Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![10 File:Evelyn Nesbit and Joan Collins on film set, "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing," 1955.jpg](#File:Evelyn_Nesbit_and_Joan_Collins_on_film_set,_"The_Girl_in_the_Red_Velvet_Swing,"_1955.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Release by the copyright holder of the logo and background graphics would be required. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
What new could be added to Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable doubts regarding the presumed author's rights. See also discussion in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_Flickr_user_La_Tati Arjuno (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: two minutes after your DR the review bot marked the images as sourced to a known untrusted Flickr user Denniss (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image is non-free, copyright belongs to University of Colorado. -- Luke Talk 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Flickr owner's page says "All rights reserved" Yanguas (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree. Martin H. (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Flickr owner's page says "All rights reserved" Yanguas (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree. Martin H. (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The metadata says Getty Images holds the copyright. CutOffTies (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement (habitual for this user). Copyright obviously belongs with a film studio or press agency or similar. Mabalu (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement claiming as "own work" (habitual for this user). Copyright belongs to Vogue. Poor quality reproduction. Mabalu (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, dubious license, obviously and wildly false statements. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement claiming as "own work" (habitual for this user). Copyright belongs to Vogue. Poor quality reproduction. Mabalu (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement claiming as "own work" (habitual for this user). Copyright belongs elsewhere, source not credited. Mabalu (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement claiming as "own work" (habitual for this user). Copyright belongs elsewhere, source not credited. Mabalu (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Uploader: Please be accurate an honest. -- 06:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
per COM:DW 77.184.50.35 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NIO copyright notice doesn't allow for derivative works. They use a slightly different copyright notice to other government departments, which include the "under the terms of the Open Government Licence" qualifier. Since the NIO office doesn't include the Open Government Licence clause, it's straight Crown Copyright. Image previously deleted for same reason at File:Hugo Swire MP.jpg, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Images under U.K. Crown Copyright o.k. for Commons? also. One Night In Hackney (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer. —innotata 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- No it isn't. "Any public sector body can make their information available for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence", the word "can" has a very clear meaning. It's up to the NIO to release the images under the OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A more specific link is [1] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO. (The "any public sector bodies" bit refers to non-Crown bodies like local government bodies.) —innotata 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I refer you to the previous deletion and the Village pump discussion, there's zero evidence that all Crown Copyright images are now automatically Open Government Licence. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read the Controller of HMSO's offer. Crown materials are not all under the OGL, just largely under the license. —innotata 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did read it thanks. I also read the part I already referred to, reading "Any public sector body can make their information available for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence". The NIO website's copyright message is quite clear, the images are Crown Copyright not OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I gave a more specific link. —innotata 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The HMSO link under Crown copyright has a general statement that CC material may be made available under OGL, this is not a blanket statement all CC material falls under OGL. The restrictions/options for the individial state bodies are explained in the paragraph above. --Denniss (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually image are allowed under the Open Government Licence, which is what I released it under: Controller of HMSO's offer and [2] Image has been taken by the NIO therefore this image is allowed as it has been released by the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read and understand what I had posted just above your comment. Please do not cherrypick just the statement you want to read and interpret somethin that isn't there. --Denniss (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read here as you evidently don't understand British Law: here its states CC covers OGL [3] and since they were released under CC they can be used by OGL and also here [4] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO and here: "The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer". NIO use Crown Copyright, so therefore they use OGL, that is how British Law works. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's nothing but your opinion, and since you've been banned from en.wiki for abuse including many copyright violations I'd suggest your opinion is worthless. The fact is the NIO's copyright is straight Crown Copyright not Crown Copyright + Open Government Licence, thus meaning no derivative works. One Night In Hackney (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hackney you evidently don't understand how Crown Copyright works, as its not going Crown Copyright + OGL, as you should read [5] it clearly states on Crown Copyright "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" and then if you go onto OGL [6] it says "The Controller of HMSO has authority to license Information subject to copyright and database right owned by the Crown." and on Crown Copyright it states "The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) at The National Archives manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in the following ways: We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence." so the images in question as they come under Crown Copyright, also come under OGL, its in black and white on the Governments links that I have just posted. So you say my opinion is worthless, but i've just proven that you are wrong and that Crown Copyright which is what NIO uses, releases files under OGL! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: NIO content is under Crown copyright and NOT released under OGL although they had the option to do so Denniss (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NIO copyright notice doesn't allow for derivative works. They use a slightly different copyright notice to other government departments, which include the "under the terms of the Open Government Licence" qualifier. Since the NIO office doesn't include the Open Government Licence clause, it's straight Crown Copyright. Image previously deleted for same reason at File:Secretary of state ni owen paterson.jpg, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Images under U.K. Crown Copyright o.k. for Commons? also. One Night In Hackney (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer. —innotata 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- No it isn't. "Any public sector body can make their information available for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence", the word "can" has a very clear meaning. It's up to the NIO to release the images under the OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A more specific link is [7] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO. (The "any public sector bodies" bit refers to non-Crown bodies like local government bodies.) —innotata 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I refer you to the previous deletion and the Village pump discussion, there's zero evidence that all Crown Copyright images are now automatically Open Government Licence. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read the Controller of HMSO's offer. Crown materials are not all under the OGL, just largely under the license. —innotata 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did read it thanks. I also read the part I already referred to, reading "Any public sector body can make their information available for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence". The NIO website's copyright message is quite clear, the images are Crown Copyright not OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I gave a more specific link. —innotata 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually image are allowed under the Open Government Licence and also the Controller's Office, which is what I released it under: Controller of HMSO's offer and [8] Image has been taken by the Department for Education therefore this image is allowed as it has been released by the OGL.
- No it's not under OGL as every state body decides independently what to release under OGL and what not. This body decided against OGL. As said in other DR the HMSO officer statement is a general statement that Crown Copyright elements may be released under OGL if the copyright holders agree. They don't agree in case of NIO so image has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you mentioning states? You do realise that Northern Ireland isn't a state, its a Country, its a part of the United Kingdom and comes under British Law and its jurisdiction, so for you to say that it gets to decide independently what to release under the OGL is both incorrect and misleading, as you are trying to use American laws on a British matter of law. Also you have no proof that it has decided against OGL, so you cannot just make up information to suit your arguement, especially when it hasn't, as another editor even wrote this: [9] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO and here: "The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer". NIO do agree to use OGL since they use Crown Copyright, that is how British Law works. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's nothing but your opinion, and since you've been banned from en.wiki for abuse including many copyright violations I'd suggest your opinion is worthless. The fact is the NIO's copyright is straight Crown Copyright not Crown Copyright + Open Government Licence, thus meaning no derivative works. One Night In Hackney (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hackney you evidently don't understand how Crown Copyright works, as its not going Crown Copyright + OGL, as you should read [10] it clearly states on Crown Copyright "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" and then if you go onto OGL [11] it says "The Controller of HMSO has authority to license Information subject to copyright and database right owned by the Crown." and on Crown Copyright it states "The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) at The National Archives manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in the following ways: We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence." so the images in question as they come under Crown Copyright, also come under OGL, its in black and white on the Governments links that I have just posted. So you say my opinion is worthless, but i've just proven that you are wrong and that Crown Copyright which is what NIO uses, releases files under OGL! Oh when you have to mention banning in order to try and win your arguement it shows that you know that you have lost your arguement! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's nothing but your opinion, and since you've been banned from en.wiki for abuse including many copyright violations I'd suggest your opinion is worthless. The fact is the NIO's copyright is straight Crown Copyright not Crown Copyright + Open Government Licence, thus meaning no derivative works. One Night In Hackney (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you mentioning states? You do realise that Northern Ireland isn't a state, its a Country, its a part of the United Kingdom and comes under British Law and its jurisdiction, so for you to say that it gets to decide independently what to release under the OGL is both incorrect and misleading, as you are trying to use American laws on a British matter of law. Also you have no proof that it has decided against OGL, so you cannot just make up information to suit your arguement, especially when it hasn't, as another editor even wrote this: [9] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO and here: "The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer". NIO do agree to use OGL since they use Crown Copyright, that is how British Law works. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: NIO content is under Crown copyright and NOT released under OGL although they had the option to do so Denniss (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo uploaded by one of Bertrand101's sockpuppets. Also a possible hoax. WayKurat (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo uploaded by one of Bertrand101's sockpuppets. Also a possible hoax. WayKurat (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo uploaded by one of Bertrand101's sockpuppets. Also a possible hoax. WayKurat (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably okay as a {{PD-textlogo}}. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a possible hoax logo. Please see the LTA on en.wiki against Bertrand101 for his editing behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. In that case it's probably safest to
