Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
source=http://www.940kyno.com/index.php?c=67 ~ DoriSmith (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright unverifyable Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Unverifyable Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Unverifyable Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown person Joxemai (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: facebook image Denniss (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dieses ist auch falsch in St.Michael im Lungau gibt es diese Schnellstraße nicht Evelyn-Theresia Grießner (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Das ist ein irrtum!!! Das Foto gehört nicht in diese Kategorie! Das Foto gehört in die Steiermark und nicht Lungau!! Evelyn-Theresia Grießner (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Das ist kein Vandalenakt,Dieses Foto ist bei commons St.Michael im Lungau,Wo es nicht hingehört.Fordere eine Richtigstellung,das ist alles Evelyn-Theresia Grießner (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: A bad description is not a reason for deletion. Please just correct the description. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The painter Lee Kil-Beom （1927-） is still alive.--~ Zhxy 519 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Source is dead. No way to verify licence. Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DN-SC-85-09595 Denniss (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Evelyn-Theresia Grießner (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Weil das St. michael im lungau ist und das Foto nach Steiermark gehört. Evelyn-Theresia Grießner (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Was hast du bitte für ein Problem, dass du meine Benutzerseite und diese Bild löschen willst??? Das Bild zeigt den Knoten St. Michael in der Obersteiermark, war offenbar in einer Falschen Kategorie (St. Michael im Lungau), kann ja passieren. Da ändert man die Kategorie und der Fall ist erledigt. --My Friend FAQ 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason stated Denniss (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Paraguay football association.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unused personal photo.. 22Kartika (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
not own work, image is scanned, see metadata Ezarateesteban 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
not own work, image is scanned, see metadata~ Ezarateesteban 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
not own work, image is scanned. See metadata ~ Ezarateesteban 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
website spam Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
spam, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
fan art, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also the design seems to be similar to many images such as the one found on http://passportsandseedpackets.wordpress.com/tag/fleur-de-lis/ Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, copyright unclear Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
website spam Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted promo image (per [1]) and also a derivative of several image of unknown provenience and copyright status. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused promotional image; out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Source given: www.iridium.com ~ Uwe W. (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is an unambiguous copyright violation--I listed it for speedy deletion. -Gump Stump (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Characters from videogame Resident Evil, obvious copyright violations Ileana n (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Ileana n (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
no educational value Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Being unused is not a reason for deletion on Commons. See COM:SCOPE. I am not sure what "personal" means since the image is from a news organization. --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)- Keep this is not an unused personal picture. Multichill (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's at least unused and lacks educational value. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous. --Trycatch (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In scope as per description and origin, not a personal photo. Tm (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a copyright violation from facebook. ~ Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown person Joxemai (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Per EXIF data and strange author entry "owner" obviously not own work. Likely source (hdfreewallpaper.info) has no license information and is likely unusable for Commons. ~ Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete That site is not a trustworthy source of free images, they host some that are clearly copyrighted. --99of9 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)- Delete per above, moreover it's not his usual EXIF. I doubt he is the author of this. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
appears to be a copyrighted DVD cover Liliana-60 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Book cover, no evidence of free licence~ Ileana n (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: "Courtesy The Howard Thurman Educational Trust" [2] Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio - Tournesol (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
derivative of Disney's Winnie the Pooh. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winniethepooh.png Teofilo (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a wrong file Walter intl (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The file possible not free as two Flicker users have it under "All Rights reserved" license.
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/fayyaz/1849338278/in/faves-asimzb/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/fayyaz/1849338278/in/faves-outspokin/
§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
the uploader paint the mural? I don't think that it is in PD~ Ezarateesteban 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Non free image....--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is nothing to indicate that the uploader is in fact the copyright holder. Additionally, this unused file is likely subject to COM:IDENT as it was likely taken in a place where privacy was expected. Tiptoety talk 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As a picture of an identifiable person taken in what cannot really be classed as a public place (looks like a reception imho), and uploaded with no meaningful name or description, with no apparent intention to use it either here on another wiki, or even categorise it for potential use, and as it was the uploader's single edit, with no meta data either, all suggest to me that under the precautionary principle this should probably be deleted, especially given that it doesn't really illustrate anything except what this person looks like, and some Alfa Romeo furniture. It was me who renamed it to "Man with Alfa Romeo furniture", the original title was the rather bizarrre "Biographies of living persons.jpg", which as far as I know is a policy, rather than something you can really take a picture of. -Ultra7 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE; Resolution:Images of identifiable people --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Walter Siegmund. — Jeff G. ツ 02:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as per above discussion. But why was the file renamed if it was to be subjected to DR?Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
- The rename was about thirteen minutes before the filing of the DR. — Jeff G. ツ 14:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re the original name and WMF's interest in protecting living persons, I have tagged the file with {{Personality rights}}. — Jeff G. ツ 14:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- JBarta is fighting a different battle altogether in this connection @ User Problems Noticeboard . Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
- Delete Its out of scope.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfree TV series. Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Antarctica365 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC) File:Freedom 2011.pdf, this file has been produced by me but contains wrong data and missing information / reference so i pleed to delete it quickly. i might be able to put a new item on wikitables Antarctica365 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 08:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Ileana n (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo Hystrix (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture, description: "taken at home"~ Ileana n (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo. Hystrix (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture.~ Ileana n (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo. Hystrix (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
poor quality capture from tv show Ileana n (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show Ileana n (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work Ileana n (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyrigh violations, capture from tv show~ Ileana n (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality capture from tv show, derivative work~ Ileana n (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. --Krd 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Crackpringado (talk · contribs)
[edit]Strongly suspect copyvio. Except for image with Guetta, out of scope. Unusable w/o location.
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Everything uploaded by the user probably are copyvios. He lists the sources correctly, but they were taken from random Internet sites. Except, maybe, File:Собор Алагир.jpg.
- File:Зосима.jpg
- File:Колокольня алагир.jpg
- File:Алагирский Собор.jpeg
- File:Собор Алагир.jpg
- File:В. Коняев.jpg
- File:Виктор Коняев.JPG
- File:ОсТеатр.jpg
- File:Булат Газданов.jpg
- File:Эмилия Цаллагова.jpg
- File:Адырхаева.jpg
- File:ЕленаОбразцова.jpg
- File:ВБаллаев.jpg
- File:Владимир Баллаев.jpg
Trycatch (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of modern Soviet / Russian grave sculptures, possible copyright violation, as there is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia.
- File:Мурадели.jpg
- File:Томский.jpg
- File:Утёсов.jpg
- File:Свиридов.jpg
- File:Налбандян.jpg
- File:Свешников.jpg
- File:Малиев Г..jpg
- File:ТугановМ.jpg
A.Savin 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfree images (partially stolen from the web, or reproductions of modern paintings w/o permission by the painter), all claimed as own work by the uploader.
- File:Elena obraztsova.jpg
- File:Bishop Innocenty.jpg
- File:Narechenie Antonia.jpg
- File:Archibishop Antony.jpg
- File:Bishop Antony 1975.jpg
- File:Vladimir bishop of Chita.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Lazar.jpg
- File:Antony bishop of Achtubinsk.jpg
- File:Taytiev May 1945.JPG
- File:Metropolitan Juvenaliy.jpg
- File:Патриарх Алексий I.jpg
- File:Подпись таутиева.jpg
- File:Taytiev Vladimir.jpg
- File:Taytiew pismo.jpg
- File:Taytiew na ucheniyah.jpg
- File:Taytiew v minuty zatishiya.jpg
- File:Taytiew raketny zalp.jpg
- File:Chugaewa Valeriya.jpg
- File:Zosima archibishop.png
- File:Nikogosyan.png
- File:АдырхаеваСв.png
- File:Adyrchaewa.jpg
A.Savin 01:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Windows 1.0 brochure
[edit]- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page2.jpg
- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page3.jpg
- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 pages2 3.jpg
- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page4.jpg
- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page6.jpg
- File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 page7.jpg
The brochure itself may be public domain, okay. But the Windows screenshots are derivative works, so we can't use them. (The pages not nominated don't contain any Windows screenshots and thus are okay to use.) -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I've pixelated Windows 1.0 interface, can be kept now. --Trycatch (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Microsoft creates a software program then publishes a screenshot without a copyright notice. There is derivative work here, Microsoft created both. Keep the original version. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Please read Commons:Derivative works What is a derivative work? It quotes the Copyright Act of 1976, Section 106: "(T)he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (...) (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Microsoft is the copyright owner of the Windows 1.0 software and is allowed to "prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" and publish it under any license it wants including public domain. Microsoft may have felt the public domain screenshots would sell more copies of Windows software. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Microsoft published their own screenshot without a copyright notice. That's still PD-US-no_notice; at that point yes we can use them. Also, those are text-only screenshots; far from a sure thing those are copyrightable to begin with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Would Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse - The Mad Doctor.png be applicable here? Walt Disney published the film The Mad Doctor, which is a derivative of the film Steamboat Willie, without renewing the copyright of the film The Mad Doctor. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how. A character drawing copyright like Mickey Mouse is a completely different situation -- you are able to identify a previous drawing which this is derivative of. The screenshots, not really. I don't see how the screenshots are a derivative work of anything, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Microsoft didn't publish this as far as I can see: Some of the text and all the Photographs (because they are photographs of a monitor not Alt+prt cs Screenshots) were created by The Waggener Group and initially released in a press release, 3 months before this advertising leaflet was released. If Waggener is using the screen images under license from Microsoft then their may be an aspect of derivation. The existence of the release is evidence that there was also a larger dissemination of these images prior to the release of this particular advertising brochure and raises a possibility the images may be copyrighted by themselves elsewhere. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This brochure was released before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice and was not registered within 5 year of publication so it is in the public domain. Microsoft is the copyright owner of the software so they are authorized to create derivative works of the software and to publish them without copyright notice. The whole derivative aspect of this deletion request is totally off base. Thanks for the link to the press release. It starts out "PREPARED FOR: MICROSOFT CORPORATION" followed by "PREPARED BY: THE WAGGENER GROUP". This is a work for hire. Even if Microsoft published these images with a valid copyright notice in another brochure or advertisement, they did not have one on this brochure. This one is public domain. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- A few points to address here I'll try and get them in a coherent order:
- Not your point but one made by Ruslik Below which is (Apple v. Microsoft) this confirms that whilst general design concepts of GUIs cannot be copyright - Specific implementations of GUI designs can be included but not limited to icons, and GUI features (which appear in these shots) - Did Microsoft Copyright any of these design features under license - The existence of the Apple v Microsoft Lawsuit suggests that it's quite possible since that was a case about GUIs initiated on copyright grounds.
- Work for Hire. You can't claim that without examining Microsoft's Contract with Waggener. I've produced works for clients both under hire and on a licence basis (allowing me to charge them more for future uses, or to allow me to sell to other associated clients for their own campaigns) in this case other clients such as Lotus are mentioned and this would need to be examined.
- "Even if Microsoft published these images with a valid copyright notice in another brochure or advertisement, they did not have one on this brochure." - RUSSELL v. PRICE, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1979), and Cordon Art B.V. v. Walker,. 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1506 (S.D.Cal. 1996) both asserted that if one or more underlying works still retain copyright then the work as a whole cannot be public domain in the manner you are suggesting - It's fine to extract the public domain content from the licensed content and to publish that separately as Public Domain but you cannot publish anything directly derived from the underlying work.
