to the images were overwhelmingly positive. One French archaeologist was particularly enthusiastic about the images; she repeatedly brought them up as how attractive/eye-catching they were. I noticed she kept enlarging the illustration images while ignoring the realistic ones. I hope the above discussion shows that these are not pretty pictures with no information value. From the General to the Specific Images Concerned  But to move from the general to the specific, I will provide the proposed to delete example image and my rationale. The Lion d’Or Inn image is of the building as it exists today, but the article reference is about the original Lion d’Or Inn which was destroyed on D-day by Allied bombers targeting the railroad next door. Most of the owner’s family died under the rubble. I understand that the original building was roughly the same size and shape. I am writing the article focusing on the local experience of the French in the War. The detail image adds nothing to the impression of the Inn that no longer exists, which is all that is important here. Another image chosen to delete but withdrawn was “Henri IV slept here”.  This indeed is the existing building but formerly housed an inn where Henry IV of France spent the night. My caption is perhaps too brief because it is only a note to myself, and not my final caption, but visual details of today’s modern flower shop would add nothing to the text. Also I should have done my improvements off line, I had not anticipated anyone inspecting the site until I had done much more editing. I have five articles in various stages of work and I suspect that was too much for a newbie. The images below are galleries in my first article ,en.Château de la Motte, Joué du Plain, and were done on a common overcast day in Normandy. It is obvious that the illustration style is used and color draws the eye. The strong color on the doors is the actual color however. { |
![Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Visit India, travel poster, ca. 1935]]](/wiki/File:Flickr_-_%E2%80%A6trialsanderrors_-_Visit_India,_travel_poster,_ca._1935.jpg)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[1]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MJC_-n8ZzoQ/THRKNNeMSUI/AAAAAAAATGc/Dgwvmbpqpy8/s1600/peta_timor+sabah.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This exercise has made me more aware of the importance of the needs of readers, so I intend to be clearer in my information in the future. However, I hope the above has removed any doubt about the value of the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlane78212 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Only commenting wrt the Lion d'Or PNG, I like your original JPEG much better. Of course you could try to trim the top (sky) and bottom (place), if that suits your ideas, but only if it does not reduce the quality. Do folks here really prefer PNG instead of JPEG? If that results in uploaders converting good JPEGs into bad PNGs it would be a stupid rule, and I'd ignore it — let experts with appropriate tools do this if they insist on it. The PNG discussed here is also huge (3.9MB), your original JPEG needs only 1.98MB, a trimmed version could be smaller. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
- "I try to turn my largest jpeg images into PNG images as instructed by the Help pages". I am not sure if I can agree with this. Could you please tell the title of the help page where you found such an instruction ?
- "Trouville by Boudin will not be allowed to illustrate articles except about Boudin or oil painting?" Generally speaking, yes. I can think of a few exceptions, like paintings depicting events in historical times prior the invention of photography, or even in later times, whenever a painting may provide evidence for some fact. If a Boudin painting can provide some sort of evidence of the kind of fishing boat that was used in a specific era, the painting might be used in an article on fishing techniques or shipbuilding, or history of Trouville. However, if Boudin happened to have made both a painting and a photograph on the same topic, I think I would choose the photograph.
- "People do like attractive rather than boring images". According to en:Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone, "the tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate". I think it actually means that articles must be boring. A commitment to the truth means depicting the world in a realistic style, with all its shades of grey, and without removing the black parts. A Wikipedia article should not make the reader see the world in pink glasses.
- "sometimes unrealistic color images" Most cities and villages' regulations include one for roof materials and colours. I could not find the one for Écouché, but the one for neighbouring town Argentan, available here, p.15, says that interlocking roofing tiles with red tones are forbidden. So if your roofs look too red (rather than brown) you might go against the intention of some municipalities to harmonize their cityscape by avoiding that colour.
