Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not encyclopedic MECU≈talk 00:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic MECU≈talk 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Cropped photo-copyright 1983-Sherwood Productions. We hope (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Was done in 1975 by Warner Brothers. We hope (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Other photos from the film show a copyright to Warner and a 1975 release date.
We hope (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Fixed --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done The photo you uploaded is dated 1979 and has an NBC logo on it. The author is Warner Brothers in 1975, whose photos have copyright notices on them. A pre-1978 license tag doesn't apply here. Changing the license doesn't fix the problem. We hope (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
elenallljyy 186.37.209.252 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept, disruptive nonsense nomination. Speedy non-admin closure. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 10:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
File:OgAAAAe9j3ObYShelOkdIefdfiX31WtJrfeTnsa P5UhupXNas9n4RqlsEsfgHY77-4TYv3-PAcFE2p5 7lufKOpcNwAm1T1UNd 7eZKwRgWGYS0rYepduRviFII.jpg
[edit]
Private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Privacy Breached Dr. Nelson Pung 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Nominator requested deletion of recently uploaded unused file. Sreejith K (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Privacy Breached Dr. Nelson Pung 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Nominator requested deletion of recently uploaded unused file. Sreejith K (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my mhistake. It has a wrong Name, the right Picture is here: File:Hirth HM 508.jpg Das Schäfchen (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate. -- Common Good (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, see also this offense. Leyo 17:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: not the uplaoder's own work see here High Contrast (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution photo without original exif. Other user files nominated to delete as copyvio. Art-top (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, died 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, who died in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, who died in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, who died in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am the son and heir of Jean Linard and I have the legitimate right to place a photograph of my inheritance under CC license. Thomas Linard (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, who died in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am the son and heir of Jean Linard and I have the legitimate right to place a photograph of my inheritance under CC license. Thomas Linard (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Work of Jean Linard, who died in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am the son and heir of Jean Linard and I have the legitimate right to place a photograph of my inheritance under CC license. Thomas Linard (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since we have no way of knowing if User:Thomas Linard is actually the son of Jean Linard, we require you to confirm that using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If you wish to keep images of your father's work that have been uploaded by others, please include those in your e-mail as well. Once you have done that and an OTRS volunteer has confirmed it, these DRs can be closed as keep. It will speed things up if you put a note on my talk page after you have sent the e-mail. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, done. Thank you! Thomas Linard (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find any OTRS message containing the word "Linard" and no messages received in the last hour appear to be relevant. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I sent it again with another address. Thomas Linard (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS #2012073110004894 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Every other media uploaded by Etiennekd as "own work" where third party media. User doesn't seem to have red the Commons licensing policy nor care about what "own work" means. I would so like he confirms this media file is its own work or if not, see if it could be freely licensed and how. Dereckson (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Michel Moyrand (prononciation).ogg is my Own work. Etiennekd (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The uploader have confirmed his its own work. Dereckson (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
solely used for en:Lucky Team Australia, deleted as spam and copyvio; image itself likely owned by the company (no evidence uploader owns it) DMacks (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Info on nomination means image is out of project scope so speedy Herby talk thyme 06:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious image. Image is licensed "non-commercial" at Flickr by "Fred Seibert." Uploader at en.wiki, User:Fredseibert, uploaded file with a different license that at Flickr, claiming that he was the owner of the Flickr account.
However, there is no evidence that the two accounts are really owned by the same person--anyone can just find a Flickr account and copy the username. Aka, Flickrwashing. In this instance, User:Fredseibert has been indefinitely blocked on en.wiki as a sockpuppet of User:Neglektedfew, so there should be no assumption of good faith that the two users are really the same person. GrapedApe (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Even if the flickr user and the wikipedia user are the same person, the description on flickr says "photographer unknown", so Fred Seibert isn't the author and has no right to license this picture. But more importantly, this is a derivative work, not covered by FOP in the United States.