- "Microsoft is the copyright owner of the software so they are authorized to create derivative works of the software and to publish them without copyright notice." Again this is reliant on the two previous points, they are authorised to do so - but again it would depend on the contract between Microsoft and Waggener and is irrelevant if the design elements or images themselves have been copyrighted separately
- This also assumes that Microsoft and Waggener are the only two associated parties and that no rights have been retained by a photographer or photographic studio if they too were providing their images under licence rather than for hire.
- Additional to above, what was the distribution of this brochure? Was it sent to a handful of Partners/OEM's in the same way as the press release was sent to newspapers or was it publicly available? If the former, then possibly the first actual publishing of the images was when Ray Ozzie released them in 2010 (Ironically 4 days before he announced he was stepping down from Microsoft and would lose authority to publish them) and the brochure may not be considered published at all.
- I'm not saying this images aren't free, but there's a helluva lot of layers of legislation wound around this document (and possibly similar advertising brochures) that could lead to problems either for ourselves or end users if a copyright holder decided to assert a right to some or all of this document and is it worth the risk to keep it? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - In the US before 1989 you had to actively claim a copyright, now they are automatic. If you failed to put a copyright notice on a work, it was public domain. A large percentage of advertisement and brochures from that period did not have a notice. Some companies such as Texas Instruments routinely put a copyright notice on everything. I was a manager for a series of engineering software products at this time and am familiar with product introductions. I did press tours and trade shows where we handed out brochures and press releases like these Windows 1.0 ones. I was also involved with working with the PR folks to create this stuff. It is an incredulous claim to think a PR firm would assert copyright on a client's product photos. The press release states in CAPS that this work was done for Microsoft.
There were several graphical interfaces for the PC and Microsoft was handing out these brochures to encourage software developers to port their software to Windows. I am sure there were other target audiences. I got my copy from Leo Nikora, the product marketing manager for Microsoft Windows.[3] -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Icons and specific graphics in GUIs can be copyrighted, true. Windows 1.0 was a mostly textual interface though, which eliminates almost all of those possibilities. You could argue that arranging the elements for a particular screenshot is enough for a copyright on the arrangement, but that would not be derivative of other screenshots. "Windows" is software; it is not a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, and a visual screenshot is not a derivative work of the software. Secondly, if these screenshots were used elsewhere with a copyright notice, I'm not sure that mattered -- these are *copies*, not derivative works. The Russell v Walker case you cite is about derivative works; if something is derivative of a copyrighted work those derivative rights are still in place quite true, but notices had to be present on all (or at least most) *copies*. Again, I don't see how the screenshots are derivative of another pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. If they put a notice on one copy, then neglected to put notices on subsequent copies, copyright was still lost unless they registered that screenshot specifically with the U.S. Copyright Office. The second case you cite (Cordon Art B.V. v. Walker) was a straightforward URAA restoration case, where copyright on a foreign work was restored -- that is not relevant to this situation. I'm not entirely sure who the copyright owner would be (i.e. I'm also not sure on the work for hire bit), but the lack of notice generally made that irrelevant. As for publication -- sending a press release to newspapers is publication at that moment. The distinction of limited vs general publication went away in 1978, but the new law says "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication". So, simply offering a brochure to OEMs, so they could put it on public display, meant publication happened at that moment (even before they actually went on public display). As for these, the only possible issue I see is the small icons at the bottom left of a couple of the screenshots, and the one which has icons in a toolbar, but even then you could make a case they are a straight copy of the icon (the copyrightable work in question), and therefore also published without notice. You would have to identify an existing work of which those are derivative to have a case on the derivative aspects, I'd think, and I can't think of any. A generic "Windows" copyright is on the software, or at most a composite work which combines all the individual graphics, which have their own copyright. Pre-1989 was a very different copyright world than it is nowadays. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Carl, I did use the word Icons a few times so that would be my specific concern -
I'd like to know if MS applied for a copyright licence for it's icons at that time (or within 5 years) in particular since the Apple lawsuit revolved around copyright of Icons and since by 3.0 they were specifically licencing the icons for certain uses by end users.Ignore that - this make the whole thing more complicated - All the Icons were copyrighted by Apple (by licence) and licensed to Microsoft - Microsoft had no rights within that licence to abrogate the copyright of those icons - at a minimum we're talking about having to remove the icons. When I mentioned OEM's, I made no mention of public display (intending for the OEM to choose to install or not, not the OEM's customer) and based on Swtpc6800's comment I still hold that to be true - there is no evidence that these were ever made available to the general public either to see or to obtain a copy of, it looks like a limited distribution was made to those likely to develop for the OS so the work is likely not considered published. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- The issue of possible screenshot photograph copyrights by the PR agency, The Waggener Group, may be limited by w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. The creative content belongs to Microsoft and the photographer is making a true copy of this two dimensional work. (There is a slight curvature in the 1985 IBM color monitor screen.) A brochure of this quality would have wider distribution than to just software developers. We would print our brochures 20 to 50 thousand at a time. The computer trades shows at that time drew thousands of visitors. An early version of Windows 1.0 was shown at Comdex 1985 [4] so there was a large audience for this type of brochure. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Bridgeman vs Corel only applies if the underlying work (the contents of the screen) are Public Domain - as at a minimum the icons were not, it's not the case here. Comdex 85 did not allow access to the General Public (I think that happened in 1988) so we still have a brochure that was only given to limited numbers of trade professionals (even if it's a high limit, 20-35,000 is still a limit) and they were expected to use this for their own information and not for redistributing or for public display, so I still fail to see a compelling argument that it can be considered published. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a journal with limited circulation to members of an academic or technical organization is not published? (With respect to US copyright law.) I got my brochure 27 years ago so I don't remember all of the details on its circulation. What I regret is that I lost track of my boxed copy of Windows 1.0 -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe for a second it could be considered unpublished. Unless, *maybe*, you got instructions to not further distribute it, or return it to Microsoft, or something like that. Limited distribution for unlimited purposes was publication. It seems written for a general audience as well -- were there actually instructions to *not* show that brochure to potential customers? Corel v. Bridgeman though would not enter into this -- the question is the copyrightability of the elements in the screenshots. I'm not really sure the icons in question came from Apple. Whether it could be considered a derivative work of the Apple interface -- not completely sure, though that was a rather big stretch (though it was part of Apple's claims; the court more or less avoided ruling on that because even if it was, Apple had licensed it to Microsoft). The court actually broke things down to their individual elements, rejecting Apple's claim of an overall visual work I think (that "look and feel" claim), and most of those elements were licensed, and the ones they did consider (from Windows 2.03) were deemed either below the threshold of originality, or de minimis. For the individual icons, you'd have to see if they are derivative of a graphic icon in the Apple interface -- I don't recall the bottom-left icons really coming from MacOS, so those may be Microsoft's original work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think instructions like that have to be explicit - things like lecture notes which are given away to attendees on the intention (but not explicit instruction) they are for their own personal use are unpublished because there is an expectation they are not liable to pass them on. It's not inconceivable that a similar situation could exist here, but we don't know, have no way of knowing and the only people who do know are the copyright holders and if they know and decide to get litigious about it then there's a problem for us (or for re-users) because ignorance is no excuse under the law. On the latter point, I can't say more beyond the fact that we know many design elements were copyrighted and licensed into windows 1.0, but again we can't be sure which if any many it into these screen-shots so we can't rule it out as a possibility. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that -- if you wanted to keep something private, you needed to make that explicit. For something like this, when it's obviously geared for the pubic, they would have had to prohibit the OEMs from even showing that to potential customers -- otherwise that is public display, and it became publication at the moment the brochure was offered to the OEMs (not at the moment of public display). Courts have ruled against arguments like yours when it came to publicity photographs sent to newspapers, and also to advertising material sent to theater owners for movies, etc. The "limited publication" doctrine did not exist after 1978 anyways, and the brochure being passed out would seem to obviously be for purposes of public display. The issue of the screenshots is thornier for sure, due to the possibilities of being a derivative from Apple (I think that's kind of dubious but I did not see the full list of 189 items at issue in the court case), and also the possibility a court would rule the lack of notice on the brochure would not eliminate the copyright on the icons (since the brochure would be relatively few copies of the icon, in comparison with the software). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The icons are a minor feature in the screen shots, the screens highlight user generated data displayed with Microsoft programs. There are five icons on File:Microsoft Windows 1.0 pages2 3.jpg, three at the bottom and the two disk drives. All five occupy about 1 square inch total, the double page is 160 square inches. This 0.6% is de minimis use of the possibly licensed icons. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Swtpc6800, Whilst a De Minimis argument may hold water on wikipedia, on commons it means the image is not free - If an end user sees that icon and decides to crop your image down to show only the icon then that derivative is no longer simple De Minimis use of the copyrighted Icon and if he uses that icon on his website, or in his own software, or in Computer_icon then the copyright holder might see it and have good grounds for litigation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- We do accept images which have de minimis use of copyrighted material. We would delete the crop you speak of, but would keep the original image. Not entirely sure it would apply here, but de minimis arguments do hold water on Commons too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Carl, Your examples clearly can't be compared unless we know what the distribution of this brochure was. Images sent to a newspaper are highly liable to be printed, Posters sent to a cinema are highly liable to be displayed. A Brochure given to technical expert for their personal use is likely to be used only for their personal use, implying that a technical expert may have shown it to a member of the general public at some point and thereby forced it into the public domain are unprovable and generally speculation. By extension of your argument any private correspondance of the time which was not marked as private and confidential and did not contain a copyright notice could be considered public domain because if recipient shows it to a friend because he was not expressly forbidden to republish or display it and it seems unlikely a court would hold that to be true. The 76 act does remove "Limited Numbers" as a phrase but it is clear that the distribution has to extend to a wider circle than that of "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances."As defined by the 76 wording (given the average person has 300 close friends, it could easily be argued that their number of social acquaintances would total more than 20,000.) But the truth is also that we don't know anything about this document except that Swtpc6800 received one from MS Marketing, which isn't enough to rule out every copyright possibility attached to the work. The only other I've seen looks similar but have different page layouts and no Part No. on page 8, so this one could be unique or it could be run of the mill and no other examples exist. For all we know the Copyright holder could have attempted to correct the omission in every version printed from February '86 onwards restoring copyright without licensing. Thats on top of the original deletion reasoningthat there may be copyright registered for the design elements of Windows 1.0 or even Mac OS 1.0 that could make those elements non-free. I've nothing more to add as it appears clearly no further information is going to come forward about who Microsoft gave to and what they expected them to do with them, nor for that matter what if any visual copyright may exist in the screenshots and the abrogation if any of that copyright is up to the courts to decide so I hope that closing admin will consider these points carefully when making his decision. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Windows was sold to the general public; this is a brochure by all appearances used to help sell it. It is written to the end customer, as well. OEMs are not "social acquaintances"; private correspondence has no bearing on this. If MS Marketing gave these out, and we have one example, it was published. It's not the number of people -- that's a red herring -- it was based on if it was intended for public display (not even that it was actually put on public display), or really if most anyone could get a brochure if they wanted. The definition in the 1976 act is as follows: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. This was 1) distributed to a member of the public (given away counts), and 2) in almost all certainty, distributed to a group of people for purposes of public display. The only real chance of being unpublished to me is if this was something that Microsoft kept internally, and was given out to a friend as a souvenir or something well after the fact. The act of adding notices to later versions would only help if this brochure was registered at the U.S. Copyright Office within five years, and that is searchable online. You had to do both to avoid loss of copyright due to lack of notice from 1978 to 1989. The only real question to me is if the lack of notice would also apply to the screenshots -- that may be looked at differently, at least to the point that the individual graphic elements would actually lose their copyright, since the brochures would amount to a relatively small number of copies of those graphics. It's certainly fair use within the context of the brochure, but it's a tougher question for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your point about the Public is exactly where your argument falls flat - We have one copy that was not given to a member of the public but was given to a specific individual who was manager for a software firm and was approached with the specific purpose of asking him to port his product to the new O.S. - from the comment above we can also see that the individual was acquainted with the Microsoft Employee who gave him it. He's not Joe Public being handed this in the street, or finding this inside the centre pages of his computing magazine so #1 fails and #2 is guesswork on your part - they may all have been given to specific individuals for a specific purpose but we just can't know. You also seem to be missing part of section 405 of the act which also makes it clear that Copyright is not forfeited if "the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number" of copies of the work - whether or not a separate license has been applied for - as I said we have only one copy (and now one similar copy), we do not know whether a notice was on all the other copies or enough to make the ones without relatively small in number. It is only if more than a relatively small number fail to bear the notice, that licence as well as amendment is required to correct the oversight. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Microsoft was demoing Windows to every magazine editor they could find, showing Windows at trade shows, offering it for sale in computer stores and gave me a top secret eight page full color glossy brochure with a part number on the back. I was not that important. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's the Part Number that makes this one different - There was one quite similar to this (same photographs) but it had extra text, had a white instead of blue background, and the rear page had no part No and none of the other small print that appears on this one. It was given out to the general public via magazines (including the January 85 issue of Byte), Then there was the press one linked to above. I see no evidence that the one you got was available to the general public rather than being tailored to and issued to (rather than being top secret) a number of targeted individuals in the trade such as yourself, so the duck argument doesn't come into it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So you are asserting with no evidence that my copy of the brochure was unpublished but Microsoft was running a magazine formatted version in several publications at that time. Did that advertisement have a Microsoft copyright notice on it? Advertisements are not covered by the magazine's "collective work" copyright. Each company must put a notice on their own ads. My observations indicate that Microsoft did not put a notice in their ads. Here is a Microsoft Word ad without a notice. PC Mag April 30, 1985 pages 108-109 The publication of the Windows screenshot in magazine ad without notice would place them in the public domain. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Carl, I did use the word Icons a few times so that would be my specific concern -
- Comment - I was involved was software development in the 1980s and all of the screen shots were made with a film camera. The room was dark so they could get a long exposure of the screen at f16 or so then they would fire a flash to get the computer and background. Such as on page 1 (Cut and paste involved a scissors and rubber cement.)-- Swtpc6800 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg. InverseHypercube 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. A derivative work from the software is another software. The results of mathematical calculations (which any software is only capable of) that this software performs are not protected by copyright unless there is a creative human contribution in them. As to the latter, the w:Apple v. Microsoft case showed that GUIs are generally not protected by copyright except for certain elements. So, the claims of the nominator that the images "are derivatives" or even that they copyrightable have no merit. Ruslik (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Gringos123, redux
[edit]- File:Benvenuto watson junior.gif
- File:Si mi sembra tutto abbastanza chiaro cody.gif
- File:Alleluia..siamo ..con te.gif
- File:Buona pasqua a tutti.gif
- File:Ciao..grazie per l'invito.gif
- File:Rifallo james.gif
- File:Simona87.gif
- File:Wats.gif
- File:GausQp.gif
- File:Legna per il forte.gif
- File:Dalle 6 in poi.gif
- File:Vendo al miglior offerente.gif
- File:Ciao clint benvenuto.gif
- File:I rosiconi.gif
- File:I rosiconi ahahaah.gif
- File:James frano.gif
- File:Craok.gif
- File:Croak.gif
- File:Benvenuto 3inita.gif
- File:Ciaooo....!!.gif
A collection of animated gifs which have little to no educational merit. It seems we've been down this road before. – JBarta (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juventusiran12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Tohid tunnel iran tehran3111.jpg is tagged {{Pd-shape}} which obviously doesn't apply, the other two uploads are tagged both PD and {{FAL}} with no evidence of either. The sources given point to completely different images.
January (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- images by artist who died some years ago under free license, dubious authorship claim and incompatible restrictions ("Seek consent from <abrsinha@yahoo.co.uk> before using this image.")
- portraits without proper source
- historic images with wrong authorship claim
--Polarlys (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:Content, c1983, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Heron, c1964, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Frustration, c2007, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:A Gas Victim of Bhopal, c1983, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Jiling on Lotus Seedpod, c1957, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.jpg
- File:The Basics, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:The Bamboo Shoots, c1958, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Marble Gorge, c1992, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.jpg
- File:Moksha, c1953, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.jpg
- File:The Swine, c 1948, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Smoky-Gorge of Huangshan, c1958, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Tall Lotus, c1985, by Beohar RM Sinha (LKA, Delhi).jpg
- File:Twin Grey Lotuses, c1990, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Two Harvesters, c1991, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Undulating Settlement, c1980, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG
- File:Varanasi, c1992, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.jpg
- File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf
- File:Beohar R M Sinha (1929-2007).jpg
- File:Beohar RM Sinha (1929-2007).jpg
- File:Beohar Ram Manohar Sinha (1929-2007).jpg
- File:Beohar Rammanohar Sinha (1929-2007).jpg
- File:CoatOfArms.jpg
- File:BeoharSarovar.JPG
- File:Lamhetaghat.JPG
- File:GandhijiAshesInJabalpur.jpg
- File:LamhetaBeoharsTemples.JPG
- File:GandhiInJabalpur.jpg
- File:BeoharsRadhaKrishnaTemple.jpg
- File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg
- File:MaharaniDurgawati.jpg
- File:BeoharPalace.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Polarlys (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 08:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
All Rights Reserved http://www.flickr.com/photos/dchare/3263640127/ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose The file you are pointing to is obviously another picture, and it was taken by another camera. --Amakuha (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Get over it, be happy some one is posting this picture, just note the media owner instead of using your media for monetary wealth and not mental wealth!
Kept: Denniss (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The information, artwork, text, video, audio, animation and picture files (collectively, 'Materials') contained within this PeoplePlayUK website are the intellectual property of the Theatre Museum (Victoria & Albert Museum) except where indicated otherwise, and are protected by copyright laws. PeoplePlayUK allows reproduction and reuse of items accessed through the website for non-commercial educational and research purposes (as required by the New Opportunities Fund), except where copyright ownership by a third party has been explicitly stated, in which case written permission from the rights holders will be required to use the items. Commercial use of any material on this website may only be made with the express, prior, written permission of the rights owner.~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
no copy right informatio and other name atleast date available~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
©2009 - إدارة نظم المعلومات - جريدة الدار الكويتية ~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
no source ~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: low resolution and no metadata. Tineye shows 35 results (many I accept from this image), of which I think these two are most interesting: this one is much bigger (although it does show JPEG artifacts so could have been scaled up), and this one is wider and shows more of the background. Please note with further investigations that this image has been around for 6 years, so many uses could well have come from us. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I was very uncertain about this one. The higher res image you link actually contains no more detail - it's upscaled from our image. The wider image cannot be so easily explained, except by digital editing, nor can I explain the low resolution. Reviewing the contribution history of the original uploader at En, all of their other uploads were from web sources. However, the original upload description by PrinceCharming read: "Image created by PrinceCharming on March 28, 2005 during the Showgirl concert in Sportpaleis, Antwerp, Belgium." This was indeed just a couple months before upload, and this concert did really happen. PrinceCharming is indeed in en:Category:Wikipedians in Belgium. Just two days earlier, they uploaded the now-deleted en:File:Dvdcoverclueless.jpg with description "DVD cover for Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" {{Fairuse}} {{DVDcover}}", suggesting immediate awareness of the non-free content policy at the time of upload. All of their other uploads were also either tagged fair use or from PD sources. No reason to doubt this claim. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Dcoetzee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Agree with user Dcoetzee Alpertron (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Also File:Cropped version of KylieShowgirl.jpg
In addition to the points raised in the previous nomination, this (bottom right) suggests that the image originated from Rex Features. It's part of a set taken at Kylie Minogue's show in Glasgow on 19 March 2005, not Antwerp on 28 March as claimed by the original uploader, and it also appears in this blog article about the Glasgow show dated 20 March 2005 - 3 months before upload on en.wiki, and 8 days before the photo was taken according to the uploader. There is a higher resolution version on Minogue's official website which does not look to me to have been scaled up. January (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - sounds convincing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Good evidence. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Tiptoety talk 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Would require OTRS-verification that uploader is the copyright holder and/or has permission. Woodcutterty (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Textlogo Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Architect still living, there is no FOP in Italy. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Trixt (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Reopened. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated: see COM:FOP Italy for full information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- See also the latest successful DR on an Italian architectural work by dead architects, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tomba Brion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
not a screenshot P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Clearly a partial copy of a copyrighted item. See the copyright notice in the image. Wtmitchell (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This image was used to vandalise the en:Mitt Romney article right after upload. It can be found all over the internet, but there is no evidence its license is compatible with Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparent copyright violation. See http://southseaconversations.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/17.jpg and http://southseaconversations.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/scarborough-shoal-a-photo-tour/ Wtmitchell (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
© 2010 Network Advertising Initiative. All Rights Reserved. Site Designed By blast! PR.http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not own work, see watermark in image. ~ Edoderoo (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Purdue Homeland Security Institute, this doesn't look like it's a part of the US government: it looks like it's a part of Purdue University, which can and does copyright its creations. ~ Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
With all my respect, the artist died in 1994, and all his works are copyrighted till 2064. I do not see any special permissions in the file, hence unfortunately it has to go. It is used in three articled in four projects, may be users want to upload it locally. Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A restaurant logo, uploaded by someone claiming to be the creator. Is the uploader really an official or the owner of the restaurant? No solid proof is shown. ~ Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
appears to be some kind of letter, most certainly copyrighted Liliana-60 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information to prove the authorship, seems to be a copyvio ~ Antonorsi (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information to prove the authorship, seems to be a copyvio ~ Antonorsi (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information to prove the authorship, seems to be a copyvio ~ Antonorsi (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Can the book author really give permission to use the Windows logo, which Microsoft holds the copyright on? I think not. Liliana-60 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
looks very much like a TV screenshot to me, not own work as stated Liliana-60 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Compilation uses an image tagged as all rights reserved, it's impossible to know if the Flickrreview was done just for he compilation and the claimed license or if every Flickr image was checked, authors are not properly attributed - backlink to source image is not a proper attribution as required by the CC license Denniss (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Corporate Logo of Rosh Creative Design Co., Ltd., would need OTRS permission and does not meet the requirements of {{PD-text-logo}} ~ Captain-tucker (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Review requested: File:Tiny Toon Adventures logo.png; I believe this image is either a) a derivative work of a copyrighted logo or b) if not derivative, then not in scope as it doesn't fairly represent the actual logo. Either way, we shouldn't keep it. Powers (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit, my uploading of this image was all a mistake. I thought it should be eligible for inclusion on Commons because I had my own philosophy on the U.S. threshold of originality. I thought that any image comprised solely of geometric shapes (as long as they weren't very complex) and/or text (as long as it was intelligible) would be acceptable for inclusion on Commons, and capable of improving the overall quality of the community of Wikipedias. It was precisely an extreme error of judgement for me to treat this logo, circle rings and all, as compliant with the U.S. threshold of originality, and for that, I must apologize for this unfair representation of the TTA logo. Thus I propose for this logo image to be speedily deleted. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 01:11 UTC.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Belgium. This appears to be a copy of a copyrighted French building located in Brussels. Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Asav as Speedy (This infographic is outdated. The author has uploaded newer and more correct versions.) FASTILY (TALK) 09:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Why can't we just do a speedy delete? I made this image on the information that was available at the time, which turned out to be wrong. I've since corrected it and uploaded the correct version, which is in use on several WPs. No need for a deletion discussion here. Asav (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Please keep this file - either as it is or as an old version to the updated file.