Delete unless someone has evidence of this station actually existing. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. In that case it's probably safest to
- Comment: This is a possible hoax logo. Please see the LTA on en.wiki against Bertrand101 for his editing behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has been hosting the file as a non-free image since 2004. It's not clear why we would assume that the image has now slipped below the threshold of originality. Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has been hosting the file as a non-free image since at least 2005. It's not clear why we would assume that the image has now slipped below the threshold of originality. Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Since i din't have rights to use it. Sorry for uploading files i don't have the rights to use. Mannni (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete We should really have a speedy deletion template for author requests deletion of copyrighted material. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user. Funfood ␌ 09:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, TV screenshot? Funfood ␌ 09:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, found often on the web [[12]] Funfood ␌ 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: I can't see how a man lowering his trousers is educational; exhibition maybe, educational no. We host content that will realistically teach people. What does this do to further our mission to educate? Blurpeace 10:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: low resolution, unused; nothing could be realistically learned from this blurry mirror shot. Blurpeace 10:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Single upload from user, advertising purpose, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Used for selfpromo on nl:Gebruiker:Adelijn (now deleted). Trijnsteltalk 10:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not permanent in a public place, so it's not free under german Copyright law. Kurator71 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing. Unknown permission, unclear if user is the rights owner. Agora (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is not "own work" Ferbr1 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo. Most likely not free. Trijnsteltalk 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insufficient licensing. Unknown permission, unclear if user is the rights owner. Agora (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Vector version available at file:Curlz.svg Tiger66 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This image can be found on various sites, and uploader stated in upload log that it's for fair use Smooth_O (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in public domain (published after 1922). Misleading copyright statement (habitual for this user). Copyright belongs to Vogue. Poor quality reproduction. Mabalu (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Needs permission from the architect Е. С. Уланов PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
No proof of freedom, needs proof of publishing before 1942. PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, changed, it's more accurate now.
.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, changed, it's more accurate now.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Built in 1981, needs permission from the architect. No FOP in Russia. PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Built in 1959, needs permission from Яроблпроект. PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
very bad quality, there are much better alternatives (see Category:Orthodox church in Kėdainiai) Hugo.arg (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ye,
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
When uploading the file, the license has not been chosen accurately. Paritto (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: This seems to be scanned from the fourth edition (Cuarta edición) of this book. The second edition (my link) came out in 1979, so I belive that there's no chance that it's in the public domain. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons - see also File:Sylvia Likens.jpg (deleted). Trijnsteltalk 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Modern illustration (I think I recognise it from an Osprey Publishing book). —innotata 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-self}} is obviously wrong. Maybe it is from 1854, maybe it's not: Since the original source is not declared properly, we simply don't know whether it's old enough to be in the public domain or not. As long as noone is able to figure this out, we have to delete it. --El Grafo (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of release into public domain, original page reads Copyright © 2012 Bushra Rahman Holyoke, mass (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, no evidence of permission. Hekerui (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
maybe pd-old but I really doubt the uploader is the copyright-owner Avron (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if this image is really free, see http://www.air-edel.co.uk/representation/composers/24/patrick-doyle/. Trijnsteltalk 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete To be honest, I can't find any indication there that could lead to the assumption that the image is free. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Scan of a map that obviously does not qualify for something like {{PD-old}} --El Grafo (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded 5 times. If it's free, pick one and delete the rest. Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Advertising Funfood ␌ 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not trivial logo - bad license. Art-top (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete if the publishing year is unknown. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the architect died in 1976, so the building is not free.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing - out of project scope. Probably derivative work from someone else's picture. Art-top (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a non-free logo. Ralgistalk 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Web image, not own work. See for example http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OmXiRO9EXrM/TG9DTzPciHI/AAAAAAAACfA/3ZmPfjItHhs/s1600/demi-lovato-chloe-bridges-cr2-premiere-07.jpg 77.184.50.35 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope 77.184.50.35 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EntertainmentLawyerTormey (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files, each a single page from a longer document and useless alone, are linked to NO pages. They clearly seem to be the self-promotion googlebomb attempt of a small business owner.
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 7.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 6.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Trickle-Down - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 6.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 6.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Written Agreement Amongst Band Members - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Need For An Entertainment Lawyer In Film Production - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Need For An Entertainment Lawyer In Film Production - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Need For An Entertainment Lawyer In Film Production - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Need For An Entertainment Lawyer In Film Production - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - The Need For An Entertainment Lawyer In Film Production - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights, Part II - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights, Part II - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights, Part II - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights, Part II - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights, Part II - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing And Digital And Electronic Rights, Part I - Page 5.jpg
AlpheusPeneus (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by EntertainmentLawyerTormey
Files are jpg fragments of longer articles and in themselves educationally useless; Files are linked to no articles; Some prominently feature the words "ATTORNEY ADVERTISING"; Looks like a self-promotion blackhat SEO or googlebomb attempt.
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing And Digital And Electronic Rights, Part I - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing And Digital And Electronic Rights, Part I - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Publishing And Digital And Electronic Rights, Part I - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Personal Service Contracts - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Personal Service Contracts - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Personal Service Contracts - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Personal Service Contracts - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part III - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part III - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part III - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part III - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part II - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part II - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part II - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part I - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part I - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures, Part I - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part II - Page 5.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part II - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part II - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part II - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part II - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part I - Page 4.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part I - Page 3.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part I - Page 2.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Independent Contractors vs. Employees, Part I - Page 1.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 7.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 6.jpg
- File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Employment And Severance Scenarios - Page 5.jpg
AlpheusPeneus (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Images can be found on several websites, doubtfully own work (different cameras, scans).
- File:Jack Mendall Portrait.jpg
- File:Steve Arroyo Portrait.jpg
- File:Grayson Randall Portrait.jpg
- File:Brandon Arroyo Portrait.jpg
- File:Keith Goeller Portrait.jpg
Funfood ␌ 09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KennethBeckerdite (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures, out of COM:PS
Funfood ␌ 10:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Rodwinoloresisimo
[edit]- File:Patrick Walsh with Stephen Lang, WhiteIrishDrinkers (2009).jpg
- File:Patrick M Walsh Jr Signing Autograph.jpg
- File:Walsh and Wahlburg, set of Invincible (2006).jpg
- File:Roderick Shields OBrien.jpg
- File:Mefindcoupon logo new.jpg
- File:Xavier escapes after being trapped in a straight-jacket hung upside down 75 feet in the air.jpg
- File:Xavier, Scott.jpg
- File:Lisa Dawley.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Claims of fair use are not credible. It appears the editor has been witing promotional enwiki articles on subjects in the USA. In each case this editor has uploaded images of the subjects and claimed them as "own work" despite the subjects being in the USA and the editor apparently being in the Philippines. Some other telltale signs include:
- File:Patrick M Walsh Jr Signing Autograph.jpg appears to be scanned from an old magazine/newspaper article. (Possibly an Adidas ad, considering the clear logos). No reason to believe that the uploader owns Adidas' back catalogue of photos or owns whichever magazine/paper this image was published in.
- File:Patrick Walsh with Stephen Lang, WhiteIrishDrinkers (2009).jpg seems to be based on a film's promo photo, but with degraded quality.
- File:Walsh and Wahlburg, set of Invincible (2006).jpg seems to have been photoshopped from a photo taken on the film set?
- File:Mefindcoupon logo new.jpg is the logo of a different organisation. No evidence that the uploader owns their images; no mention of the uploader on their website.