Delete. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
File is Failed Suerborn (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please quickly deletion, map will be created completely new!!! --Suerborn (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have it converted to speedy deletion --Suerborn (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
User requested deletion of unused file. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - uncontroversial request to delete low quality file. --65.111.173.161 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I just de;lleted this. oops. fuck it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Earlier copy here. Stefan4 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation given the low resolution and the fact that all other files uploaded by the same user were copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
incorrect, unsourced, unused as of time of deletion request, wrong file format Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't saw the talk page. Correction of the scale made. Created by me a long time ago. Now added to a wp:fr page. Don't know if it's enough Triton (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is still no source where the data is comming from. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The file is not offered under the Open Government License. That claim is simply untrue. Martin H. (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olympic mascots.jpg. It's a work by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Thus it is Crown Copyright, thus it is Open Government License. My previous argument on this point was vindicated by emailing lawyers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who agreed with my reasoning. That email is on file with OTRS if you look at the previous DR. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The argumentation "Thus it is Crown Copyright, thus it is Open Government License" is a little bit vague. Something is OGL if the rights owner make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright would absolutely NOT work for the Olympics unless the government organisation bought a license from the IOC to license images commercially. I some how doubt they have done so. --LauraHale (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't Crown Copyright work for the Olympics? The Department for Culture, Media and Sport aren't exactly ordinary punters when it comes to Olympic photographic restrictions. The government department that oversees sport kind of has rather better bargaining chips over copyright and so on than a press photographer or a ticket-holder. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because the picture was taken in the UK and the rules are generally changed nationally specifically to deal with this. The IOC rules pretty much expressly prohibit COMMERCIAL usage of images unless rights are specifically bought to allow commercial usage. As commons requires a license that allows commercial usage, the license does not work for Commons because of conditions attached to the image. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The IOC can think whatever it likes. They can't override §163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The photographer who took this photo may be breaking the terms and conditions of his entry into the Olympic canoe slalom event, but I don't see any legal backing for that. There's certainly no restrictions on photography in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the enabling legislation for the 2012 Games. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because the picture was taken in the UK and the rules are generally changed nationally specifically to deal with this. The IOC rules pretty much expressly prohibit COMMERCIAL usage of images unless rights are specifically bought to allow commercial usage. As commons requires a license that allows commercial usage, the license does not work for Commons because of conditions attached to the image. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't Crown Copyright work for the Olympics? The Department for Culture, Media and Sport aren't exactly ordinary punters when it comes to Olympic photographic restrictions. The government department that oversees sport kind of has rather better bargaining chips over copyright and so on than a press photographer or a ticket-holder. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The rights holder in this case is the DCMS. The DCMS is a departmental public body (the clue is in the name). Everything they produce is Crown Copyright, and unless it satisfies one of the exemptions in the OGL, it is presumed that it is released under the OGL. It really does work like that. See the deletion discussion I linked to above. Really, I know what the hell I'm talking about here. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Great that you know this, but it would be much greater to see this written somewhere. The National Archive [1] suggests the opposite. --Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter in this case as the picture was taken in the United Kingdom at the Olympics. We do not know that the organisation was the original copyright holder of that image. I can quote a press pass that says you cannot license your images for commercial use. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- All of which would be pretty much irrelevant given... it's the government. There's plenty of rules on what I am and am not allowed to do photography-wise in a government building. LOCOG can come up with all the funny rules it likes but they can't override the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. We actually do know the original copyright holder of the image: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Why do we know that? Because they say that. As I pointed out in the previous DR, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have a social media policy on their website which says this:
- We use Flickr to: host images that we own and license under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons license, some of which we automate into our website
- (Emphasis mine.) Key word "own". By putting photos on Flickr, the DCMS claim ownership of those images. The licensing they do here is irrelevant. The fact they release them under CC BY-NC-ND doesn't change the fact that they are also Crown Copyright—they have to be Crown Copyright for the DCMS to claim ownership on them and release them under BY-NC-ND. Creative Commons licenses are nonexclusive: you can release something under a CC license and under another license (see: the many thousands of images on Commons that are both BY-SA and GFDL)
- The social media policy that the DCMS have proves the first point of contention: that the DCMS own the images.
- If they own them, the are Crown Copyright. If you read what The National Archives say about Crown Copyright, it's simply this...
- Crown copyright covers material created by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies.
- It is legally defined under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties.
- Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown.
- If they are asserting ownership on the material, it's Crown Copyright. It was either created by a civil servant in the course of their duties or licensed to the Crown. Generally when a government department puts things up on their website or Flickr account saying "we own this", I tend to trust them. Unless we think the damn British government are somehow engaging in Flickrwashing or something.