- @Asav consider please, that there might be some derivative works based on this graphic and those works might not be marked for deletion and would therefore become "orphans". There is no need for a deletion at this moment as there is nothing incriminating in the graphic (such as a cars number plate or a persons face in visible or identifiable size) - it is simply outdated. Deletion would corrupt the WP version history. Deleting references from articles is sufficient. Anyway it would have been better to upload the updated graphic as new version to this file (name). That would lead to a simple and clear file history. --PhChAK (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Several earlier versions of this infographic have already been deleted. The simple fact is that it's not in use in any WP edition, having been superseded by more recent versions. It contains an error as to the placement of the car bomb, as it was constructed on basis of the information that was made public at the time. Again, this information later turned out to be wrong. The newer (and more correct) version is in use on several WPs. All you're doing now, is running the risk that someone inadvertently uses this image - with the wrong information - as an illustration. As my name is embedded in the image (it's cc-by-sa 3.0), I on my hand risk being associated with disseminating erroneous information. Just get rid of it, please. Btw, there are no derivative works of this image. Asav (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Superceeded by File:Bomb attack on Oslo 2011 (Updated infographic), English version.svg FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
,_English_version.svg){kind=link}
Unencyclopedic, user creation of an organization logo. ~ 117Avenue (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- A search on Google images suggests that it was a logo of the Natural Law Party.[5] TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to have been used as a background for a couple of election posters, but nowhere do I see the term "only a new seed will yield a new crop". In fact a search doesn't produce anything Natural Law related. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This term "only a new seed will yield a new crop" was part of the British manifesto as you may see it here : [6], and has its place in the english page of WP. Here another possible reference to be included in the page to illustrate this sentence : [7]. This file should not be deleted, All the best to you all Jdontfight (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- How does it have a place in an encyclopedia? It is taking three concepts, a slogan, a rainbow, and an organization name, to create a logo for the topic. It is a fabrication, and is something not to be tolerated on any Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- This term "only a new seed will yield a new crop" was part of the British manifesto as you may see it here : [6], and has its place in the english page of WP. Here another possible reference to be included in the page to illustrate this sentence : [7]. This file should not be deleted, All the best to you all Jdontfight (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to have been used as a background for a couple of election posters, but nowhere do I see the term "only a new seed will yield a new crop". In fact a search doesn't produce anything Natural Law related. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The rainbow is a logo, as my link showed. If you don't like the slogan, and feel that it violates policy, perhaps select one of the other rainbow images to use that doesn't include the slogan. 76.76.236.22 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is just the exact copy of the English poster at that time, it was like that, it's history anyway, nobody can deny it Jdontfight (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am denying it, because you haven't proven that exact poster was ever used. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is just the exact copy of the English poster at that time, it was like that, it's history anyway, nobody can deny it Jdontfight (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- The rainbow is a logo, as my link showed. If you don't like the slogan, and feel that it violates policy, perhaps select one of the other rainbow images to use that doesn't include the slogan. 76.76.236.22 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you don't have a problem with using one of the other images? 76.76.236.22 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other image? I still haven't seen an official logo. 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you don't have a problem with using one of the other images? 76.76.236.22 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
in my honest opinion, I disagree. This photo is simply a work-in-progress without profit-seeking of a skyscraper... bah! --Morgoth92 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearlt show architecture, even though part is incomplete. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why delate? Because of those strange Italian copyright-laws? --Warburg (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the author (in this case, the architect) should be dead at least 70 years ago.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO I can't see a real threshold of originality in this station building. Lack of originality in this very simple architecture. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The author is a famous architect, Roberto Narducci. Every of his buildings looks different from the others.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LMLM as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Deritative work from non-free images: http://www.monumentalnet.org/pais_vasco/alava/iruna_oka_iruna_de_oca/info.php?cat=his Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The original page with the images is: http://www.castillosnet.org/programs/castillosnet.php?tip=liscas&ord=zn3asc&pai=Espa%F1a&fot=1201&pag=15. Author: Eduardo Argote Fraile. LMLM (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, and very likely DW issues as well Liliana-60 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
no photo found on the source.~ P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was probably there when the picture was uploaded back in 2004. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Both the text and the bas-relief lighthouse on this plaque are still under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a public plaque on public property placed by the St. George Reef Lighthouse Preservation Society and the E. Clampus Vitus of Eureka.
- Thousands of plaques from around the world are already in the Wikicommons collection, please see "Category:Plaques in the United States" to see the scope of the U.S. collection of representations of historical and factual plaques.
- Public plaques are erected with the intent of being noticed, seen and photographed by the public in public places. Please see the discussion on Commons:Derivative works which reads "Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed (which means, it is there to stay, not to be removed after a certain time), and in some countries if you are on public ground while taking the picture." This is a permanently attached public plaque on public land and I was standing on public land whilst taking the photo.
- The same guidelines state "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain." I have released the copyright of my photograph of the bas-relief plaque and the stone to which it is attached by using the "PD-self" tag as it says to do in those guidelines.
- The plaque was placed there by resolution of elected officials (see here http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/mg200957/as200960/as200985/ai201073/do201074/bosagendaitem.pdf) which shows public land ownership of the area where the plaque is placed. Nowhere in the resolution is it suggested the plaque will be copyright.
- The image of the lighthouse is generic and doesn't look like the real lighthouse (see here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kTjJmt6-cYI/TiW08E2E-7I/AAAAAAAADoE/1_Svl2FvRhY/s1600/StGeorgeLight1-72.jpg for a closeup photo of the actual lighthouse) or the rocky promentory on which the real lighthouse is located. The typeface is a fairly standard monument and plaque typeface often seen on public markers in the area. Geometric shapes, such as the outlining rectangle are not copyrightable.
- There is no author's name listed on the plaque or the resolution.
- There are no artist's marks or signatures on the bronze.
- There is no way to show this plaque without taking a photograph of it.
- There is no other marker of any sort to show the sacrifice made by these people to erect the lighthouse here in Humboldt County. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have taken the liberty of numbering the points above to make response clear and easy.
- This is certainly true. Many of them are in places where items in public view are free from copyright restrictions, see COM:FOP. In the USA that applies only to buildings. Many others were placed before March 2, 1989, without notice or registration which was required until that date. This was placed in 1995. Still others were placed by Federal agencies and therefore are automatically PD. This was not. And, of course, there are many that, like this, are copyright violations and should be deleted. There are more than twelve million images on Commons. My best guess is that one percent of them -- more than 100,000 -- are problematic in one way or another. Commons Administrators delete about 1,300 every day, but we still deal with them one at a time.
- Also true, but see #1 -- such exceptions do not apply in the USA
- The issue here is the copyright in the plaque, not the photograph. The quoted section applies to the photograph.
- All text and artistic works published after March 2, 1989 have a copyright. The three organizations cited can certainly waive that copyright and put the plaque into the public domain, or license it, but that requires a specific action, not the other way around.
- The image may appear generic to you, but it is still a created work and certainly qualifies for copyright in the USA. The text also qualifies.
- An author's name is not required. Collective works have the same rights as sole authors.
- Similarly, no artist's marks of any sort are required after 1989 -- copyright is automatic.
- That is true. It might justify a claim of "fair use" on WP:EN. I am not expert on "fair use" there, but I think it will not be allowed because nothing about the plaque is essential to the article. It has no effect on the copyright issue here.
- This is not relevant to the copyright issue.
It may be possible to get the three organizations involved to waive copyright or license it. The procedure is explained at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now until an OTRS request can be made and processed. I'd think a gently worded request on the user's talk page would be more useful than just listing this for deletion. For example, stating that since this was posted after 1978 (without a copyright) it is still considered to be under copyright, and therefore an OTRS filing needs to be made. Its pretty clear that the 2 potential copyright holders have no interest in preventing the duplication of this text, but procedures "must" be followed. Actually, if Commons were to pursue the deletion of every potentially copyrighted public plaque a huge amount of time would be spent - so don't take that last sentence too literally. So, I ask Jamesl to tell Ellin how to properly file an OTRS, and wait the 6 months or 9 months (or however long an OTRS takes to process these days). I'd think that 2 OTRS forms would be required, since 2 organization participated in erecting the plaque. If this is too much for folks to handle, then at least the image can be moved to Wikipedia under fair use - which obviously applies here. Smallbones (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- To your first comment -- there is simply not time to put a "gently worded request on the user's talk page" in the case of a clear problem. If the person responsible for an image questions a DR or deletion, I give a complete answer, as above, but only about 2% do so. It is far more efficient to save time to be helpful to inexperienced users rather than trying to explain each of my several hundred daily actions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- keep otrs pending. Slowking4 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now until an OTRS request can be made and processed or the fair use issue can be determined. The St. George Reef Lighthouse Preservation Society, the E. Clampus Vitus of Eureka, and the County of Humboldt have intended for this to educate and inform the public about the history of the place. The goal of the wiki is to educate and inform the public. Norcalal (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Jim. OTRS ticket seems not to have arrived yet SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Preeti oberoi12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images are either obvious promotional images with no evidence of permission or captures from movie/TV, again with no permission, stated as self owned.
- File:Rahul.Singh.jpg
- File:Rahul Singh Zubeidaa Fame.JPG
- File:Rahul Singh in Chitkabrey the Shades of Grey.JPG
- File:Rahul as a Soldier.JPG
Muhandes (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Three more with the same problem:
--Muhandes (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete agree
Boseritwik (Boseritwik) 21:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, delete all per above. Wizardman 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The text of this plaque will be under copyright until at least 2061. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the issue the photograph I took or the transcription? I do transcriptions of plaques because my sister is blind and a transcription parses through her screen-reader allowing her to 'see' via her ears. If the transcription is an issue it is a simple edit to remove, though it reduces accessibility to many. If I could take my sister and other visually impaired folks with me to see plaques I would read it aloud or guide them to touch the raised lettering. This is the same thing only in broader format. The other thing a Transcription serves as is an accessibility feature for non-english speakers to view since a software or browser translater can parse a transcription when a photo is in-comprehensive. If I knew how to create Alt Text the transcriptions would be in that format, but my coding is not good enough at this time to do that (and honestly I don't know if wiki software supports alt text).