- File:Xavier escapes after being trapped in a straight-jacket hung upside down 75 feet in the air.jpg is taken from here. That photo album is owned by a different person - not the uploader - and it's "© All rights reserved".
- File:Xavier, Scott.jpg is taken from this page which is "©Copyright 2006 - 2012 Midwest Entertainers Inc.. - All rights reserved". Again, the original image belongs to somebody else; no obvious reason for the uploader to claim it as "own work".
- File:Lisa Dawley.jpeg is from an image here. The image has been cropped to remove somebody else's name (bottom left) - not the uploader.
All these images are claimed to be "own work". That claim is no longer credible, although most have been cropped/tweaked just enough to prevent matches being found with Tineye. I believe all are intentional copyvio and should be deleted. I am not pushing for deletion of the uploader's four earlier images where the "own work" claim is more credible. bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Disparate collection of pictures, each with a different resolution and quality. Incoherent EXIF tags. Dereckson (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note to the uploader: it's not a warranty Adidas acquires copyright on photos ; companies more often than not get licenses to use pictures instead, original copyright having been transfered by starting photographers to advertisement companies or kept to more experienced photographers. --Dereckson (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FlakixLand (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely to be collection of promo materials.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Scanned images in low resolution as "own work", photos in low resolution without exif or taken on different cameras. Doubtful authorship.
- File:Racid alic.jpg
- File:Matub Lwennas.JPG
- File:Bessaoud.JPG
- File:Kabylie Taguemmunt Azzouz.JPG
- File:Taguemount azzouz tajmaat.jpg
- File:Source (carte postale idir).jpg
- File:Taguemount azouz.jpg
- File:Mulud At Mammeri 2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Art-top (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
quiero eliminarla Saarva200 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
quiero eliminarla Saarva200 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
per COM:DW
77.184.50.35 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Software screenshots. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The seal was made in 1964. Rapsar (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple, basic shapes and text. Fry1989 eh? 03:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Fry1989 Ezarateesteban 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replaced by file:Quadrocopter_schema.svg Tiger66 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ich kann nicht erkennen, dass die vektorisierte Version der png entspricht - sie ist im Detail anders und IMHO unausgewogen gestaltet. Daher den Löschantrag bitte zurückweisen. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The license is false, nothing on the page it links to says that Colorado documents are in the public domain. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note that {{PD-FLGov}} exists. {{PD-COGov}} does not. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Missing templates on Commons don't comprise authoritative representation of state law. 75.166.200.250 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The license link provided contains the statement, "State agency authored documents are in the public domain." O'Dea (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is from http://www.colorado.gov/about_this_website.html 75.166.200.250 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I missed that. The website concerns me to an extent. I'm checking the current website. I still haven't found anything that talks about the copyright status but will make a note if I do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do note that Colorado.gov has a copyright notice at the bottom. This would imply that they are able to copyright their works. Note that USA.gov has no such notice. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indiana does the same thing, but claiming a copyright doesn't take it out of the public domain in either case. I'll get the case law.... 75.166.200.250 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see this which states
Nothing in this article shall preclude the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political subdivisions from obtaining and enforcing trademark or copyright protection for any public record, and the state and its agencies, institutions, and political subdivisions are hereby specifically authorized to obtain and enforce such protection in accordance with the applicable federal law; except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to or fair use of copyrighted materials and shall not apply to writings which are merely lists or other compilations. C.R.S. 24-72-203
- This convinces me that Colorado can copyright it's material. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- "except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to...copyrighted materials" is the same situation as Indiana: They can go through the motions, but it doesn't mean a thing. Can you get the Annotated Code on that statute? 75.166.200.250 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restricting public access and having a copyright are two entirely different things. There are many things that my local government is forced to give me access to; however, they don't need to give me permission to use it as a result.
Do you have any idea where I could start searching for an annotated code?Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)- Annotated code is at the bottom of the page I linked to. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restricting public access and having a copyright are two entirely different things. There are many things that my local government is forced to give me access to; however, they don't need to give me permission to use it as a result.
- "except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to...copyrighted materials" is the same situation as Indiana: They can go through the motions, but it doesn't mean a thing. Can you get the Annotated Code on that statute? 75.166.200.250 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see this which states
- Indiana does the same thing, but claiming a copyright doesn't take it out of the public domain in either case. I'll get the case law.... 75.166.200.250 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do note that Colorado.gov has a copyright notice at the bottom. This would imply that they are able to copyright their works. Note that USA.gov has no such notice. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe this image falls under fair use. 71.53.2.245 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then it should be uploaded locally (e.g. English Wikipedia) because Commons is only for free content. -- Luke (Talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
See WP:MUG. Photos of people should not be disparaging.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note that wikipedia policies may not apply here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Fair use en:wp won't cut it. It isn't allowed for living people. Should someone just email the government that took the picture? Someone should remove Paris Hilton's mugshot from her article then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- comments@state.co.us Found one email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Paris Hilton's appears to be copyright free. It is from California rather than Colorado, and it appears like someone contacted an official. I was planning on contacting the Colorado state government, but haven't been successful in realizing which department I should contact. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to the en:wp article rule about using mugshot. I find you can email any .gov and they usually forward it to the right place so the one above may get it there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was taken by the state and CO docs are PD, so I'd think this is PD. The copyright stmt is probably there just in case, but IANL so I'll wait for a lawyer to come by. PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- fixes@businessinsider.com Is the webmaster at the site the image came from and they should know the law. The article says the image was 'released' and I think Reuters has posted it as well. This may mean it is PD by Colorado state law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Emails sent to both. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me that released records are PD until the Colorado agency producing them actually seeks to obtain copyright protection, which has never happened. But I have to agree with you that the remote possibility probably means these should be on enwiki instead of (or in addition to?) commons. 75.166.200.250 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you found anything on the new website to state that documents are in the public domain? How did you reach the link of the old website? It doesn't appear to be on the up and up. If this can't be hosted on commons then it can't be hosted on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The website has www.colorado.gov at the beginning, which means it is valid. No, one can't just forge it short of hijacking the domain name server, and even then somebody would notice fast. If the image is from a CO state agency, then, yes, that is all the proof we should need it is PD. Ajoykt (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just googled something like [Colorado agency records public domain] and it was the top link from a colorado.gov site. 75.166.200.250 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you found anything on the new website to state that documents are in the public domain? How did you reach the link of the old website? It doesn't appear to be on the up and up. If this can't be hosted on commons then it can't be hosted on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me that released records are PD until the Colorado agency producing them actually seeks to obtain copyright protection, which has never happened. But I have to agree with you that the remote possibility probably means these should be on enwiki instead of (or in addition to?) commons. 75.166.200.250 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