- If you are following so far, I think I've established that the DCMS owns this and a number of other Olympic images on their Flickr stream. If you read section 7 of the UK Government Licensing Framework there is a little section called "Controller's Offer", which reads...
- Subject to the exclusions set out under point 7.2 below and in the Open Government Licence itself, the Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence.
- This establishes the very simple principle that if something is Crown Copyright and subject to the UK Government Licensing Framework that it is covered by the OGL.
- This isn't some wild and wacky theory, it's just standard operating procedure for government data and publications in the UK, just like PD-USgov is for US publications. With File:Olympic mascots.jpg, I made pretty much exactly the same point in the DR, and just to satisfy people who don't understand this stuff, I sent an email off to the DCMS lawyers who confirmed that this is exactly the situation.
- The IOC and LOCOG might not like the fact that the government are publishing photos from the Olympics under a free license, but that's their issue, not ours. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- All of which would be pretty much irrelevant given... it's the government. There's plenty of rules on what I am and am not allowed to do photography-wise in a government building. LOCOG can come up with all the funny rules it likes but they can't override the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. We actually do know the original copyright holder of the image: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Why do we know that? Because they say that. As I pointed out in the previous DR, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have a social media policy on their website which says this:
- It doesn't matter in this case as the picture was taken in the United Kingdom at the Olympics. We do not know that the organisation was the original copyright holder of that image. I can quote a press pass that says you cannot license your images for commercial use. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Great that you know this, but it would be much greater to see this written somewhere. The National Archive [1] suggests the opposite. --Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright would absolutely NOT work for the Olympics unless the government organisation bought a license from the IOC to license images commercially. I some how doubt they have done so. --LauraHale (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The argumentation "Thus it is Crown Copyright, thus it is Open Government License" is a little bit vague. Something is OGL if the rights owner make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tom's arguments are sound and the OTRS evidence he presented in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olympic mascots.jpg debate unequivocal. He should be congratulated for figuring this out, to the benefit of the commons. And this debate should now be closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- National archive also list a noncommercial OGL - how could we be sure this image, listed with a noncommercial license at Flickr, does not fall under this? We can't assume the vague license statement is correct while the department/body/whatever website says something different. --Denniss (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, this is wrong. The whole point when we created OGL was that it was explicitly not NC; commercial rights were very much being released for core Crown Copyright bodies (of which DCMS is one). The NCOGL only exists to allow the few government bodies not covered by the OGL (because they sell their data for commercial use — e.g. the Met Office or the Ordnance Survey) to have an easy-to-use "best-practice" licence to release their data under an NC licence.
- Under UK law, DCMS does not have the authority to consider how to licence the Crown Copyright works it (i.e., its staff) create - in much the same way that under the US Constitution, the Department of Labor doesn't have the right to pick a licence other than PD-USGov - it's been picked for them, and it's OGL. The only question for us is "is this actually a work by a member of DCMS staff?". If DCMS say it is, everything else falls out according to law.
- Clearly we need a Commons: page about this. :-)
- (Disclaimer: I was involved in the UK Government policy decision to make this happen and automatically release all core Crown Copyright works under OGL except for a limited number of government bodies which had a waiver. As such, I can be construed to have a Conflict of Interest, for which I apologise.) James F. (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As James says, the Non-commercial OGL exists so that it can be used. The Controller's Offer (see my comment above) doesn't deal with the Non-commercial OGL but the normal OGL. Given that this work is bound by the Controller's Offer it's OGL and not Non-commercial OGL. (Can we close this already? I've got a stack more of these damn images to upload and it'd be nice if we could get on and write Wikinews stories and Wikipedia articles without the Sword of Damocles of a Commons DR hanging over us?) —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, as for the Flickr license? Yes. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olympic mascots.jpg. Same situation exactly. It doesn't matter what the government department say on Flickr. All work that is released under Crown Copyright and doesn't satisfy the criteria for exclusion listed in the OGL or the Controller's Offer is OGL. That doesn't mean it can't also be released under another license. That license doesn't need to be compatible with the OGL: this is because neither the CC licenses nor the OGL are exclusive. You can, if you so desire, pay the government to use the work in a way that breaks the terms of the OGL if you like (say, you don't want to attribute). OGL + CC BY-NC-SA just means you have the choice of which license to reuse under, much like the many thousands of photos on Commons with CC BY-SA and GFDL. Or indeed I believe Cory Doctorow does this with his novels: he offers them under two CC licenses, CC BY-NC-ND and CC BY-NC-SA. Neither of them are Commons compatible, sure, but it means you can pick how you reuse them. Same with open source software, there's a lot of people who do dual licensing arrangements: MySQL is offered both as GPL and under a commercial license from Oracle. With the DCMS photos, it doesn't really matter what license they put them under on Flickr, if they are Crown Copyright, they are OGL. They might also be some choice of CC license, and that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they are OGL. Again, see the aforementioned Olympics mascot DR: I handled this the last time we played this game. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, the fact that this debate is even going on is ridiculous. Martin, we've been through this before in other deletion requests. Laura, you seem to be under the odd impression that IOC rules somehow overrule national law. I can assure you that this is not the case. The IOC are welcome to think so, but they're not the legislative body with nuclear weapons and international acceptance as a nation, so nobody really cares what they think.