- "educational communication". I am OK with "educational", less OK though with "communication". I equate "communication" with "advertising", and advertising goes against the en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion rule. Articles about places or landmarks on Wikipedia should have a different style than that of travel agency brochures whose purpose is too make places look attractive.
- Your intention to create something attractive in order to help students become familiar with a topic might traverse the statement that "the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter" at en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.
- "I noticed she kept enlarging the illustration images while ignoring the realistic ones". this might be further evidence of the passionate nature of your style, which goes against the "dispassionate" guideline I mentioned above.
- Note that the Commons:Project scope policy (abbreviated in my message at the top of this page as COM:SCOPE) forbids to delete pictures on Commons as long as they are inserted somewhere on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects (such as Wikinews, Wiktionary, etc.). For that reason, although I had started a deletion request of File:Henry IV stayed here.png I withdrew the request a few minutes later because I saw it was inserted in a Wikipedia article and I am not allowed to request a deletion as long as a picture is inserted somewhere. It is the "in use" rule I mentioned in my reply to user:NVO at the top of this page.
- I added the corresponding thumbnails in the |Other version= fields of the {{Information}} templates at the 4 pictures (A.jpg, A.PNG, B.JPG, B.PNG) and added the {{Retouched}} template on the PNG versions. I must say that I feel much more comfortable now that these thumbnails and templates are displayed, because they leave the reader free to switch between the more and the less realistic versions. I might not have started this deletion request if I had found them displayed in the first place.
Teofilo (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think that the subject image and all of the user's posterizations are out-of-scope. If the user were a notable artist, we would be happy to keep these, but as it is, they are personal artistic works without significant value. The fact that the user has inserted them into WP:EN articles is not relevant -- in fact it is damaging to his case, as he refers to those articles as "his" throughout since WP:EN policy explicitly forbids editors being possessive of articles. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't especially like the look of this posterised version, but with Teofilo's addition of the {{Retouched}} template and a thumbnail of the original, I think this version isn't that objectionable. The creator has produced it in a good faith attempt to make the photo more educationally useful, and others can easily use the original instead if they disagree. --Avenue (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt for a minute the user's good faith, but we have many users who would like to have their private artwork on Commons. Our rules on the scope of Commons require that files be realistically useful for an educational purpose. They explicitly forbid:
- "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use."
- Note that this is not a single image, but a series, and that in some of these cases, the user has uploaded only the posterized version to put in "his" WP:EN articles. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt for a minute the user's good faith, but we have many users who would like to have their private artwork on Commons. Our rules on the scope of Commons require that files be realistically useful for an educational purpose. They explicitly forbid:
I am the provider of Hotel Lion d'Or photo and I would like to respond.
Teofilo -Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough explanation. You didn’t have to take the time to spell it all out, and I appreciate the effort. And I accept your explanation.
There seemed to be many unwritten rules in Wiki-Commons to go along with the encyclopedia of “how to's”, rules which can overwhelm the newcomer.
The cynic may respond to your arguments with
- Attractive Bad vs. Boring Good
- Communication = Advertising = Bad
- The only people that should contribute must be famous, dead, or photographers… but that may be good.
Your most convincing argument is that the preferred convention, or tradition, in encyclopedias is the use of original photos; and only in the case where such photos are unavailable, then other types of images might be acceptable. The implication is that photos suggest an impersonal and dispassionate view consistent with the unbiased and factual text found in an encyclopedia.
Only as a point of argument, all photographers I’ve known talk of passion, point of view, and the personal in all photos. But the ultimate perception is indeed that photos reflect reality.
This does not address my concern that the challenge of the small screen, or smart phone, may render most photo images difficult to use outdoors, where most of these illustration images were intended to be used. That leaves few options for those of us who are concerned with the user experience. The only option I currently can imagine is shape, or silhouette, which is much more difficult to create.
On a personal note, I ran into problems uploading the originals. The multiple upload wizard was down for a while, then I was out of town, and I've only just returned to find it working. It is again not working as I write this. I will continue to upload the originals, replacing the altered images with good unaltered ones if available.