ABC News credits the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department with the photo and has no copyright marks for it. There are e-mail addys on the link to the Sheriff's page--maybe they would help? We hope (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I emailed the sheriff as well as the undersheriff. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The category Mug shots of people of the United States contains over 250 mugshot pictures with various licenses. I mention it as a policy research resource. O'Dea (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- One gets to the mentioned licence link by typing "Are colorado state government documents in public domain" at the Google search box. The website is valid--you can't hijack the www.colorado.gov domain name without somebody noticing. And yes it does mention stage agency authored documents are in the public domain. But is this mugshot from a state agency? The county sheriff isn't a state employee. That said, I don't think we should be in a hurry to delete--there is a good chance the sheriff's office isn't interested in any implicit copyright. As for WP:MUG I don't think that matters for a person in the news for a major crime; the only pictures we are going to see from now on would all be somewhat similar. 68.126.187.2 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the sheriff is a state employee. Counties aren't partly sovereign in the way states are from the federal government. Teachers, local police, and county employees all are governed primarily by Colorado law and their paychecks are counter-robo-signed by state officials and drawn on local accounts held by the state. But then again, the law in question authorizes the sheriff or the county to obtain copyright protection if they decided to seek it. 75.166.200.250 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Once a document is put in the public domain, it cannot be taken back and copyrighted. Think of the complete confusion that would create. And the official www.colorado.gov statement, by default, puts it in public domain. I think the permissions are ok. Ajoykt (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone could appease me and find a statement saying it is in the public domain on the current site. The wording on that confuses me anyways because it specifically states that documents are in the public domain (might not reference images) and then states that copyright restrictions may apply. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your source for this expertise on the structure and laws of Colorado government is what? This seems like a bunch of speculation. Copyright exists automatically by operation of federal copyright law when a work is created. The county sheriff does not need a copyright notice on their website to trigger it. They don't need to be "interested" for "implicit" copyright to apply--it is implicit by law regardless of interest. This image is probably fair use, but there is not sufficient evidence of suitable licensing or public domain to keep it on Commons.--Chaser (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also find the claim by 75.166.200.250 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) about Colorado law a bit strange. Is there a citation for that? It's clear from http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/Departments/SH/DetAdServices/Detention/detention.asp that, as in almost all U.S. states, the county jail is a unit of the sheriff's office. It also appears that, as in most states, the sheriff's office is a separately elected local office. http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/About/OrgChart/org%20chart_12.pdf shows an organizational chart that matches that of a typical county in a typical state the U.S. If they do it differently in Colorado, it doesn't look like it from the county website. (I'd find it interesting to see any evidence of those teacher / local police / county employee paychecks drawn off a of state account rather than the school district, city, or county treasury. I don't think it would affect the local corporate status of a county government or its sheriff's office, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming this is correct. States must state that their works are copyrighted, otherwise they are not. I believe that the law I pointed to above may make this case, but I am not entirely sure. In addition, according to w:Dillon's Rule, local governments only have the power given to them by the State Government. In this manner, if the state government never decided to copyright it's own works and never gave that power to the county governments, the images would be public domain. If the state government said material was copyrighted and didn't give the power to the county governments, the image would be copyrighted. The other two scenarios are fairly clear as well. In any case, I don't know that any of us are experts on Colorado copyright law and the research I have done has been relatively inconclusive. I think it is best to wait for a reply from one of the officials. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Once a document is put in the public domain, it cannot be taken back and copyrighted. Think of the complete confusion that would create. And the official www.colorado.gov statement, by default, puts it in public domain. I think the permissions are ok. Ajoykt (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the sheriff is a state employee. Counties aren't partly sovereign in the way states are from the federal government. Teachers, local police, and county employees all are governed primarily by Colorado law and their paychecks are counter-robo-signed by state officials and drawn on local accounts held by the state. But then again, the law in question authorizes the sheriff or the county to obtain copyright protection if they decided to seek it. 75.166.200.250 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- One gets to the mentioned licence link by typing "Are colorado state government documents in public domain" at the Google search box. The website is valid--you can't hijack the www.colorado.gov domain name without somebody noticing. And yes it does mention stage agency authored documents are in the public domain. But is this mugshot from a state agency? The county sheriff isn't a state employee. That said, I don't think we should be in a hurry to delete--there is a good chance the sheriff's office isn't interested in any implicit copyright. As for WP:MUG I don't think that matters for a person in the news for a major crime; the only pictures we are going to see from now on would all be somewhat similar. 68.126.187.2 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- communicationservices@co.arapahoe.co.us May be another useful email. The county communication services. http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/Departments/CMS/Index.asp--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Email sent, thanks :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here is another link which says Colorado state agency authored documents are public domain:
http://www.parks.state.co.us/Pages/ColoradoStateParksPrivacyPolicy.aspx
Ajoykt (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, looks like PD works can be re-copyrighted (at least Congress can do that). But that isn't our concern:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/ I am not sure the wording of "copyright restrictions apply" matters, once "public domain" has been mentioned. Ajoykt (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I live in Canada. I think the question is who was the photographer employed by? Is the sherriff's department photographer a state employee or employed by the sherriff's department?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Most of us are not experts on copyright law in Colorado. Realistically, the only way to use this image is to have permission from the Sheriff's Department involved. Without that, it is likely to be deleted.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Numerous emails have been sent. Should we decide whether to keep or speedy delete pending email response?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone comes in with some more information, I think the best choice is to wait a couple days for a response. If we don't get one, we can make a decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Numerous emails have been sent. Should we decide whether to keep or speedy delete pending email response?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Most of us are not experts on copyright law in Colorado. Realistically, the only way to use this image is to have permission from the Sheriff's Department involved. Without that, it is likely to be deleted.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The photo is public domain. Has no one seen the "Jail Report" or "Arrest Report" magazines? All mugshots can be used in the public domain. The state of Colorado does not copyright its mugshots. All mugshots are public record... and Federal law allows the reproduction of any public record. For God sakes people... the information is actually ON Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot#Copyright_status
- Common misunderstanding, and this applies to much of the above discussion. A photograph can be released for use in the public domain, a common phrase simply meaning the copyright holder has declared its use to be unrestricted. This is entirely different from releasing the copyright to the public domain, that is, disclaiming any copyright over a work. And what you've said on mugshots only applies to those taken by Federal entities (whose works, by law, have no copyright claim, and thus are public domain), not by state and local entities (whose works by default are copyright to the individual government entity). Those state or local works would have to be specifically released, and in my experience, rarely are. For this image, the the agency who photographed it, IIRC the Arapaho County Sheriff's Office, would have to specifically release its copyright, not simply allow its use in the public domain. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- File deletion
Note: Image has been deleted to prevent misuse in articles covering this sad incident. If any evidence comes in it will be released with a free license, the image may be restored. Case not (yet) closed to enable further discussion. BTW it's the individual state or local authority responsible for specifying usage terms if not covered by law. --Denniss (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- With the new evidence, it seems to me if the sheriff and his deputies were state employees, it's PD, but sheriff's rarely are. They usually work for a city or county. If this is copyrighted, many newspapers, magazines, and TV stations are in trouble. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing where Colorado state government specifically releases copyright on works into PD, but perhaps I'm just being dense right now. It would be best to find something in state law about this, rather than relying on potential misinterpretation of wording on their website. Also, media would not be in trouble, since they can claim fair use of the image. For the English Wikipedia, at least, this is not possible since their policy states that, so long as a free image could possibly be obtained, fair use images cannot be used. Since he is still alive, there is every possibility that such a free image could be obtained, regardless of potential difficulty. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- With the new evidence, it seems to me if the sheriff and his deputies were state employees, it's PD, but sheriff's rarely are. They usually work for a city or county. If this is copyrighted, many newspapers, magazines, and TV stations are in trouble. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Aribitrary Break
I think the question is the employer of the photographer. As a state employee it would be public domain by Colorado law but we don't know at this point who it was. Emails have been sent x4?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to where Colorado state law says their works are public domain? http://www.colorado.gov/about_this_website.html and http://www.parks.state.co.us/Pages/ColoradoStateParksPrivacyPolicy.aspx both state "State agency authored documents are in the public domain", but the very next line on both states "Copyright and access restrictions apply", so I feel this remains an ambiguous situation. I took at look at a copy of the Colorado statues and constitution on LexisNexis and could find nothing about state documents being released from copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I still believe that the copyright notice at the bottom of the colorado.gov website and the statute I posted above show that state materials are/can be copyrighted. I would like to see something specifically stating that images are PD. On another note, I received a reply from the website that first published it. I got a response that the person didn't think it was copyrighted but they had no idea what the laws were on it. That would make sense because they didn't have to know it. Commons and en.wiki place restrictions on image use that are much higher than any newspaper would reasonably use. In addition, many news organizations have agreements with eachother to be able to use images. Again, this is something that en.wiki doesn't use. So the fact that it is widely published and publicly available would not mean it is public domain in the legal sense. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can email the state through their website:http://www.colorado.gov/apps/feedback/contactUs.faces I would myself but a Canadian emailing a US government may sent the CIA to my door.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I'll be sure to do it tonight. I'll also note that I don't think the CIA would care much about a Canadian sending an email (unless you are a pharma drug pusher or something like that ) Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I'll be sure to do it tonight. I'll also note that I don't think the CIA would care much about a Canadian sending an email (unless you are a pharma drug pusher or something like that