- We've got an OTRS ticket, from the DCMS. We've got the Open Government License. We've got previous commons decisions covering precisely this situation. Hell, we've got common sense. The image is perfectly acceptable, and perhaps in future we could try to avoid acting as the arbiters of copyright law. That's the job of governments and judges, and only one side here has said government agreeing with them (hint; he's big, philosophical and codes a lot). The images are fine, the images stay. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As has been discussed, British government lawyers have endorsed the position of another image with the same context and background. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport owns this image (not LOCOG, and not the IOC, whose own rules have no bearing on this anyway). The DCMS is a UK government body. Therefore this is a Crown copyright image with apparently no extenuating circumstances that would exempt it from being under the Open Government Licence, meaning it can be kept and this discussion closed. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The conclusion is very clear and thoroughly verified. These works are released under the OGL, and the IOC is not capable of restricting their use, as much as they would like to. They may be very upset at the UK for not passing new laws to "protect" their brand, but that's not our problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission given by the authors. Now uploaded in de.wp. Gorlingor (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, No permission, deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) (as wrongly misclicked 'no source'). mabdul 11:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
License is “All rights reserved” (see source) Gorlingor (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Copyright violation was deleted. – Gorlingor (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, logo MECU≈talk 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to be under copyright, textlogo. Fma12 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Indian copyright is at least 60 years; works published in 1947 were thus in copyright in Indian in 1996, and thus were restored by the URAA and are in copyright in the US. Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
KeepThis file was restored by URAA? Give more details. I'll try to reply here soon! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)- How can you keep if you don't even know what the URAA is? It's the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slow down Oh, so you have come from that Wikipedia Media Help question? I did not notice it before posting. I check my emails first. Anyway, so, can't we upload images to Commons if only PD-India is applicable? I request to slow down (for all three images) and don't go for a speedy deletion. This might be a more serious problem that just 3 image deletion) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a standard DR, not a speedy deletion. COM:L has always said that "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." The fact is that we are acknowledging that the URAA put many works under copyright in the US, and thus we have to delete many works. Yes, this is a serious problem. Nonetheless, these three images need to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- See this discussion which was closed as a "no consensus" and it was suggested to upload a replacement image (published in 1934/40). Now, since I can't add PD-US for 1940 image, obviously I have to choose PD-India for it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This file File:Cropped first indian independence day red fort.png has been nominated for deletion, which is actually a derivative work, this is main work File:Indian_Independence_Day_at_the_Red_Fort.jpg, this photo should be nominated too (this photo was uploaded by a Commons admin), please nominate the main work for deletion too. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-1996}} for works of a nation out of copyright in that nation in 1996 and not otherwise published in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- See this discussion which was closed as a "no consensus" and it was suggested to upload a replacement image (published in 1934/40). Now, since I can't add PD-US for 1940 image, obviously I have to choose PD-India for it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a standard DR, not a speedy deletion. COM:L has always said that "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." The fact is that we are acknowledging that the URAA put many works under copyright in the US, and thus we have to delete many works. Yes, this is a serious problem. Nonetheless, these three images need to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Slow down Oh, so you have come from that Wikipedia Media Help question? I did not notice it before posting. I check my emails first. Anyway, so, can't we upload images to Commons if only PD-India is applicable? I request to slow down (for all three images) and don't go for a speedy deletion. This might be a more serious problem that just 3 image deletion) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can you keep if you don't even know what the URAA is? It's the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There is something which I don't understand: that are in the public domain in at least the United States??? SO, the Wikimedia project is only concerned with United States, and not in India or any-other country? If so, please put it live only in US, or give every country and their policies a fair trial. For an Indian article, if the file has expired copyright, and is in public domain in India, why to drag US policies here? Though there is enough evidence for this thing to be live in India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go discuss it at COM:L. The Wikimedia Foundation is chartered in the US, and has to follow the laws thereof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- In that case other photos are (or the derivative work is) also in {{PD-1996}} --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other photos? Works published in 1947 were not PD in India in 1996, thus PD-1996 is not a valid license tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The main photo from which they cropped the second photo (links above), that should be nominated for deletion too. I am waiting to get some suggestion from here: User_talk:Trijnstel#PD_Image. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What other photos? Works published in 1947 were not PD in India in 1996, thus PD-1996 is not a valid license tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- In that case other photos are (or the derivative work is) also in {{PD-1996}} --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-India. Yann (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Renominating. The work is in the public domain in India, but not in the United States, because it was in copyright in 1996 in India (at least 60 pd for works published 1941 or later). It will remain in copyright in the US until 2043. This was clearly stated in the previous nomination and supported by the discussion, and Yann's closure (which did not even acknowledge the argument for deletion) was improper. Update: because Canada has rule of the shorter term, all PD-India files can and will be moved to Wikilivres after deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- This issue was confusing, I tried to talk to Commons admins which was later taken to ANI, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_36#PD-India where they suggested "systematic review" or "bot using" etc. Oppose this delete one file, keep other files idea. If deleted all "PD-Country -PD-US" should be deleted. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We are deleting all the other files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- NO, hold, please stop deleting these files right now. They told about "systematic review" and "systematic deletion", not 1 by 1 "I support it", "I don't support it" type deletion.
- Thousands and thousands files are involved here, hundreds of Wikipedia featured article, good articles will be affected. If they are going to delete all these files, please move those files (or selected few thousand files) to Wikipedia wher they alow only PD-country images. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The law says we can't host these. Not Commons, and not Wikipedia or any WMF wiki without carefully making sure they're fair use. We're not going to leave them here indefinitely while people say we should move them and do nothing about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right! I was wrong, it seems, I did not read the Wikipedia page attentively. BTW, can you tell me if this particular file can be saved by any URAA license? "Times" group newspaper, can't we expect it reached in US too in next 30 days? OR any other license? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The law says we can't host these. Not Commons, and not Wikipedia or any WMF wiki without carefully making sure they're fair use. We're not going to leave them here indefinitely while people say we should move them and do nothing about them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- ANI posted here --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Before 1957, it was 50 years pma. So this became in the PD at the end of 1997. Yann (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bapu and Baa.jpg, this is incorrect. India's extension was not retroactive, in the sense that works already in the public domain in 1991 did not have their term extended, but any works still in copyright in 1991 did have their terms extended to 60 pma. See en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_india: "India extended its general term from 50 to 60 years in Act 13 of 1992, effective from December 31, 1991. The change was made in part to further protect the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941." Dcoetzee (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
File is still under copyright -FASTILY (TALK) 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Indian copyright is at least 60 years; works published in 1947 were thus in copyright in Indian in 1996, and thus were restored by the URAA and are in copyright in the US. Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Some arguments can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Times of India front Page 15 August 1947.png --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-India. Yann (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
1947 - Still under copyright in US Harshanh (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to the license --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently ok -FASTILY 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Unsure of the use of this image. Also possible copyright of text? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative of non-free content: Commercial packaging Targaryen 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep original work is ineligable for copyright protection, I think. Would do with a trademark warning. --Vera (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know but isn't the text on the packaging copyright protected? Even if it's a blurb. Targaryen 22:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free content: Commercial packaging Targaryen 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- KeepLogo is old enough to be PD Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging --Vera (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- The designer of the bottle was Earl R. Dean ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_R._Dean ), he died in 1972, 40 years ago. The design is from 1915. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Cola#Contour_bottle_design ) Targaryen 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then it can be considered published before 1923, no? Is there a problem? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The designer of the bottle was Earl R. Dean ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_R._Dean ), he died in 1972, 40 years ago. The design is from 1915. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Cola#Contour_bottle_design ) Targaryen 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Short text in a jpg, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
inferior version of File:Owyhee River Canyon.jpeg Jsayre64 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic MECU≈talk 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, logo MECU≈talk 00:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, logo MECU≈talk 00:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, logo MECU≈talk 00:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS, nomination withdrawn. MECU≈talk 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per OTRS ticket PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic MECU≈talk 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Kilom691 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: statue de 1946 par Max Barneaud, and no freedom of panorama in France Morning Sunshine (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