Thank you for the option of the template. I plan to use it if I attempt the illustration image for the current and future articles.
I apologize about using “my”. First of all, I probably read the rule but forgot it. Secondly, I spent four years studying the subjects in French archives and libraries, so there may be a sense of propriety.
I do appreciate the many individuals that are taking the time to try to explain to me the unwritten rules. Participation here is intimidating. Mlane (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for a considered and dispassionate response and what is, if I understand you correctly, an appropriate plan of action -- namely replacing the modified images with originals and the ultimate deletion of the modified ones.
- It is certainly true that Commons can be a difficult and intimidating place and that the documentation is not all that it should be. Most of the Commons editors that are here as worker-bees, rather than as media contributors are more concerned with dealing with the flood of new files rather than writing how-tos, although that occasionally happens when the need becomes clear.
- To some extent we balance that with a wide variety of places to ask for help -- starting with the Village Pump in forty-one different languages, to talk pages on many specific subjects, to the willingness of many of our experienced denizens (including both Teofilo and me) to answer questions on our talk pages.
- Your cynic's points are interesting:
- Attractive Bad vs. Boring Good
- Communication = Advertising = Bad
- The only people that should contribute must be famous, dead, or photographers… but that may be good.
- I respond:
- Accurate but perhaps boring is good. Accurate and attractive is better.
- I'm not sure I understand.
- We must draw the line somewhere -- Commons is not Flickr -- so while accurate drawings are certainly acceptable from any free source, interpretive material of any sort must come from a notable source or, put another way, if the image is not accurate, then it must be valuable for itself and not as an illustration.
- I might suggest to all new users that before they embark on a large and complex series of new uploads, particularly if they can't point at a similar existing series, that they do a few and then wait. Sometimes we are slow to respond. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. As per COM:SCOPE: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject." --P199 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn. I withdraw my request for the following reasons. 1) I was close to conclude with a withdrawal after I wrote "I feel much more comfortable now that these thumbnails and templates are displayed, because they leave the reader free to switch between the more and the less realistic versions" in my preceding message. 2) My previous message was a somewhat selective reading of Wikipedia rules, leaving aside, for example "the language (...) has an interesting, (...) tone" at en:Wikipedia:The perfect article. 3) I disagree with User:P199, because we had nothing to cover the town of en:Écouché. Much problematic self-created art has already been kept in the past: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC07483-Freedom.jpg (that one I did not withdraw!). Teofilo (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus is still in favor of deleting this file. FASTILY (TALK) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Zdublowane zdjęcie Roman Szuszkiewicz 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
no source: says own work, b someone who died log ago - no source,not clear where it came from History2007 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a version of File:Batoni sacred heart.jpg; this version is probably a scan of a reproduction in uploader's possession. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The given source's request for attribution is not a license; it is only a request for attribution. The source never explicitly gives the reader the right to copy (nor states under which circumstances it is OK); it only says "if you do copy, then please acknowledge." My guess is this would not hold up in a court of law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will be curious to see Endrick Shellcoat's (the author) response but suspect he may be on vacation (he has not edited for a couple of weeks - which is unusual for him). I cannot imagine he had any intention of limiting use in any way of the png image when he created it. What change in the licence wording would you suggest in this instance? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Endrick is the primary author - Royal Observer Corps Association is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- No Endrick built and authored the ensign PNG - all he obtained from ROCA's website was the gold crest element that he inserted into the fly of the ensign during the image build. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That gold crust element may be the only part of the image which isn't {{PD-ineligible}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The gold crest element is copied from a site which states "Please acknowledge the site and the author when copying anything from these pages". I'm no solicitor, but I'm confused as to why this statement should be problematic. The site does not indicate any restriction whatsoever in copying, nor what type of copying is or is not permitted. My counter is that if any restriction applies then it falls upon the copyright holder (the site in this case) to specify any/all types of restriction which apply. In the absence of such, it is reasonable to assume that ANY and ALL forms of copying are permitted, provided that site/author receives due attribution. I can't see the problem here to be honest, and a "my guess is this would not hold up in a court of law" doesn't convince me of your expertise in this field either I'm afraid. Regards Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree. In general, the creator owns the copyright. He or she may license it for use by others, but the license extends only as far as it specifically states. Thus a request for attribution is no license at all, or, at most, one that requires attribution and does not allow either commercial use or modification. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well in this instance the creator of the original crest image in question was the Headquarters Royal Observer Corps civilian draughtsman who created the image in 1941 when the Corps was granted Royal status - which was 70 years ago and as such is now well out of copyright under English law. So where does that leave us? All of the individual elements are copyright free and Endrick Shelleycoat as the creator of a completely new image is free to allocate any licence he wishes. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's no question that the original design is PD -- the Crown Copyright lasts only fifty years and the flag was in use well before 1961. However, it is well established that with respect to Coats of Arms that each realization of the CoA has a copyright, so unless the ROCA copied an earlier realization, their version has its own copyright which we must respect. Hence my delete opinion above. With that said, it should be easy to get OTRS permission from ROCA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I very much doubt that ROCA have any ability to generate their own realisation of the CoA and will have simply copied the original. I have emailed ROCA and directed them to this discussion. We will await their comment ... but for a novice's benefit what does OTRS mean? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's no question that the original design is PD -- the Crown Copyright lasts only fifty years and the flag was in use well before 1961. However, it is well established that with respect to Coats of Arms that each realization of the CoA has a copyright, so unless the ROCA copied an earlier realization, their version has its own copyright which we must respect. Hence my delete opinion above. With that said, it should be easy to get OTRS permission from ROCA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well in this instance the creator of the original crest image in question was the Headquarters Royal Observer Corps civilian draughtsman who created the image in 1941 when the Corps was granted Royal status - which was 70 years ago and as such is now well out of copyright under English law. So where does that leave us? All of the individual elements are copyright free and Endrick Shelleycoat as the creator of a completely new image is free to allocate any licence he wishes. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, from my time on the HQROC staff, I have in my memorabilia drawer a colour photocopy of the original draughtsman's submission to the Palace of the ROC Crest (which also bears King George's approval signature) and that is definitely out of copyright. If 'OTRS' approval is not eventually forthcoming from ROCA then Endrick can use that artwork to recreate the Ensign.png. But as they are identical in appearance that would seem to be a bit of a nonsense for a historical organisation that has been defunct for over 20 years. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Much of copyright depends on very fine points -- almost silly, in some cases -- so if you could upload a good scan of your original, that would be a great solution of the problem. It would also be an interesting image in its own right, with the King George's signature on it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Much of this is lost on me, to be honest. However, if 21stCenturyGreenstuff can upload a copy of the original image (both with and without signature) then at least that'd be a start. (It would of course display the 'King's Crown'). I've also sent a request to Sodacan, one of Wiki's most accomplished .SVG graphic design artists, to request he do a version of the badge(s) shown here: https://www.fotw.info/flags/gb%5Eroc.html . If, for the sake of the article, replacements could be in place prior to any deletion of existing images then that would be appreciated. As I am also, along with 21stCenturyGreenstuff, a member of the organisation whose web-page image is currently used, I know that it would be a cold day in hell before anyone associated with the ROC Association: i) objected ii) resorted to legal action against Wiki for using the image on the article. (The Wiki ROC article was even mentioned in a ROC Association publication, in which 21stCenturyGreenstuff was himself a contributor). I hope that Sodacan can perform his magic and look forward to any upload 21stCenturyGreenstuff can provide. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- If it's easier, by all means get permission from the ROC Association, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, as that would also solve the problem. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Much of this is lost on me, to be honest. However, if 21stCenturyGreenstuff can upload a copy of the original image (both with and without signature) then at least that'd be a start. (It would of course display the 'King's Crown'). I've also sent a request to Sodacan, one of Wiki's most accomplished .SVG graphic design artists, to request he do a version of the badge(s) shown here: https://www.fotw.info/flags/gb%5Eroc.html . If, for the sake of the article, replacements could be in place prior to any deletion of existing images then that would be appreciated. As I am also, along with 21stCenturyGreenstuff, a member of the organisation whose web-page image is currently used, I know that it would be a cold day in hell before anyone associated with the ROC Association: i) objected ii) resorted to legal action against Wiki for using the image on the article. (The Wiki ROC article was even mentioned in a ROC Association publication, in which 21stCenturyGreenstuff was himself a contributor). I hope that Sodacan can perform his magic and look forward to any upload 21stCenturyGreenstuff can provide. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. The tower is the main subject of the picture. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. The tower is the main subject of the picture. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I thought I had read somewhere that constructions sites were immune, maybe I dreamt it? Well then, please consider tagging the numerous other files in Category:Construction sites in France as well, so that I don't feel too lonely...