If the issue is the photograph itself, what do you need for verification that it is mine? Do I need to go reshoot it with a paper sheet at the side stating 'Nytasi is taking this photo'? This is a photograph of a rock on the side of a road that happens to have a plaque on it to spread public knowledge about the area. My understanding is that when there is a photograph of a 3d object the object owner/creator's copyright claim is undamaged and a new copyright applies to the photograph itself and the photographer (mine in this case). As such I can release rights to the photograph to be edited or altered, printed and reused but I cannot release rights to someone to modify the subject of my photograph (I can't grant permission to spray-paint the rock or chisel new letters).
Where am I going wrong? Nytasi (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the plaque itself is under copyright and will be until seventy years after the author's death. Any image of a copyrighted work is a derivative work of the copyrighted work and infringes the copyright. While such images are permitted in a few countries, except for architecture, they are not permitted in the USA.
- Your reasons for creating the transcription are excellent -- I often have wished for one on foreign language images so that I could pass the text to Google translate. However, excellent reasons do not trump the fact that the image itself and the transcription both infringe the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook Third bullet from the bottom is my reference source on the matter. To quote it, "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)." which is why I PD my photos.
At this time I'm working on getting ahold of the groups that erected the plaque to obtain permissions for the photograph's publication here even though everyone I do not believe there is anything wrong with my images. I'll be removing and archiving the transcriptions until I have further contact with the groups responsible for the plaques.
In the meantime, What is the process for moving the images to Wikipedia proper since no matter what else happens they qualify as fair use imagery? It would have saved a lot of time, effort and emotion if you had simply contacted me to inform me or suggest that would be a better placement for my photos since there is an apparent grey area on their licensing. Nytasi (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has been simplified to a singular page rather then continuing to copy-paste or self-paraphrase to two locals. For more current status of discussion please refer to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fernbridge_100_year_Dedication_Plaque.JPG#File:Fernbridge_100_year_Dedication_Plaque.JPG Nytasi (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This plaque will be under copyright until at least 2081. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Plaque is in a public location and is a permanently installed 3d object. I have not released rights to edit or modify the plaque or its concrete base only my photograph of the plaque for which I do hold copyright. I am not selling or making any profit from these images, merely sharing historical points of interest with the world. Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about?
Is the problem the fact I have transcribed the text for accessibility? If so I can remove the transcription. Nytasi (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the plaque itself is under copyright and will be until seventy years after the author's death. Any image of a copyrighted work is a derivative work of the copyrighted work and infringes the copyright. While such images are permitted in a few countries, except for architecture, they are not permitted in the USA.
- While you are not making a profit, Commons requires that all images be available for commercial use. That does not affect this image, however, because even a non-commercial use infringes the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Same information as my other photograph, but I do not feel like paraphrasing myself.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook Third bullet from the bottom is my reference source on the matter. To quote it, "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted, even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you did not take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain)." which is why I PD my photos.
At this time I'm working on getting ahold of the groups that erected the plaque to obtain permissions for the photograph's publication here even though everyone I do not believe there is anything wrong with my images. I'll be removing and archiving the transcriptions until I have further contact with the groups responsible for the plaques.
In the meantime, What is the process for moving the images to Wikipedia proper since no matter what else happens they qualify as fair use imagery? It would have saved a lot of time, effort and emotion if you had simply contacted me to inform me or suggest that would be a better placement for my photos since there is an apparent grey area on their licensing. Nytasi (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The section you quote is discussing the copyright in the photograph -- that is not an issue here since you have licensed it. That section applies only when we are considering keeping a photograph taken by a third party.
- The problem here is that the plaque itself has a copyright. The text certainly does. The plaque itself might, although I think not. Your image is, in effect, exactly the same thing as a scan of a book -- Commons cannot keep reproductions of copyrighted text any more than we keep reproductions of copyrighted works of art.
- As for contacting you directly, DRs are very commons here and this does not reflect badly on you. The laws that govern our actions on Commons are almost incomprehensible to beginners -- indeed, they are murky to many old hands. The USA copyright law changed radically, in four steps, from early in the 20th century to its end. Very few people who are new to Commons, or copyright in general, understand the laws of the various countries. Even fewer people realize that something out in public display in many countries, including the USA, cannot be photographed for commercial purposes unless its copyright has lapsed. As a result, several hundred deletions every day are for reasons similar to this one.
- On Commons we have more than 5,000 open DRs at the moment. About 8,000 new files are uploaded every day and about 1,300 are deleted. We are doing our best to keep ahead of this flood, but our backlog is growing. To do that work we have 268 Administrators, of whom six do half of all deletions. There simply not time to leave a personal note on the talk page of every person affected by my several hundred actions each day. Instead, I leave a template which can be read in 42 languages. I am sorry for that, but until we get more active Admins, it is not possible to do otherwise. Besides, the best place to have this discussion is here, in public, where hundreds of eyes will see it, rather than on your talk page, which would be essentially a private discussion.
- Finally, I am by no means expert in the WP:EN requirements for fair use, and you should look into it independently, but I think this fails on two grounds. First, it is not essential to an article (point 1 in the link above). The information on it is useful, but you can quote a plaque without having the image present, see the second and third references here. Second, the image has not been previously published or displayed (point 4 in the link above). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
A scan of a book would be a copy of a consumable item published or created to be traded and/or sold. I see no parallel with a publicly mounted historical caption of a locality which is what these plaques are. I am tracking down the appropriate people to get release from but that is slow process since they are largely offline organizations and I have limitations on my ability to travel. Currently It's a game of phone tag to get contact info for the right people, then I'll have to arrange mutually possible times to meet and get documentation since I am seeking permission not only for these photos but also for other plaques these groups have put up, as well as permission to do transcriptions for accessibility. I'm also trying to schedule time to meet with a lawyer regarding the issue since I publish under a pseudonym.
As for the fair use issue, that applies to the subject rather then the plaque itself. It is fair use of the plaque to create the photo. For every plaque I have photographed, I also have photographs that show the surrounding area or building discussed. In some cases I've uploaded both but in other's I've retained the wider shots for varieties of reasons. There are uploaded panoramas of the area in which these stand but which do not adequitely display the plaques. In the case of the panorama for this specific image, the image of the area predates placement of the plaque by a few months. In the other, the buildings are displayed as is the rock but the rock is shown from an angle perpendicular to the plaque. The commemorative plaque itself was photographed during a major storm, light was right for the plaque, but wind and rains made a mess of the scenery. The best shot I have of its pedestal and surrounding area predate the installation of the Plaque itself. Yes it is possible to quote a plaque without having an image.
That said this is a relatively remote area of the country and the Plaques are largely off the beaten path for chance and since I started posting images to wiki I've seen articles created or expanded because plaque photos were posted. I rarely do the crossover links to Wikipedia because I need to be in the right frame off mind to look at the markup language without suffering migraines - part of why I do transcription rather then alt-text. If there is nothing to spark the mind and point the way to a prospective story, from where will the articles come? Most of the local historians are not computer literate and their knowledge is being lost. I have miles of documentation, research, and contacts to go with most of my images, but I do not have the skill to write. The articles are out there, they just need to be written and when they are, the images are here for them. Permission to photograph public plaques Is a new one to me, but I'll now be adding that to my process.
Now, since you insist that public venue is the best place for discussion, I'll continue here.
As for the comment of being understaffed and over-worked. There is a possibility that a change in approach might help to retain users long enough for them to work their way up through the ranks rather than setting off on a witch hunt. In the past month I have seen you badger and harass someone into submission regarding the location data for an image until they left it how you wanted with incorrect grossly invalid information posted and then move on to bullying this individual, who is a very dedicated editor and photographer who helps facilitate others in getting them to help further the wiki-projects, further to the point of quitting wikipedia. I am aware of several local libraries and museums that are working on or looking into participating in, the GLAM projects purely because of the promotion of wiki done by this individual you have now chased off. Branching off to deleting this individual's images as well as those belonging to people this person brought to wiki is just further harassment on your part.
I'll admit I'm a newbie, I'll even go so far as to say I'm something of a wiki-wolfcub, Photos of plaques and behind the scenes research is my wiki teething toy. You shot my Alpha. I no longer have anyone at my back supporting me in this project. I may or may not go down but I'm going to fight for myself. This IS personal because of your systematic actions. Nytasi (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't take this so personally. It doesn't reflect badly on you. As I said above, US copyright law is more complicated than most other countries and several of its concepts are counter-intuitive to most of us. I had to learn its ins and outs the hard way, just as you will.
- I'm sorry I shot your baby, but this is an open and shut case -- the text is copyrighted. While eight countries (Germany, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, North Korea, and Slovakia) do allow commercial use of photographs of text in public places, the rest of the world does not, see COM:FOP. We probably delete 200 FOP cases daily, mostly sculpture and paintings, but also a few plaques.
- I do not know whether the "you" in your comment above is directed toward me personally or toward Commons in general. We certainly try hard not to chase off good contributors, but we do have people who simply refuse to understand that we must work within the laws of the countries involved. If they cannot learn to act within our rules and the laws that govern us, then they will be chased off. If you want to give me some specifics, I would be happy to respond.
- I note that you have removed the transcriptions -- that was not at all necessary. If the plaque itself is PD or appropriately licensed for our use, then the transcription would simply be a derivative work which our license would permit. If the plaque remains under copyright, then the image will be deleted in any case and the transcription would just be a side issue. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
For clarification, thus far my use of the word 'you' has been singular and directed solely referential to Jameslwoodward . At this point in time I have seen no other individuals or groups involved in this discussion. Secondly, Please re-read what I said above, You did not shoot my baby, you shot my mentor and then took away my metaphorical chew toy. Don't worry, I've already found a new chew toy.
I have archived my transcriptions prior to removing them and will be reposting them once I have documentation in hand granting me the rights to make them. I have spent the last day on the phone consulting with a legal aide and other sources on the issue. My involvement of legal assistance at this time is so that I can obtain proper documentation granting permission to photograph and transcribe plaques from the organizations which erect them. When I do eventually get in contact with the correct people to grant the required permissions I want to be ready with contract in hand and enough background to answer questions about it.
The Legal Aide I have been in contact with tried prior to this latest phone call and further during the call to find case law involving photography of plaques of this kind. Currently no relavent cases have been located. If any exist it may take awhile yet to locate. The search will likely move faster if there is more specific comparative data. With that in mind, from where in the Legal Code are you deriving your interpretation of the law as applies to this situation? Is there a specific title, chapter, appendix or case you referenced in motivation for the deletionist actions that began this discourse?