private album picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tuvalkin as Speedy (Unused redirect; file name is needed for the topology it reflects, as per naming conventions) -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: not in use anywhere, including user space. Not realistically educational to users about DJs—just seems to be plain advertising. Blurpeace 04:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (2).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 and commons doesn't accept this license. Reality 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also other files should be deleted because of this reason. Also this photo is actually screencapture of this video and that video is copyrighted.--Reality 06:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- can we stop going trough this?. matanya • talk 06:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see that. I am checking it.--Reality 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay I understood why its licensed is different. However this file captured from this video and I can see that this video is copyrighted. So IDF is not true owner of this video and this screencapture and I believe that this file still should be deleted. Am I wrong?--Reality 06:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (2).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers (3).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Man, you must be kidding. The IDF took this video and released some screenshots of it as cc-by-sa. have you seen the domain you linked to? matanya • talk 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- No I'm serious. These files should be deleted because of these reasons that I wrote on this page, too. Thank you for showing them.--Reality 00:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete -- per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is used on a few wikis, how can you say it is out of scope? matanya • talk 08:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: files are properly licensed and were available with this license at the time of upload Denniss (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Note I am reopening this DR, because it was only open for two hours, and has not taken into account the valid reasonings of the nominator. The files clearly state "Footage taken from the Mavi Marmara security cameras", meaning that any copyrights of the film belong to the operator of the Mavi Marmara, not the Israeli Defence Force. Discussion needs to take place and ascertain whether when the IDF seized the ship, they also are able to claim copyright over the images of the cameras on a ship they did not own. russavia (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment and Delete all These files are screencaptures from that video which is recorded by security cameras of en:MV Mavi Marmara and Israel Defence Forse is not an owner of Mavi Marmara. IDF shared some videos and pictures which is not belonging to their and it causes copyright violation. I believe that situation is clear, these files should be deleted because of copyright violation. I apologize for my bad English.--Reality 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete All. If it didn't belong to the IDF, they can't release it under any license. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't think copyright is an excuse to hide evidences. A military/police/government-agency can confiscate evidential photography and video and use it to prove the guilty of those appear in it. I don't think a security camera photography as copyright status at all as it is not a art or an intentional creation by man, but an automatic tool created automatically by a machine. MathKnight 11:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first part of your reasoning is not reason to keep files. The second part is something that needs to be discussed; the question is, is security camera footage copyrightable under relevant law? But who's law? Turkey? Israel? russavia (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- At least where it concerns the U.S., as far as I know there still aren't any precedents on which to base a decision. There was a past discussion about it here, which didn't come to much. My personal opinion is that they are copyrightable -- I doubt we'd be able to host surveillance footage of rare wildlife published by National Geographic. The laws in Turkey and Israel, I have no idea about, but the raid took place in international waters and the ship is flagged to the Comoros. Osiris (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. Agree with Philosopher. The IDF doesn't own the material, so it doesn't have the right to issue licences. Osiris (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We have, from time to time, used the rule that surveillance videos do not have any creativity and therefore cannot have a copyright. I do not remember any Commons DRs that were decided the other way. I do not know the Israeli or Turkish law (if any) on the subject, but in the USA the leading case is at http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/flyingman-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf. See Threshold of originality for further discussion on the subject. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for artworks and sculptures in Argentina. Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead. I learned about this problem after I uploaded the photo. My bad. Langus-TxT (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Privacy Breached Dr. Nelson Pung 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect file description Prasenjitsaha (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo of the Internal Market Information System. Uploader likely doesn't have permission to release it under a Creative Commons license Armbrust (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection - Page 4.jpg
[edit]
Text only material, can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploader wanted file to be removed [[2]] with speedy deletion, moved to a DR. Funfood ␌ 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dr._Shahid_Cuba.png&curid=13834439&diff=75154745&oldid=72849891&rcid=76315939){kind=link}
- Same for all other uploads showing uploader: Special:ListFiles/Dr._Shahid_Alam.--Funfood ␌ 13:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Started new mass DR for all tagged files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dr. Shahid Alam.