- You can email the state through their website:http://www.colorado.gov/apps/feedback/contactUs.faces I would myself but a Canadian emailing a US government may sent the CIA to my door.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- attorney.general@state.co.us Attorney general email. Isn't he the biggest lawyer in the state?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- That might be going a bit too high. Note that state attorney generals generally represent the state in Lawsuits. I could see emailing the County Attorney for Arapahoe, or the City attorney for Aurora if you can find either of those emails. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not go high? He may have the power to release it? I see that the attorney general press photos are released as copyright but with attribution so they may not be PD by law. I couldn't find a county or city attorney so they may not exist and just use state ones? https://www.auroragov.org/Departments/Communications/index.htm is the communications dept. for the city but the email on that site may be listed above. Was it a city or county photo?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- That might be going a bit too high. Note that state attorney generals generally represent the state in Lawsuits. I could see emailing the County Attorney for Arapahoe, or the City attorney for Aurora if you can find either of those emails. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.da18.org/DAsOffice/ContactUs.aspx County DA, email through website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- https://www.auroragov.org/Departments/CityAttorney/index.htm City attorney, no email. Wasn't in another county though, not Aurora?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems both are district 18 DA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- en:Aurora, Colorado spans 3 counties in the infobox, none named Aurora thought. I think it happened in Arapahoe County.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems both are district 18 DA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is the state laws online. Handy site if it is complete. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, Lexis has it all. That's what I used to pull up my earlier one. I don't think it is nearly as useful as this in Minnesota, but it's what we have. If you have time to do some more wading through, go ahead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I won't read through it as I trust you have. If we can't cite that it is PD by law, then our next step is to email those involved to see if they will release it under a free license. The photographer up to the attorney general? We may still wish to start at the top. Could we use one from flickr I wonder if any exist there with a free licence.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly haven't read through it all. I did a decent amount of searching but I'll probably take another look. As far as flicker is concerned we'd need to be worried about Flickrwashing. Frankly, I don't believe there will be a truly acceptable image on Flickr, but I wouldn't surprised if we found images that seemed acceptable. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48331433@N05/7631099528/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/7617385584/ Is the univerisity one PD I wonder? I only found the two. The other is media from court. Is court filmed by government?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neither are correct licenses by my glance. The court ones are uploaded by news organizations, the University one states that it is "based on a photo from the University of Colorado". The image was released without the red background to news agencies earlier. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The court one is a photo uploaded by a journalist. I don't have a flickr account to email him though. He has an email on this site:http://www.seatonsnet.com/ He may know the license or have taken it himself?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, not only is he a journalist, but he's a journalist for Yahoo. Flickr is owned by yahoo. That leads me to believe the license is correct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also noticed that he changes the licenses for various images; however, I have one major problem. He released an image of MLK and it says it was taken on July 11 of this year. In addition, he released a Barack Obama yearbook picture and I believe that license may be incorrect. I can send an email; however, if he is mistaken on these images, I don't trust his knowledge of copyright. I'll focus more on finding out if he took the picture. Ryan [[User
- Hmm, not only is he a journalist, but he's a journalist for Yahoo. Flickr is owned by yahoo. That leads me to believe the license is correct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The court one is a photo uploaded by a journalist. I don't have a flickr account to email him though. He has an email on this site:http://www.seatonsnet.com/ He may know the license or have taken it himself?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Aribitrary Break 47
Ask about all of his images on flickr that are free license. We could use some?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- All the images I found are either copyrighted or have an incorrect license. Can you link me to some images? -- Luke (Talk) 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- We are working on it. Many emails sent etc. Our best line so far is the Seaton image just above this section. If you live in the area could you ask if you can go into his cell and take a picture for us?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Booking Photos are Public Domain
Copyright is at the Federal level, so please don't scour CO law for information.
In US copyright law, works created after 1978 are owned immediately by the employer or author, whether or not a copyright mark is provided. At the same time, if there is a copyright symbol, the work may still be public domain. In my state, the publication of the state's laws has a copyright symbol followed by the state's office of legislature, but it is public domain. For this reason, the credit should be to Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, but it is still public domain.
According to the Copyright Office FAQ, copyright only applies to works that involve creativity (even if it is just the smallest amount). Mug shots and passport photos would not count as a creative work.
With fair use there are also a number of reasons to believe that Wikipedia would be using the documents fairly. The photos were released to the press, they were not licensed to the press: i.e. it has been entered into public domain; a copyright holder MUST enforce copyright to retain it. Additionally, the sheriff's office is not in the business of selling photography; they take photos as records. The publication is not for profit. The picture contains content relevant to the article that is better seen than described in words: namely the dye-job. Thelema418 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- It may be at the federal level but doesn't the state have to have a law to force public domain of their works created for the state? The federal government forces this and I think that is why we were looking into Colorado laws.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea where Thelema is getting their information, but they are completely mislead. United States federal government works by law are public domain, however, it is up to the individual state, county, or municipality to declare if their government works are public domain, as Florida has done. There is no evidence at this time that Colorado has a similar law, and there is certainly no evidence that Arapaho County S.O. works are public domain. Thelema is also mislead about the copyright symbol equating to copyright status...under current U.S. law, all works are copyrighted upon creation, except in specific situations (federal works, very simple works, etc). I would, however, like to know which state Thelema is from, as that has significant relevance on their perspective.
- As for fair use, Wikipedia may normally use such works if it is impossible to obtain a free image, but with living persons, fair use must not be applied, as it is understood that, regardless of difficulty, a freely licensed image may be obtained. Thelema is also completely incorrect regarding "a copyright holder MUST enforce copyright to retain it". Under modern law, all photographic works published after 1-1-1979 are protected by copyright for 70 years after the death of the author, see Commons:Licensing#United_States. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very correct and thank you for your input. I am amazed this image lasted the few hours that it did. Users are trying to find the employer of the photographer and the laws involved with that entity. I am sure that if a similar image is uploaded again and used in an article then it will be speedied if it is not 100% cleared of license policies on commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are most likely looking for the "Colorado Open Records Act". The Sheriff's Office released the photo to the press, which makes it a public document. Open records are different than copyright. A list of names of the people the government is spying on is a record, but the list does not satisfy U.S. copyright laws because it is a material fact. When the government prevents access to this information, copyright is not the matter of law at hand. The current FAQ for Copyright.gov clearly states that creativity must be a part of a copyright-able work; drawing is generally creative, but drawing lines to create a piece of notebook paper is not copyright-able (Their example, not mine.)
- Also this Reporter's Guide for Police Records has a section on Colorado and mug shots that cites relevant statutes: http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/POLICE.pdf
- Colorado Springs has booking photo info here, no http://www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=2202 You will note that the fee is explained as related to the rate of the employee to do the clerical task; it is not a licensing fee as would be the case if copyright were the issue with booking shots. Thelema418 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disparaging Photo?
In some cases a booking photo could be disparaging. For example, changing Art Garfunkel's photo to a mugshot would be considered disparaging because he is important for his music and not because of his arrest records. Holmes has a Wikipedia article because he stands accused of a high profile crime of national interest. The booking photo is probably less disparaging than what he stands accused of in the written text. The booking photo is also important because it shows his dayglo-orange dyed hair. I don't think this can be explained well in text form.
Living people with mug shots as their main pic include John Hinckley, Jr., Mark David Chapman (whose mug shot is used instead of the yearbook pictures of him), and Charles Manson. The Luka Magnotta article contains no main pic, but a mug shot later in the article.