As for detailed specifics on the editor you ( Jameslwoodward ) have chased off of wiki. The details are easy to find both in my talk pages and your own. I'd rather not embarrass you by providing direct links here. This is not a situation involving an editor who 'cannot learn to act within our rules and the laws that govern us' but one wherein a Good editor who was diligently working within the rules from 2006 until this past week is no longer with the project. Please do not credit yourself with being the entire reason this editor has quit, you are merely the straw that broke the camel's back in a series of disturbing events. Including at one point a threat of bodily harm made by a now banned person against this now-former editor. Incidentally the threats that required local police action in January did not get the violent individual banned, rather an unrelated April Fools Day Prank on their part resulted in administrative action on the part of wiki-admins. Nytasi (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation of the other case, which I now understand. As you know, it was a very similar case. I am sorry that I offended her, and I have said so on her talk page, but I cannot be held responsible for providing a very small straw in a case which apparently had police involvement before I came on the scene.
- As for case law, it goes directly to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
- This plaque is a Writing. The current law grants copyright in all writings first published after March 2, 1989 to the author and his or her heirs until 70 years after death. While, as I said above, eight countries have an exception to copyright for writings that appear in public, the USA does not. The USA does make such an exception for architectural works at 17 USC 120(a).
- The actual term used at 17 USC 101 is "literary works". A good summary is in the Copyright Office's Copyright Basics page 3, which says:
- "Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
- 1 literary works
- [2-4 omitted]
- 5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
- [6-8 omitted]
- These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”
- Note both "these categories should be viewed broadly" and "that are fixed in a tangible form of expression" -- there is nothing that even hints that bronze should be treated differently from paper or any other medium. There is also nothing that hints that something on public display (except for architecture) loses its copyright.
- There is really nothing else to point your legal adviser to. I cannot point him or her to an exception that might cover this case, because there isn't one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - without having read all this, yes, in principle this is a copyright violation. In practice, there is no problem, except that the photographer does not have the right to give a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
doubtful information on authorship, 7 (seven) different cameras for 25 images, a lot without EXIF data, some movie covers included as well …
- File:Celso Athayde - Revista 2.jpg
- File:Cabeça de Porco.jpg
- File:Celso Athayde - Revista1.jpg
- File:Falcão - Mulheres e o Tráfico.jpg
- File:Estação F - Japeri - RJ.jpg
- File:Rebelião e Arte.jpg
- File:Hip Hop Comunitário.JPG
- File:Mao na Cabeça.jpg
- File:Projeto Hip Hop Comunitario (2).JPG
- File:Celso e Lula-CDD.jpg
- File:Lancamento-Livro10anosCufa.jpg
- File:Celso MarcosFrota.jpg
- File:Alcione-Programa-Aglomerado.jpg
- File:Porradaode20.jpg
- File:Brincando com a Bola- antes do 1 jogo.jpg
- File:Abertura da Taça das Favelas - 2012.jpg
- File:Premio Anu 2012-1.jpg
- File:Premio Anu 2012-Chico Buarque - Batuk D Gueto e Cia Tumulto.jpg
- File:Celso Athayde - Espanha.jpg
- File:Celso Athayde e amigos.jpg
- File:Celso Athayde.JPG
- File:Celso Athayde.jpg
- File:Celso Athayde - assina falcao.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Polarlys (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Missing copyright information for claiming PD-old, with most of the images citing "Qing Dynasty" as author without supporting evidence, and citing either "scholarsofchenzhou" or "cartoonwin" as source. "scholars of shenzhou" is a forum connected with the website kongming.net, and "cartoonwin" is apparently this website here http://see.cartoonwin.com/seecart/sgyyrw.html , which apparently also contains artwork by the same author. Seeing sketches of Mao Zedong and Bill Clinton on the cartoonwin website makes it highly unlikely that the artist is from the Qing Dynasty, barring time travel. Also nominating other problematic uploads by the same user including a screenshot of google maps and an image of a church sign gotten off the internet.
- File:Yu Fan.jpg
- File:Pan Zhang.jpg
- File:Lu Fan.jpg
- File:Cao Zhang.jpg
- File:JianshuYong.jpg
- File:Cao Hong.jpg
- File:Guan Xing.jpg
- File:Sima Shi.jpg
- File:Jian Yong.jpg
- File:Zhu Zhi.jpg
- File:Cheng Pu.jpg
- File:Fei Yi.jpg
- File:Taishi Ci.jpg
- File:Ma Dai.jpg
- File:Ma Liang yeah.jpg
- File:Cao Rui.jpg
- File:Cao Pi.jpg
- File:Jiang Qin.jpg
- File:Ma Chao 2.jpg
- File:Mi Fang.jpg
- File:Zhuge Liang 2.jpg
- File:Zhuge Liang man.jpg
- File:Zhou Yu 2.jpg
- File:Zhuge Jin.jpg
- File:Li Dian.jpg
- File:Yan Yan of Shu.jpg
- File:Zhang Fei 2.jpg
- File:Yuan Shu.jpg
- File:Xu Chu.jpg
- File:Yan Liang.jpg
- File:Xun Wenruo.jpg
- File:Xiahou Dun 2.jpg
- File:Wen Chou.jpg
- File:Wang Yun.jpg
- File:The Han Emperor powerless.jpg
- File:Sun Quan 2.jpg
- File:SunQuanWu.jpg
- File:Sun Jian.jpg
- File:Mi Heng.jpg
- File:LuMeng.jpg
- File:Liu Biao.jpg
- File:Liu Shan.jpg
- File:Lu Bu 2.jpg
- File:Liu Bei 2.jpg
- File:LiuBei.jpg
- File:Huang Gai 2.jpg
- File:HanSui.jpg
- File:Gongsun Zan.jpg
- File:Guan Ping.jpg
- File:Emperor Xian of Han.jpg
- File:Dong Zhuo 2.jpg
- File:Cao Cao 2.jpg
- File:Sima Hui.jpg
- File:Shouchun.gif
- File:Enter-Heaven.jpg
Deadkid dk (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyvios uploaded by User:Kos93.
{{PD-Yugoslavia}} is not really a licensing template, and it should never be used alone (it's emphasied in bold in the template actually), so basically PD-Yugoslavia-only pictures have no license at all. Of course it many cases it can be replaced with {{PD-SCGGov}}.
{{PD-SCGGov}} template claims that
Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function.
are free. This sounds ambigous. Do photos like above falls under the scope of the template? The problem wasn't discussed on Commons, I've found only two discussions in sr-wiki about the issue: sr:Википедија:Слике и медији са спорним статусом#НБСхолКП.JPG, sr:Корисник:Мирослав Ћика/Архива2#Војне слике. In short -- Wikimedia Serbia tried to get some legal interpretation of it, but didn't succeed, users unsure about the meaning of the law, and tend to interpret it in more strict sense. There is a comment on Template talk:PD-SCGGov from BokicaK, a Serbian user, who thinks that current use of the template on Commons is overly broad and is pretty confident "that law describe something that is written on paper, not images".
Moreover, most of the picture are essentially unsourced. So, I think these files should be deleted, unless it will be proven that 1) {{PD-SCGGov}} is applicable in this case. 2) these picture will be properly sourced.
- {{PD-Yugoslavia}} alone
- File:M-84 povlačenje.jpg
- File:An-26 sfrj.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:JRV Soko G-4 Super Galebs Formation.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:JRV Soko J-22 Orao.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:JRV Soko Oraos.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:JRV Thunderjet.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:JRVpilots.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Learjet25.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:M-14pl jrv.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Mig-21m jrv.JPG, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Myanmar g-4 super galeb.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Orao.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Oraoprot1 v.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Osa Missile Boats.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:P-811Sutjeska04.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:P-821-BOC-Heroj.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:P911 Tisa and sisterships.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Paratroops-1966.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:R1diver.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Rpc 01.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Rtop-406 01.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Sava-P-831.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Soko GAzelle.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:T-72m jna.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:TAB 71 JNA.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:VPBR-33 Kotor.JPG, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:VPBR-34 Pula.JPG, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Yugoosa2.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Yugorf33kotor.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Yusupersonik.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:YUsupersonik2.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:YUsupersonikClanak.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava early parked migs.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava early tunnel1.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava enter pfm.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava exiting mig.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava late migs.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava line on apron.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava MiG-21PFM.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava pilots.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava radar room.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava take-off mig.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:Zeljava taxi migs.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:ZeljavaMiG-21.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}
- File:P 802 Sava 50s.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}, {{PD-Croatia}}
- File:P-832 Drava.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}, {{PD-Croatia}}
- File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg, {{PD-Yugoslavia}}, {{PD-Croatia}}
_Split.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- {{PD-SCGGov}} alone
- File:An26.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:G-4M Super Galeb.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:Galebg4.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:J22yu.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:Lasta-2.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:Mi-8 SRB2.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:MiG-21 UM FRY.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:Mig21r yu.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:MiG-29 FRY.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:MiG-29 SRB2.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:NJ-22 FRY.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- File:V utva.jpg, {{PD-SCGGov}}
- {{PD-SRBGov}} alone
- File:Bacac plamena u dejstvu.jpg, {{PD-SRBGov}}
- File:Kasarna barutanskog bataljona.jpg, {{PD-SRBGov}}
- File:Odeljenje za transport.jpg, {{PD-SRBGov}}
- File:Stab barutanskog bataljona.jpg, {{PD-SRBGov}}
Trycatch (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why u do a DR, when u don't have any attempt to delete them?--Sanandros (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- What? Sorry, don't understand you. --Trycatch (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- u suggest to use another license and for that we don't need DR--Sanandros (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- My poing is that {{PD-SCGGov}} could be added to many of PD-Yugoslavia photos (many of them already have PD-SCGGov template), but the pictures should be deleted anyway, because PD-SCGGov is not applicable here. --Trycatch (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I saw already a lot of them with an additional PD-Tag and would like to ask u to sort them out and if they have any copyright problems to discuss them in a different DR. The DR right now looks for me too chaotic.--Sanandros (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional tags are {{PD-SCGGov}} (that's why I wrote the whole paragraph about it) and {{PD-Croatia}} (obviously irrelevant, giving that all the files were created _after_ 1949). Tags are slightly different, but the pictures and the problem are similar -- I don't see a single reason why recent Yugoslavian/Serbian military photos without explicit permission from the copyright holder can be kept. --Trycatch (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes these who r scggov should be discussed diffrentliy and these who r pd croatia should also be discussed diffrently cause u will mix a lot of information in one DR. All pics with different tags are ruled under different laws or do you realy want to collect all these infromations of all these pics together? It needs just for one pic some time to check if it is ruled under the pd croatia tag and other users will have a lot of different opinion on different pics.--Sanandros (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional tags are {{PD-SCGGov}} (that's why I wrote the whole paragraph about it) and {{PD-Croatia}} (obviously irrelevant, giving that all the files were created _after_ 1949). Tags are slightly different, but the pictures and the problem are similar -- I don't see a single reason why recent Yugoslavian/Serbian military photos without explicit permission from the copyright holder can be kept. --Trycatch (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I saw already a lot of them with an additional PD-Tag and would like to ask u to sort them out and if they have any copyright problems to discuss them in a different DR. The DR right now looks for me too chaotic.--Sanandros (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- My poing is that {{PD-SCGGov}} could be added to many of PD-Yugoslavia photos (many of them already have PD-SCGGov template), but the pictures should be deleted anyway, because PD-SCGGov is not applicable here. --Trycatch (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- u suggest to use another license and for that we don't need DR--Sanandros (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- What? Sorry, don't understand you. --Trycatch (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I sorted the files according to their license. Hope it helps. --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK thx i will check them later.