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a poster displayed during the ILA 2008. The photo on the poster ist probably not free. Yes, we have FOP in Germany, but that's only for objects placed in public space permanently. I would guess that the duration of the ILA would not qualify as permanently, right? If it does, the GPL-license should probably be replaced by something like {{PD-Art}}. However, we don't really need this file, since there are much better ones in Category:Akaflieg München Mü-30 Schlacro. El Grafo (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Would be nice if uploader could explain what it's for... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Derviative work of a sculpture. Location unknown, so we don't know if FOP applies. Powers (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this image is inadequately documented, and so it is not clear whether anybody's rights are being infringed. LynwoodF (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I should have looked at the uploader's other contributions; all four of them have the same problem (and appear to have been taken at the same location). Powers (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again I agree with you. LynwoodF (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Only uploads of anonymous uploader, no location information. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Common sense shows that it is most likely a copyvio. Author says they are owner and released it to public domain but then on the en.wiki page an editor added the name of a professional photographer [3]. Photographer obviously took shot as part of this shoot [4] which is hosted on Mr. Fitzgerald's site [5] . CutOffTies (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
![[4]](http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/0/22007/1286238/45840032_v1_web_882.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Was Speedy with argument:
"Derivative work of a copyrighted 8-Bit Nintendo character. Even 100% identic pixels. [6] --Kungfuman (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)"
![[6]](http://onepeggenius.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/excitebike_8bit_robrubinoff.gif){kind=link}
I think this is a doubtful copvio and would appreciate more opinions. Funfood ␌ 17:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I feel this is not the first time the issue of copyrighted elements in otherwise free images is up for discussion. In 2007, former general counsel MikeGodwin said "In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute."[7] --Bensin (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
incorrect, unused as of time of deletion request, wrong file format Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The image illustrates the general idea of diffusion, where each component goes from the side with high concentration to low, which is not what "osmosis" is or what the embedded caption-text specifically says is happening. DMacks (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If the image "illustrates the general idea of diffusion" and is suitable for this purpose, maybe renaming and changing the description accordingly would be better than deletion? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- We do have a series of images in Category:Osmosis that are annotated that way. However, they are tagged as disputed for a different reason, which is centralized at File talk:Diffusion.jpg. Using this image to illustrate diffusion is in that same disputed realm: essentially, the presence of the divider as drawn with small holes would not allow the large yellow particles to pass through (but the image does have them passing). That same cat also has some images that do correctly illustrate what happens when the membrane is designed in this way (only the small molecules pass through, leading to different total amounts on the two sides). The way to get the "same amount of stuff, same chemical ratio" on the two sides is to have large holes in the divider (or no divider at all) so that both chemicals can pass--I'm not sure there's an actual meaning or use for the image as it stands. DMacks (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DMacks. Leyo 08:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It was claimed that this is an image from 1903, and that it is in the public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago. It turns out (source) that this image is from 1927. The source that the original uploader gave (here) does not indicate who was the photographer, it is most likely just a website that collects a lot of images, regardless of copyright. We can not assume that the photographer died before 1942. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission given for a free release; The uploader is not the author of this drawing 188.104.115.11 18:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
book cover Vegetator (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC) created by issuer of the book, Peter Szabo.
Why should this book cover deleted, if it was created by me? Don't I have the right to publish the picture, if i am the author???