- en:Paris Hilton has one as well. Should it be removed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Paris Hilton, has an extensive legal problems section; she is honestly known more as an entertainer. I think it is stranger that en:O. J. Simpson does not have any courtroom photos or booking shots; nor the en:O. J. Simposon Murder Trial article. But unlike both celebrities, I do believe the Holmes' mugshot is important because it depicts the dye-job at the time of the shooting. Thelema418 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
image in this resolution not available at given source so can't fall under OGL. Denniss (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Image was taken from here [13] which was released by the Department of Business under the Open Government Licence. On the page link I have just posted it says that the same image is found here [14] and this is the image I used. Therefore this particular image is fine for re-use because it has been released by the Business Department and it also can be re-used under Crown Copyright. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- This large image is under Crown copyright and will be deleted (note the cc-by-nc-sa license tag). You may want to upload the small image from the given source as this one is available under OGL and I'll delete the large version then. --Denniss (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a link to Crown Copyright:[15] and it clearly states that: "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" therefore the image that I have uploaded of Vince Cable is correct as it is Crown Copyright in the form of Open Government Licence. So there is no need to upload the smaller one since the bigger one is accurate under British Law. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- This large image is under Crown copyright and will be deleted (note the cc-by-nc-sa license tag). You may want to upload the small image from the given source as this one is available under OGL and I'll delete the large version then. --Denniss (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The Flickr source provided shows it's released on CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, that's a non-commercial licence. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThe image itself has been released by the Department of Business under the Open Government Licence, the flickr image is just a bigger image of the one found here [16] so the image falls under [17] and is part of [18] thereby it has been legally uploaded due to the OGL. If the image was orginally released under the OGL, it means it can be reused under any size, and since this one has it is fine under the law! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you not able or not willing to understand? The small version has been released under OGL, the high-res version not. --Denniss (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you not able to understand, it is the same image, released by the same department, meaning that the image is allowed to be released that is how the OGL works, the OGL here states that you can adapt the data [19] and it has been adapted as it bigger. Here on the BIS website it says "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including BIS logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence" meaning I can use it in the big format, and since the bigger image was released by the BIS, the image is lawful and correct. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you not able or not willing to understand? The small version has been released under OGL, the high-res version not. --Denniss (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yet another image released under the OGL by the Controller of HMSO's offer. —innotata 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- You'll have to provide a link to the webpage where this image has been released on a free licence, since it's already been admitted it actually came from a Flickr page where it's been released on a non-commercial licence. I also don't see why you're linking to that website when they say that the Open Goverment Licence doesn't apply to images on this site, which may only be reproduced with payment of a fee to the image library. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The image has been released under the Open Government Licence Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No. You got it from the Flickr page by your own admission, where it's licenced as CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The image in question was taken by the Department of Business and released under the OGL. The same image which was released under the OGL was posted on flickr by the BIS and because it was orginially posted by the OGL comes under its copyright status so whether or not its from flickr is irrelevant as the Open Government Licence is the source from where it was released. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/what-ogl-covers.htm This clearly crown copyright, and it isn't covered by exemptions in the license or by an agency with a delegation of authority. The National Archives administers crown copyright. —innotata 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Except, as I've pointed out more than once, this particular image isn't Crown Copyright it's CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. That's unless you're going to actually provide a link to a webpage that has the image in this resolution? One Night In Hackney (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not needed to establish that it's under the license (the Flickr page does say it is crown copyright, if so it is under the OGL for the above reasons). How could it not be under the OGL, given what I've told you? Can you please explain? —innotata 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps because it doesn't say OGL anywhere on the Flickr page? You seem to be also completely ignoring that according to the Flickr page it's CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 which is a non-commercial licence and non-free. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr page says its under Crown Copyright and CC uses OGL, therefore the image is allowed! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need a statement of permission at the source, as it's released by government policy, just like we don't need one for public domain art, which is clear because of copyright law. —innotata 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- "The OGL covers information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL" - got any evidence this image has been released under the OGL? You appear unaware that the Non-Commercial Government Licence may also cover Crown Copyright material, so the idea that "Crown Copyright automatically equals OGL" isn't correct. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've never said all crown copyright material is under the OGL, it's just that according to TNA's page and James, most such material is under the OGL. —innotata 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so do you acknowledge the Flickr image (which is the image that is the subject of the deletion discussion, ignoring hilarious claims that high res images can be created by enlarging thumbnails) isn't actually licenced as OGL, but CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 and/or Crown Copyright? And as you further acknowledge that not all Crown Copyright material is under the OGL, surely you agree that the mere fact that one of the comments by the uploader says it's Crown Copyright doesn't automatically make it OGL? One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've never said all crown copyright material is under the OGL, it's just that according to TNA's page and James, most such material is under the OGL. —innotata 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: noncommercial license at Flickr, fairly safe to assume work would be released under noncommercial OGL version Denniss (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Only in use since 1983, government claims copyright (see website). If based on UK law, there will be a crown copyright for 50 years. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, it's been in use since 1967, only thing that changed in '83 was the motto. This file is a derivative of File:Coat of arms of Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla 1967-1983.svg, which is a freely made SVG based on a PNG, so it's free. Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- What makes the base work PD? The SVG would be a derivative of a copyrighted work.Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's based off several PNGs, no single one. Fry1989 eh? 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- First you say one, now you say several. It can still be a derivative of several copyrighted works.Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't even try and word around me, you're the one who couldn't get the date of introduction right. It was based off PNGs, but it was independently made. It's a free version as far as I'm concerned and I say keep. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just going on what you wrote: "Coat of Arms of Saint Kitts and Nevis since 1983."Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't even try and word around me, you're the one who couldn't get the date of introduction right. It was based off PNGs, but it was independently made. It's a free version as far as I'm concerned and I say keep. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- First you say one, now you say several. It can still be a derivative of several copyrighted works.Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's based off several PNGs, no single one. Fry1989 eh? 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- What makes the base work PD? The SVG would be a derivative of a copyrighted work.Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 00:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
delete it, as File:Coat of arms of Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983 variant.svg, using the official colors [20], should be moved here Antemister (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep-the only official color mentioned is blue. Not what we do here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is just a Redirect here...--Antemister (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The redirect was removed now. Admins, please close that DR now.--Antemister (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
according to source visial media files are not released under open government license, every reproduction (derivative restriction?) requires approval. image in this resolution not available at given source. Several images from the same uploader and source are affected (can't list them all currently) Denniss (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually image are allowed under the Open Government Licence, which is what I released it under: http://www.education.gov.uk/help/legalinformation/a005237/use-of-crown-copyright-material and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/. Image has been taken by the Department for Education therefore this image is allowed as it has been released by the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the whole page (first link), not only the part you want to read. Relevant text is under copyright for visual media. Also if a file/image is available at a source but you upload a way larger version this may not be covered by OGL as statement is clear with "material featured on this site". --Denniss (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the larger image is also covered by OGL, as it the same image just larger and has been released by the Department of Education. Here is a link to Crown Copyright:[21] and it clearly states that: "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" therefore the image that I have uploaded of Vince Cable is correct as it is Crown Copyright in the form of Open Government Licence. So there is no need to upload the smaller one since the bigger one is accurate under British Law. Also these larger images have been released by the Department of Education here [22] and this is a Government website which clearly states "Under Freedom of Information (FOI) law, they have to respond. The response will either contain the information you want, or give a valid legal reason why it must be kept confidential." found here [23] and so under a Freedom of Information act these images were allowed to be released under the OGL [24] Slytherining Around32 (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure about this one. It is released under the OGL according to the source (The Crown copyright-protected material featured on this website (other than Departmental or agency logos and visual media) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence), most government departments do include the OGL clause in their copyright notice it's the ones that don't that need to be deleted. Unsure on what bearing the size issue has on whether the image should be kept or deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I see the problem now. Further down we have "Copyright for all visual media on this site, including film and photography" reading " Some visual media on this website is licensed from third parties; others are the property of the Department for Education. Any visual media that is the property of the Department may be reproduced in certain instances, but not without the prior approval of the Department". So by the look of it, it's either copyright held by a third party (which can't be released under the OGL without their permission), or it's copyright of the department itself (which can't be reproduced without prior approval). In that case, Delete. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I see the problem now. Further down we have "Copyright for all visual media on this site, including film and photography" reading " Some visual media on this website is licensed from third parties; others are the property of the Department for Education. Any visual media that is the property of the Department may be reproduced in certain instances, but not without the prior approval of the Department". So by the look of it, it's either copyright held by a third party (which can't be released under the OGL without their permission), or it's copyright of the department itself (which can't be reproduced without prior approval). In that case,
- KeepThe image itself has been released by the Department of Education [25], from reading the link you will see that it is held by the Department of Education not a third party or it would not have been released and the mans request would have been denied. The request specifically stated "If 'yes', under what circumstances would you consider releasing any or all of the said photos to the public?", since the images were released they are allowed to be used under the law. So the image now falls under [26] and is part of [27] thereby it has been legally uploaded due to the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- You really should read the copyright notice that you used more carefully. "Supply of information to an individual or organisation under the Freedom of Information Act does not give that person or organisation the right to reuse the documents in a way that will infringe copyright, for example, by making multiple copies, publishing or issuing copies to the public". There's no mention on the FOI request page of Open Government Licence, so it hasn't been released. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, I got the images from here [28], which is a snapshot used by the National Archive, here is the Copyright for NA [29] and it uses the OGL, fortunatly I didn't get the images from the Discovery Service so i don't have to pay and since they are readily available under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act I am allowed to use them see, responses from Government departments for with regard to this mans questions here [30] and here [31] pointing out that he can use the image on the National Archive. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cherrypicking again, you may have overlooked the following statement of the NA copyright notice under exceptions: images on this site, which may only be reproduced with payment of a fee to the image library. Also the archived page with the images has a clear statement regarding copyright/license of their work, not much different from their current version. --Denniss (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now it is you who is cherry picking as you have clearly not properly read the links I posted as none of the responses mention paying a fee and if this information was incorrect why would the Government departments send him to the National Archive sites if you had to pay for the images. He specially requested images released under the Open Government Licence which shows that these images are allowed and when they mean you have to pay for images they are talking about the images such as these [32] that are found on the home page, since the images I have used are from a snapshot from another website you are allowed. The copyright clearly states that images on this site may be used under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since the responses to the "mans questions" refer to totally different images, they prove nothing. They aren't evidence that *this image* has been released on a free licence. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now it is you who is cherry picking as you have clearly not properly read the links I posted as none of the responses mention paying a fee and if this information was incorrect why would the Government departments send him to the National Archive sites if you had to pay for the images. He specially requested images released under the Open Government Licence which shows that these images are allowed and when they mean you have to pay for images they are talking about the images such as these [32] that are found on the home page, since the images I have used are from a snapshot from another website you are allowed. The copyright clearly states that images on this site may be used under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cherrypicking again, you may have overlooked the following statement of the NA copyright notice under exceptions: images on this site, which may only be reproduced with payment of a fee to the image library. Also the archived page with the images has a clear statement regarding copyright/license of their work, not much different from their current version. --Denniss (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Again, the Department of Education doesn't get to choose what's under the OGL, Her Majesty's Stationery Office does[33]. —innotata 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Department of Education's copyright notice begs to differ. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No Hackney you are wrong as it clearly states that it is under the Open Government Licence. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- They're wrong. The National Archives and HMSO administer crown copyright. —innotata 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you get the NIO to change their copyright notice so they release images on the OGL then, since at present they don't. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or even better since you are the one making the fuss, you get the NIO to change their notice! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Some people at the National Archives are aware of the problems generally. The Department of Education is still wrong, they don't have the authority to decide the licensing. —innotata 16:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument showing the pedestal of the monument
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Armenia, so photographs of copyrighted works are not permitted. Armenia's copyright term was extended from 50 years pma to 70 years pma in 2006. The sculpture is by Sergey Merkurov, who died in 1952, so it entered public domain in 2003 under the 50-year term; the pedestal is by Rafael Israelyan, who died in 1973, so it remains copyrighted until 2044.
- File:Koryun street Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mayr Hayastan statue Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mother Armeia 2007.jpg
- File:Մայր Հայաստան.JPG
cmadler (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- What's stopping us from cropping the majority of the pedestal and claiming de minimis on the rest? The first photo easily falls under that doctrine. Disclosure: I'm not directly affected by this deletion request, but I did upload the original resolution of one of these photos. Best, Blurpeace 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that could be done...though it would be a while before I could get around to it myself. cmadler (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I've cropped the base out of the three photos listed. The first, File:Koryun street Yerevan.jpg, I believe would plainly fall under COM:DM. I welcome opinions on the edits I've made and where a change might not have been needed or could be improved. Best, Blurpeace 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those look good to me...do the prior versions showing the pedestal need to be revdel'd? cmadler (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Armenian copyright in the pedestal expires 1/1/2044 (70 years pma), but US copyright, via URAA restoration, expires 1/1/2046 (95 years from publication, counting from the 1950 unveiling). cmadler (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those look good to me...do the prior versions showing the pedestal need to be revdel'd? cmadler (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In the name of the human rights of information, education and enjoyment of the human creations. Also in the name of a meaningful encyclopedia.--MrPanyGoff 09:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I doubt the piedestal gets a copyright, and it is probably de minimis anyway. Yann (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Armenia. The statue is from 1950 (see en:Mother Armenia) and en:Sergey Merkurov died in 1952. Armenia has a copyright term of life+70 years, so the statue enters the public domain in Armenia on 1 January 2023. The statue was also copyrighted in Armenia on the URAA date (19 October 2000), so the statue is currently also copyrighted in the United States, where it enters the public domain on 1 January 2046. Some files were previously kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arantz, but that discussion seemed to deal only with the copyright of the photo, not with the copyright of the statue. Some files were kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument with the motivation that the pedestal is de minimis. While I agree that the pedestal is de minimis, the statue is still copyrighted. That DR claims that the statues entered the public domain in Armenia in 2003. While this appears to be true, COM:CRT#Armenia suggests that the copyright was restored in Armenia in 2006.
- File:Mayr Hayastan statue Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mayr Hayastan.JPG
- File:Mother Armeia 2007.jpg
- File:Մայր Հայաստան.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment Until 2006 copyright term was 50 years , so it falls in the "free" period. I have no idea about 2000, you could explain that, but then again, that makes no sense, as the monument is free to shoot. Arantz (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. It does seem to be the case that Armenia's 2006 copyright law restored copyright on works that had passed into the public domain, so it is copyrighted in Armenia until 1/1/2023. We did also completely neglect to consider US copyright status in the previous deletion discussion, but it does seem to be copyrighted in the US until 1/1/2046. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment : en:Mother Armenia#Mother Armenia statue in Yerevan : "In spring 1962, the statue of Stalin was removed, with one soldier being killed and many injured during the process, and replaced by the Mother Armenia statue, designed by Ara Harutyunyan." : Ara Harutyunyan was born on 28 March 1928 but we don't know if he is dead. So, I'm not sure about "the statue enters the public domain on 1 January 2046". Bloody-libu (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom & Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. Images in Category:Statues in Armenia have to be checked. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mennesket ved Havet
[edit]This work is copyrighted until 2068 (sculptor Svend Wiig Hansen died in 1997; Danish copyright term is 70 years pma). Danish freedom of panorama covers buildings only, and not works of art.