--Sanandros (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Trycatch, you are doing a witch hunt against User:Kos93. --188.104.125.206 18:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:An-26 sfrj.jpg, File:JRVpilots.jpg, File:JRV Thunderjet.jpg, File:M-14pl jrv.jpg, File:Mig-21m jrv.JPG, File:Myanmar g-4 super galeb.jpg, File:Orao.jpg, File:Oraoprot1 v.jpg, File:Osa Missile Boats.jpg All these files (which i just shortly checked) have pretty specified sources so it should be dealt differently than these which r just said that they r from the YAF... Plz split the DR in diffrent DRs--Sanandros (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Sanandros. I am not going to split the DR, frankly I don't see a single reason to do it. I think it would be better for everybody finally to discuss the pictures and the arguments for deletion (e.g. to find _any_ reason why _any_ pictures from the bulk could be kept), instead of endless discussions about the DR procedure and other irrelevant things. What about the "pretty" sources -- do you seriously call "sources" like "Yugoslav Peoples Army - JNA" or "Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was [1]." (while the original description from en-wiki was just == Licensing == {{PD-self}}) pretty? Well, they are neither pretty nor verifiable. --Trycatch (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Close and renominate. The discussion above makes me think that there are multiple situations for these images — many of them seem to be suitable and not covered by the nominator's statement due to the presence of other licenses, so a mass nomination isn't appropriate. Please drop the nomination on some of them and renominate the rest, or nominate each group of images separately. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- What "other licenses" you are talking about? --Trycatch (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Smaller duplicates of File:IK_104P_VS1.jpg, not needed to have four gigantic files of same photo by same uploader.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well those three are not the same photos, if you zoom on registration plates of buses, they have P-2233 (IK_104P_VS1.jpg), P-2229 (IK_104P_VS2.jpg), P-2230 (K_104P_VS3.jpg), and P-2103 (IK_104P_VS4.jpg) registrations. Also on IK_104P_VS1.jpg you can notice blue-white-red strips on front of bus. If you need to delete photos, please do not delete all 3 of them, leave the IK_104P_VS2.jpg to have images of two visual different models of IK-104P bus operated by Serbian Army. --Kos93 (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No good reason to keep 4 copies of the same image -FASTILY 09:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:DW Liliana-60 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (I think!): (1) I think the widespread precedent on Commons is that freely-licensed works, that are re-created as new works rather than simply captured and modified, are not derivative of the copyrightable portion of Microsoft's graphical work, even if they have the same simple geometric shapes and are in the "style" of Microsoft Windows. For example, it appears that screenshots from Open Source window managers, that mimic Microsoft Windows' display themes without using Microsoft Windows, are being allowed. (2) There does not appear to be consensus on whether the usual Microsoft Windows window decorations even meet the threshold of originality to be copyrightable: See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Windows screenshots; 2 years after that discussion, almost all of those screenshots still remain on Commons. (To be fair, however, it should be mentioned that one of the arguments in that discussion is that the window decoration was de minimis for screenshots of another subject. Contrast with the file being discussed here, whose main subject appears to be a standard window and its border decoration.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Contains copyrighted elements of non-free Windows interface. FASTILY (TALK) 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems that this template is based on some misunderstanding. The Federal Chancellery has made it clear that Swiss Government portraits may not be used commercially without explicit permission. In a recent statement in Swiss newspaper "SonntagsZeitung" of yesterday (Sunday, April 15), page 4, Vice Chancellor André Simonazzi is quoted as stating, with regard to the current official government portrait (see File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2011.jpg): "Die Verwendung für politische oder kommerzielle Zwecke ohne Erlaubnis der Regierung ist widerrechtlich." Translation: Use for political or commercial purposes without permission by the government is illegal. A PR agency who used the picture discussed here in a campaign was admonished and they are now expected to donate to a charity for compensation. The advertiser using the image stated that he didn't know you need an authorization to use the photo. - The mails from 2008 stored in OTRS seem to be less than clear regarding the true extent of rights release, see this archived discussion over at the German Wikipedia. Probably the Chancellery then thought the release was only for Wikipedia, as so many people think when asked for rights release. Anyway, Commons doesn't accept NC restrictions. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, being the person who discussed with the Chancellery and exchanged private emails with them, which were then forwarded to OTRS for safekeeping, I am really unhappy about discovering that they are now on display on the German Wikipedia (I have added a note there and hidden the content in history). Secondly, I must admit of taking offense at your characterisation of a "misunderstanding". If the people from the Federal Chancellery come here, and see that the emails they wrote privately are splattered around, along with comments implying that these guys don't know what they are doing, it is sure going to help building trust between us and them. As the person who participated in building this trust (and we are still discussing with them occasionally about other topics), I have to thank you heartily for this !
- Then, to come to your argument. First, let me be clear (reusing a comment that was made in the previous discussion): there is absolutely no ambiguity in the original French ticket that all Federal Councillors pictures published by the federal administration are indeed free to use. Not being a native German speaker, I can not vouch so confidently for the other ticket, but it is quite clear as well (and even more so when taken in context of the global discussion, and phone calls, and subsequent meetings with representative of the Federal Chancellery). If I am not mistaken (I should doublecheck my emails), one of our OTRS volunteers who happens to be a Swiss lawyer looked at the tickets and confirmed that they were fine. In comparison, a general quote that was reproduced in a random newspaper does not carry much weight in my eyes.
- Without trying to interpret too much what André Simonazzi is saying, I see nowhere in the quote above an indication that this is about copyright. It is more likely to be based on the personality rights of the Federal Councillors, who do not want to be associated with some political or commercial purposes. This makes perfect sense, and is not incompatible with the distribution of pictures under a free licence. Indeed, when we (= the Swiss volunteers I know of) approach an institution in order for them to release pictures (as in the case of the chancellery), we always mention that the people on the photo still have some rights associated with their images (and which are entirely separated from the copyright, which belongs to the photographer). It is likely that if you take your own picture of a Federal Councillor at a public and want to use it for political advertising, the Government would also complain (even though you have full copyright over the picture). On the other hand, these pictures have been commercially used zillions of times without any problem in contexts where endorsement is not implied.
- So, since Commons is about free content from the point of view of copyright, I see no problem here. Schutz (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Schutz, thanks for your statement! I understand that you're unhappy about the OTRS volunteer quoting from mails you considered to be private, but on the other side: How can we discuss the extent and validity of the 2008 permission if we don't know what the chancellery said, exactly? This isn't an issue OTRS volunteers can discuss only amongst themselves. And aren't the mails rather official statements than private? IIRC, individual names were kept out of the quotes. We need a clear permission that can be checked by everyone to its full extent, not a "secret", half-hidden permission. The best way to achieve this would, of course, the chancellery posting a permission here themselves, officially. - Apart from this, I would be very happy if this is indeed only about personality rights. Then we could keep the template and the images, just adding the standard personality rights template would suffice. "Die Verwendung für politische oder kommerzielle Zwecke ohne Erlaubnis der Regierung ist widerrechtlich" from the newspaper statement sounds a lot like a "Non Commercial" restriction to me, but if I'm wrong - very good. Maybe you could ask for confirmation a last time, preferrably getting a statement that can be quoted here, so we're completely sure, as you already were in contact with the people there? With regard to the current portrait, I think the Franz Gertsch painting in the portrait is still a problem, however, or has the Chancellery the copyright and has licensed the painting for free reuse? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2011.jpg. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is little doubts that the OTRS emails are private (the ones I sent definitively are !), and discussion about them should be confined to notes in OTRS and the OTRS mailing-lists - even though, I agree this is far from ideal. In any case, public display should be discussed and agreed by our correspondants beforehand ! Most importantly, while public display may not be so much of a problem in the case of a simple authorization, the emails from the Chancellery (now removed from de.wikipedia.org) contained general discussions about change in contracts and the availability of documents from different federal departments, etc, which have nothing to do in a public place. While asking them to confirm the authorisation is a good idea, I am a little bit wary of doing so, as it would probably mean annoying quite a few people there for little benefit (as an aside, most ID pictures of the federal councilors are probably not protected by copyright anyway -- something not true for the group pictures). I'll see what is the best way forward. As for the painting, I agree that it is a separate issue, not covered explicitely by the blanket permission of the chancellery, but haven't looked deeply into it. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the issue is that there is not a single text which we can call "the permission by the Chancellery", am I right? There seems to be an apparently complex mail exchange touching various issues, but not a single clear, well-formulated "permission statement" issued by an authorized person which could be posted here in full text and referred to? The ideal case would be, I think, a CC license issued by the Chancellery for their material, e.g. CC-BY-SA, as the German Bundesarchiv has done for the material they donated to Commons, ideally posted on their website alongside with the downloadable pictures. That shouldn't be an issue if they really agree to free re-use, I think? Gestumblindi (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Two general answers, after a bit of thinking and getting some advice from others. Firstly: we have an agreement with the Chancellery that was validated in OTRS, and noone has seriously questioned its validity. We (at least I) have others things to do that go back to issues that are settled everytime a newspaper writes something (and yes, it is not the first time it happens). Secondly: even if I was willing to reopen the discussion, I would not consider asking for licensing under a CC license. These licences are all nice and well when the institution already knows them well; if they don't, there is a risk they will want to run them through their lawyers, doublecheck every word, and a good chance that we'll never see the end of the tunnel. We are much better off (and they are much more comfortable) with simple terms that can be summarised as "no restriction on reuse, please cite the source" -- which is what we currently have and is perfectly fine. Schutz (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The OTRS is a very good system for simple, unambiguous cases. Say, I see a file with an OTRS ticket supposedly licensed as CC-BY-SA and I want confirmation - I just ask an OTRS volunteer "is this file really licensed as CC-BY-SA?", the OTRS volunteer checks and confirms "yes, the copyright owners sent a mail using the boilerplate license declaration, all in order". There is no need for us other users to see the e-mail, because we know what e.g. CC-BY-SA entails. Telling us that this license was confirmed is sufficient. But for cases such as this one it's insufficient. No standard license was used, and the quote by Mr. Simonazzi in the newspaper at least seems to be a direct contradiction of the supposed "freeness". As I understand it, you say that we should understand this statement "use for political or commercial purposes without permission by the government is illegal" not literally, that it's only about personality rights, but as yet nobody has asked the Chancellery about it, as it seems. And at least the SonntagsZeitung didn't made any mention of personality rights - but even this: "Für die Reproduktion jeglicher Elemente ist eine schriftliche Zustimmung im Voraus nötig" (not a quote from the Chancellery, but what the SonntagsZeitung says). This would go even farther than a NC restriction, translation: "For the reproduction of any elements a written permission given in advance is mandatory." I trust that, as things stand, any responsibly-thinking admin would delete the template as well as the images using it, because we have a responsibility towards users of Commons files. If we say "commercial use is allowed", commercial use must be allowed indeed, freely, and without "written permission in advance". Commons has never accepted unclear "no restriction on reuse, please cite the source" declarations and always asked for clear, unambiguous licensing which expressly allows commercial re-use, too. So, what we would need from the Chancellery, in my opinion, if not a regular free license, is a declaration that encompasses this too; one that says expressly that any kind of re-use, including commercial re-use is allowed without having to ask for permission first (as long as personality rights aren't touched, of course). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably the right place for me to stop the discussion. We have a perfectly fine (free, accepted by policy and simple) licence for these pictures; we have matching authorisations in OTRS, and people who have read the tickets seem to agree on that. These authorisations are based on direct discussions with the people involved (and not some random quotes made about a hot topic and reported by a third-party). So, as things stand, what any responsibly-thiking admin should do is stand still and spend his time somewhere where it is useful. I understand more or less what you want from the Chancellery, but I don't see how it translates into what we need. Otherwise, you should ask for the policy to be changed, so that only standard (named) licences and boilerplate declarations should be allowed when someone provides us with an authorisation, but this page is not the right place for this. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for a policy change. Non-standard licenses are fine if they are clear and there are no contradictions. In this case, we have an intransparent mail exchange from 2008 (not containing any quotable statement which unambiguously allows commercial re-use, as it seems?) versus a current public statement by a high-ranking official apparently clearly contradicting the supposed free use of Swiss Government portraits. So, further clarification is needed. - But I agree with you in this regard: we have probably reached a point where we can only agree to disagree. I can't share your point of view and you can't share mine, as it seems. So, I hope that others will chime in and state what they think of this issue. I'm going to ask Lupo, whose statements on copyright and license issues I've always found very helpful, and Pill over at the German Wikipedia, who is an OTRS volunteer and well-versed in copyright issues. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably the right place for me to stop the discussion. We have a perfectly fine (free, accepted by policy and simple) licence for these pictures; we have matching authorisations in OTRS, and people who have read the tickets seem to agree on that. These authorisations are based on direct discussions with the people involved (and not some random quotes made about a hot topic and reported by a third-party). So, as things stand, what any responsibly-thiking admin should do is stand still and spend his time somewhere where it is useful. I understand more or less what you want from the Chancellery, but I don't see how it translates into what we need. Otherwise, you should ask for the policy to be changed, so that only standard (named) licences and boilerplate declarations should be allowed when someone provides us with an authorisation, but this page is not the right place for this. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The OTRS is a very good system for simple, unambiguous cases. Say, I see a file with an OTRS ticket supposedly licensed as CC-BY-SA and I want confirmation - I just ask an OTRS volunteer "is this file really licensed as CC-BY-SA?", the OTRS volunteer checks and confirms "yes, the copyright owners sent a mail using the boilerplate license declaration, all in order". There is no need for us other users to see the e-mail, because we know what e.g. CC-BY-SA entails. Telling us that this license was confirmed is sufficient. But for cases such as this one it's insufficient. No standard license was used, and the quote by Mr. Simonazzi in the newspaper at least seems to be a direct contradiction of the supposed "freeness". As I understand it, you say that we should understand this statement "use for political or commercial purposes without permission by the government is illegal" not literally, that it's only about personality rights, but as yet nobody has asked the Chancellery about it, as it seems. And at least the SonntagsZeitung didn't made any mention of personality rights - but even this: "Für die Reproduktion jeglicher Elemente ist eine schriftliche Zustimmung im Voraus nötig" (not a quote from the Chancellery, but what the SonntagsZeitung says). This would go even farther than a NC restriction, translation: "For the reproduction of any elements a written permission given in advance is mandatory." I trust that, as things stand, any responsibly-thinking admin would delete the template as well as the images using it, because we have a responsibility towards users of Commons files. If we say "commercial use is allowed", commercial use must be allowed indeed, freely, and without "written permission in advance". Commons has never accepted unclear "no restriction on reuse, please cite the source" declarations and always asked for clear, unambiguous licensing which expressly allows commercial re-use, too. So, what we would need from the Chancellery, in my opinion, if not a regular free license, is a declaration that encompasses this too; one that says expressly that any kind of re-use, including commercial re-use is allowed without having to ask for permission first (as long as personality rights aren't touched, of course). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Two general answers, after a bit of thinking and getting some advice from others. Firstly: we have an agreement with the Chancellery that was validated in OTRS, and noone has seriously questioned its validity. We (at least I) have others things to do that go back to issues that are settled everytime a newspaper writes something (and yes, it is not the first time it happens). Secondly: even if I was willing to reopen the discussion, I would not consider asking for licensing under a CC license. These licences are all nice and well when the institution already knows them well; if they don't, there is a risk they will want to run them through their lawyers, doublecheck every word, and a good chance that we'll never see the end of the tunnel. We are much better off (and they are much more comfortable) with simple terms that can be summarised as "no restriction on reuse, please cite the source" -- which is what we currently have and is perfectly fine. Schutz (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the issue is that there is not a single text which we can call "the permission by the Chancellery", am I right? There seems to be an apparently complex mail exchange touching various issues, but not a single clear, well-formulated "permission statement" issued by an authorized person which could be posted here in full text and referred to? The ideal case would be, I think, a CC license issued by the Chancellery for their material, e.g. CC-BY-SA, as the German Bundesarchiv has done for the material they donated to Commons, ideally posted on their website alongside with the downloadable pictures. That shouldn't be an issue if they really agree to free re-use, I think? Gestumblindi (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is little doubts that the OTRS emails are private (the ones I sent definitively are !), and discussion about them should be confined to notes in OTRS and the OTRS mailing-lists - even though, I agree this is far from ideal. In any case, public display should be discussed and agreed by our correspondants beforehand ! Most importantly, while public display may not be so much of a problem in the case of a simple authorization, the emails from the Chancellery (now removed from de.wikipedia.org) contained general discussions about change in contracts and the availability of documents from different federal departments, etc, which have nothing to do in a public place. While asking them to confirm the authorisation is a good idea, I am a little bit wary of doing so, as it would probably mean annoying quite a few people there for little benefit (as an aside, most ID pictures of the federal councilors are probably not protected by copyright anyway -- something not true for the group pictures). I'll see what is the best way forward. As for the painting, I agree that it is a separate issue, not covered explicitely by the blanket permission of the chancellery, but haven't looked deeply into it. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Schutz, thanks for your statement! I understand that you're unhappy about the OTRS volunteer quoting from mails you considered to be private, but on the other side: How can we discuss the extent and validity of the 2008 permission if we don't know what the chancellery said, exactly? This isn't an issue OTRS volunteers can discuss only amongst themselves. And aren't the mails rather official statements than private? IIRC, individual names were kept out of the quotes. We need a clear permission that can be checked by everyone to its full extent, not a "secret", half-hidden permission. The best way to achieve this would, of course, the chancellery posting a permission here themselves, officially. - Apart from this, I would be very happy if this is indeed only about personality rights. Then we could keep the template and the images, just adding the standard personality rights template would suffice. "Die Verwendung für politische oder kommerzielle Zwecke ohne Erlaubnis der Regierung ist widerrechtlich" from the newspaper statement sounds a lot like a "Non Commercial" restriction to me, but if I'm wrong - very good. Maybe you could ask for confirmation a last time, preferrably getting a statement that can be quoted here, so we're completely sure, as you already were in contact with the people there? With regard to the current portrait, I think the Franz Gertsch painting in the portrait is still a problem, however, or has the Chancellery the copyright and has licensed the painting for free reuse? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2011.jpg. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - it seems to me that these are just simple photos, without copyright protection i Switzerland. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- This may be true for individual portraits but not, I think, for the councillor group photos like the current one or File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2010.jpg. Too much artistic design. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
first of all, i agree with the notion that confidential correspondence between the volunteer response team and indviduals should not be published on a public wiki (i do not know how much was published, though); however, this cannot extend to discussing the permission statement itself. i fail to see legal arguments against it, and it is precisely the function of the volunteer response team to perform its tasks in accordance with the community's principles regarding the acceptance of copyright-protected works; it would thus be hindering to the permissions process if it were not possible to discuss, in anonymized form and without giving details that could identify the identitiy of the sender and/or that would impose a breach of confidentiality insofar as entire correspondences are made public, the basic rationale under which an OTRS tag was implemented when justified doubts arise regarding the validity of the statement of permission. here is what we know based on the information received (in chronological order) (note that i couldn't find the :
i) asked for a confirmation regarding the definition of the term "free usage" (the volunteer pointed out that we only use content that is entirely free, i.e. without restrictions on use, e.g. reproduction, redistribution, but also the modification and use without limitation, whether commercially or not.) we were informed that images on http://www.parlament.ch can be used "without restriction (except that of the indications of the source)". (ticket:2007092710010598)
ii) asked about "freely reusable, modifiable and redistributable" imagery of members of the federal council, we were informed that the use of images on http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/cf//br/index.html is not restricted ("keine Nutzungseinschränkung"), provided that the source or a link is given. (ticket:2007080810014523)
iii) the use of pictures of the members of the federal council and/or the federal chansellors is "free" ("libre") while some of the imagery on admin.ch might still be protected by copyright law nevertheless. (ticket:2008022410010827) specifically though,
iv) photos of the members of the federal council that have been released by the confederation are without copyright protection (sans "copyright"). (ibid.)
i am the least convinced with respect to iii) as i cannot find a definition of "free" in the correspondence. also, it is somewhat dubious (at least to me) to which images this does apply and to which it does not. iv) would be interpreted as implied conduct by most OTRS volunteers i know (Template:Attribution; i put this wording to debate on our last workshop), so i don't think this is overly problematic as long as we do not extend it to iii). however, it's of certainly up to the Commons community. personally, i'm inclined to take a more "hardline" approach in this respect, but there's some truth in Schutz' statement that "... you should ask for the policy to be changed, so that only standard (named) licences and boilerplate declarations should be allowed when someone provides us with an authorisation". the relationship between ii) and iii) is interesting; the problem i have right now is that the url seems to be outdated. if the url pointed to the entire photo repository of the site, doesn't ii) contradict iii) according to which some images on the site are protected by copyrights? regarding i), i think that shouldn't be a problem in itself, it also reflects my understanding of implied conduct (Template:Attribution).
i don't read the SonntagsZeitung, but personally, if the vice chancellor points to restrictions of use with respect to said photograph (which i assume falls into iv) above?!?), i find it rather natural to check back again with institution.
cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your analysis, Pill. Yes, I would find it natural to check back again, too, and in the light of the Vice Chancellor's statement which doesn't look like "sans copyright" to me, otherwise we should delete the questionable images according to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle ("where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted"). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Question: did anyone get in touch with the Chancellery to clarify the incident mentioned in the Sonntagszeitung? (Schulz would be the obvious person...) Rd232 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The case reported of the the PR agency using an image for a campaign is not inconcistent with our needs -- we require that an image be free for commercial use (such as publishing it on a web site that carries ads or using it in a book -- any book, even a schoolbook -- that is sold). That is very different from using an image in a PR campaign endorsing someone or something -- even a CC-BY image cannot be used for that without permission. Therefore, my reading is that this template is OK. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)