Here some examples:
- File:Strasbourg-Grande mosquée.jpg
- File:TourFirst1009.jpg
- File:Axa-travaux.jpg
- File:Château de Guédelon (octobre 2009) .JPG (and maybe all other pics of it, as it's a contemporary castle)
- File:NovaxisLeMans 2.jpg
- File:Chantier Tour Granite mars 2006.JPG
_.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thanks. - Olybrius (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- And don't forget the other mosques in France. Since Islam is quite new stuff there, most images of French mosques should be deleted (like the pics in Category:Mosques in Val-de-Marne, etc). Thanks again for your commitment to a better and more law-abiding Commons. Cheers! - Olybrius (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted logos (TF1, Secret Story). And no COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Commons:De minimis does not apply here, because the tower is the main subject of the picture (see description). Civa (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. --Awd (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Very similar with File:Sunset sea Tenerife.JPG. Horizon is not horizontal. No use. Civa (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? What kind of crappy rationale is that? I think those are decent photos of sun reflection on water in that time and period. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, the photos are decent. But is there an encyclopedic interest in this image very similar to the other one ? --Civa (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork. Generic name. Unknown artist. No use Civa (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Cliperbcn
[edit]
All files are promo material of a Spanish band with no notability as deleted here en:Cliper - no foreseeable use, out of scope --Santosga (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Diagrams uploaded by Ritafsantos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Mainly text-files in jpg-format. Some missing description others have a lot of white-space and File:Diagrama PELP.jpg contains a clip-art which maybe is copyrighted.
RE rillke questions? 14:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not raw text but I don't see that it is realistical useful for a wikimedia-project.
- Maybe I am wrong, but AFAK, tables shouldn't be created as images in any project. Only mentioning one reason: Our search engine is not able to capture the content and TTS software is unable to deal with. So our pages won't be barrier-free. -- RE rillke questions? 16:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work.
- File:Hssign.jpg
- File:HimanshuSalathia.jpg
- File:Rieit techfest.jpg
- File:Pcell.jpg
- File:Computer labs.jpg
- File:Rieit.jpg
- File:Rieit1.jpg
- File:Rieit night.jpg
- File:Rieit seal.png
- File:RIEIT Seal.jpg
RE rillke questions? 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, copyvio, not useful (personal), or more than one of these. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Batteryoperated2012 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work. Some of them from here
- File:Vivossitemapsmall.jpg
- File:Vivosbedroomsmall.jpg
- File:Vivoslivingsmall.jpg
- File:Vivosdomesmall.jpg
- File:Vivosseethrusmall.jpg
RE rillke questions? 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pipirigugas (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt solely own work. (see COM:DW)
RE rillke questions? 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
no source and says own work b someone who died centuries ago, History2007 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: talk page - file itself has been dealt with by different DR Jcb (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