- File:Der Mensch am Meer.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet1.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet10.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet11.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet2.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet3.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet4.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet6.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet7.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet8.jpg
- File:Esbjerg - Mennesket ved Havet9.jpg
- File:Esbjerg monument.JPG
- File:Mennesket ved Havet.jpg
cmadler (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Danish freedom of panorama covers buildings only, and not works of art. Where does it say that? Source please!! --Rodejong (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Via Commons:Freedom of panorama#Denmark, there is [34], a PDF English translation of the law. On page 9 of the PDF, sections 24.2 and 24.3 cover this. 24.3 makes clear that there is FOP with regard to buildings. 24.2 creates a limited FOP for publicly situated works of art, but because it does not apply "if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes", this is not suitable for Commons. cmadler (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Read carefully: Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. This is so with the scupture of "Mennesket ved Havet" situated as a permanent sculpture on a public place in Esbjerg. A commercial use of my picture is not suitable with the licence Free Art Libre (FAL) that I have chosen. Maybe your argument fits to the pictures with GNU-FDL licence but not with FAL. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read more carefully. The sentence immediately following the one you quote says, "The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes." Commons:Project scope requires images to be free for any reuse, including commercial purposes. FAL does allow commercial reuse (Section 2.2 of the license says "You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without any charge...", my emphasis); if it didn't, it wouldn't be a suitable license for Commons. cmadler (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you should read carefully. You seem not to understand the terms of this licence. The salient point is not if have the right to copy a work with or without any charge, the point of matter is: you have only the freedom of distribute FAL licensed work if you put the whole work also into FAL (read the preamble for this, because this is basic to understand this licence). And with this you'll never be able to reproduction FAL images for commercial purposes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" for any work accepted in Commons. Then, or FAL allows commercial use of the work, or all images licensed under FAL should be regarded as non-free (in Commons sense) and deleted from Commons. Commercially reusing images can be easy (as in CC-BY-SA) or more difficult (as in GFDL), but it is allowed in FAL, as required in Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read the licence. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I read the license. It doesn't say you can't sell copies of the work nor derivative works from it. Licensing copies with the same license (or any free license) doesn't prevent you from getting money from them. For example, with FAL, you can print postcards of these images and sell them, although you can't prevent anyone else from making postcards from the same image or using the images in any way allowed by the license. If you chose FAL to prevent people from making money from your images, it's not the right license. In fact, if you don't want to allow commercial use of your image, you shouldn't upload them to Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I thought. cmadler (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I read the license. It doesn't say you can't sell copies of the work nor derivative works from it. Licensing copies with the same license (or any free license) doesn't prevent you from getting money from them. For example, with FAL, you can print postcards of these images and sell them, although you can't prevent anyone else from making postcards from the same image or using the images in any way allowed by the license. If you chose FAL to prevent people from making money from your images, it's not the right license. In fact, if you don't want to allow commercial use of your image, you shouldn't upload them to Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read the licence. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" for any work accepted in Commons. Then, or FAL allows commercial use of the work, or all images licensed under FAL should be regarded as non-free (in Commons sense) and deleted from Commons. Commercially reusing images can be easy (as in CC-BY-SA) or more difficult (as in GFDL), but it is allowed in FAL, as required in Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you should read carefully. You seem not to understand the terms of this licence. The salient point is not if have the right to copy a work with or without any charge, the point of matter is: you have only the freedom of distribute FAL licensed work if you put the whole work also into FAL (read the preamble for this, because this is basic to understand this licence). And with this you'll never be able to reproduction FAL images for commercial purposes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read more carefully. The sentence immediately following the one you quote says, "The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes." Commons:Project scope requires images to be free for any reuse, including commercial purposes. FAL does allow commercial reuse (Section 2.2 of the license says "You have the right to distribute copies of this work; whether modified or not, whatever the medium and the place, with or without any charge...", my emphasis); if it didn't, it wouldn't be a suitable license for Commons. cmadler (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Via Commons:Freedom of panorama#Denmark, there is [34], a PDF English translation of the law. On page 9 of the PDF, sections 24.2 and 24.3 cover this. 24.3 makes clear that there is FOP with regard to buildings. 24.2 creates a limited FOP for publicly situated works of art, but because it does not apply "if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes", this is not suitable for Commons. cmadler (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Pere prlpz, FAL says: a published work under this license that is derived must also be provided under this license. That means: you can print postcards out of my pictures. But you have to put the postcards under FAL. For sure you can try to make money out of this but with FAL no one will buy them because with FAL the publisher of the postcards have to put the postcards under free access. The example with the postcards is bad chosen. Better is to imagine this with a book. The commercial character of a book under FAL is not given factual. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The bottom line is, Commons scope requires only works that are available for commercial reuse, and the Danish freedom of panorama for works of art does not allow commercial reuse; therefore, these images can not be retained at Commons. cmadler (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- it's not really practicable to spin round. Read the licence and you'll understand it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- :+1 Pere prlpz. I recall having a conversation on this topic with Wladyslaw in Nuremberg. He seems to act under the assumption that all the content he provides is made available under the terms of FAL 1.2 or earlier, which features a rather unfortunate preamble. I'm afraid Wladyslaw did not understand what the Commons is all about if he's interested in effectively prohibiting commercial re-use. Although the preamble of FAL 1.2 is less precise than in version 1.3, art libre have shown their sincere interest in clarifying the question, if an entire work will become licenced under FAL in case of a re-use, which it does not. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Peter Weis. I never talked with you in Nuremberg about special terms of licence. Please do not invent something to emphasize your opinion. :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Wladyslaw. We talked in Nuremberg about this difference between FAL 1.2 and 1.3 including possible implications. Please do ask User:Smial if your memory lets you down. =) Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I remember very well your lecture and I listend to it. Talking to each other means having a dialog :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Wladyslaw. We talked in Nuremberg about this difference between FAL 1.2 and 1.3 including possible implications. Please do ask User:Smial if your memory lets you down. =) Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Peter Weis. I never talked with you in Nuremberg about special terms of licence. Please do not invent something to emphasize your opinion. :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The bottom line is, Commons scope requires only works that are available for commercial reuse, and the Danish freedom of panorama for works of art does not allow commercial reuse; therefore, these images can not be retained at Commons. cmadler (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As Wladyslaw says, we only need to read the license and it's clear. The postcard printer doesn't need to give postcards for free, and the postcard owner may keep his postcards at home not showing it to anybody. None of them can prevent others from accessing the original image.
Anyway, this doesn't matter here. Some of us think FAL allows commercial reuse and others of us think it doesn't. Then:
- If FAL allows commercial reuse, this images are copyright infringement under Danish law - as ponted by Cmadler - and these images should be deleted, as any images of these sculptures should.
- If FAL didn't allow commercial reuse, it wasn't a free license by Commons standards and works licensed under FAL couldn't be accepted in Commons. Then, these images should be deleted as any images under FAL should.
Conclusion: Delete in both cases.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- FAL is a licence that Commons allows and is not a "construction" by me. If you want to get rid of this licence than place your suggestion on the right place. Single pictures using this licence (and there are thousend of if, not only mine and also many featured pictures, etc.) are not suitable for deletion requests. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. FAL is accepted in Commons and it should continue being accepted, because it allows commercial reuse. Then, licensing these images under FAL is a breach of copyright according to Danish law.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (Regrettably). Was also discussed years ago for the same sculptures without any controversy (can't find the link). Whether it is Wladyslaw who misinterpretes the condition of his chosen license or whether this specific license is incompatible with commercial reuse, I do not know. But the end result is the same. These photos are not allowed to be commercially reused and a Commons image must have at least one license, which allows commercial reuse. --Slaunger (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In the name of the human rights of information, education and enjoyment of the human creations. Also in the name of a meaningful encyclopedia.--MrPanyGoff 09:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the name of the human rights of information, education and enjoyment of the human creations, maybe present laws should be changed to allow these images under a free license - although some people would argue the opposite. Anyway, we are not discussing if we wish to keep them (I think everybody here wishes); we are discussing if we can keep them under a free license according to actual laws.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete With pain in my heart (It's my own image) but law is law. We should respect them at all times. Commons says that the image we upload must be available for commercial use. As the law in Denmark is now, it is not possible to use it for commercial puposes. So therefor it has to be deleted. --Rodejong (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Richardmarx
[edit]- File:Ncsacadmy certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:W32012 certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:W3professional certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Ncsacadmy certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Googleadwardd certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:McprofessionaA+ certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Google anlalytic qualified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Comptia professional certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Logiczap newyork certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:Compleion certified suleman malik.jpg
- File:CEH certified suleman malik.jpg
This is a collection of training/exam certificates awarded to one person. In each case, the image is dominated by logos and other visual elements owned by third parties (ie. the organisations which issued the certificates); I do not believe the uploader owns any rights to these. Also, the collection is only here to promote the recipient of the certificates, not to educate. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Partial close. Blatant copyright violation (websites screenshot / prominent logos and artwork background) are speedy deleted. --Dereckson (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the extra ones. The remaining pictures doesn't seem to infringe copyright, as nor the logos, nor the layout, nor the artwork elements meet originality threshold. They've an educative value as sample of certificates delivered in the IT industry, something not frequently despised in a media library. --Dereckson (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I might have kept these if they did not a name on them -- they were uploaded for a self promo article on WP:EN which has been not accepted twice. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)