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, the only one file of the uploader Avron (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
On Commons the uploader says, this photo is own work. In Wikipedia no:Else Heimstad he gives credit to someone else. No evidence that the license is valid, no evidence that the photo is free. Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Image shown on Flickr with non-commercial restriction. Assume this was probably true at time of upload here. Adambro (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hum I think I've seen bad thing, because I took it as CC BY-SA 2.0 ... You can cancel it --Denismenchov08 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
not in use, not educational purpose, out of scope Ezarateesteban 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Unused files should not be deleted from Commons unless a higher resolution/higher quality image is available. --187.126.186.208 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A higher resolution would not afflict the out of scope.--Funfood ␌ 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair use computer icon. No evidence of permission. This image will have to be deleted. Although Xcode may be open source, the icon is copyrighted. 187.126.186.208 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Wide known memes easily found on internet, but their autorship and licence aren´t clear Ileana n (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture is likely copyrighted. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Footnote for future reference: sculpture in Bulgaria, and Freedom of Panorama in Bulgaria doesn't cover commercial use, so fails licensing policy. Rd232 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Restored. The uploader is heir apparent of the sculptor Alexander Zankov and has made the photo. Per Turelio's advice he contacted me and we resolved the issue. Regards, →Spiritia 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of the mentioned jpeg file (You don't need to create thumbs of jpeg files. They render quite well. The problem is with large PNG, Tiff and Gif files exceeding the 12.5 MP limit...) McZusatz (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- JPG graphics do not render well. The JPEG compression artifacts are usually pretty ugly (example). --Leyo 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- So I would propose to upload the full resolution PNG source file and then upload a 12.5 MP scaled down new file version or duplicate file. --McZusatz (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK for 1st option. --Leyo 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- For what reasons??--Perhelion (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- You wrote the reasons below?! --McZusatz (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That would make sense only if the file had no JPEG artifacts. So no copy of the JPEG. (Compare Template:Bad JPEG) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are totally right. I thought Leyo has access to the lossless source. --McZusatz (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- The use of the PNG version as a thumb in the article significantly increased its quality, at least on my (large) screen. --Leyo 23:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- So this is Keep as per discussion below and above.
- (
I withdraw my nomination) --McZusatz (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- So this is
- The use of the PNG version as a thumb in the article significantly increased its quality, at least on my (large) screen. --Leyo 23:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are totally right. I thought Leyo has access to the lossless source. --McZusatz (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That would make sense only if the file had no JPEG artifacts. So no copy of the JPEG. (Compare Template:Bad JPEG) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- You wrote the reasons below?! --McZusatz (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- For what reasons??--Perhelion (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK for 1st option. --Leyo 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- So I would propose to upload the full resolution PNG source file and then upload a 12.5 MP scaled down new file version or duplicate file. --McZusatz (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Info See also the discussion on COM:MFC. JPG is ostensibly preferred because it has a smaller file size, but that's not the whole truth. This PNG has the "half size" of an JPG-Version in 95% quality compression which shows clear a bad quality with compression artifacts.--Perhelion (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- JPG graphics do not render well. The JPEG compression artifacts are usually pretty ugly (example). --Leyo 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Info The thumb version is not needed anymore, see SVG and high-res PNG.--Perhelion (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete--Perhelion (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. --McZusatz (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Indian copyright is at least 60 years; works published in 1947 were thus in copyright in Indian in 1996, and thus were restored by the URAA and are in copyright in the US. Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- In India, off-course the copy right has expired, and the photograph is in public domain now. So, what's the problem here? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go discuss it at COM:L. This has been policy for a long time. Given that the Wikimedia Foundation is a organization of the United States, it does not have the power to flout the laws of the United States.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Question aside from the Not-PD-US-URAA problem described above, do we actually have any evidence of publication at the claimed date? I only see a recent website as the source. --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- As per photographs are concerned, they are normally published as soon as they are clicked/created. Assuming good faith that there wasn't anything called Internet in 1940s, it is impossible to get you evidence of the date published, neither the creator would be alive as of now. Secondly, this image is a historic image, while will and must be kept in Wikipedia (local) though if they are deleted here, probably which should be a concern. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree, it is of course not impossible to provide a source such as a newspaper from that day that published this photo. There is a thing called Library, such libraries store old books and newspapers. Also your assumption is wrong, how many photos are taken to get one photo that is good enough for publication? Right, the vast majority of photos never get published or store in archives untill finaly someone finds that a photo has historic value and can be published. So the opposite of what you say applies: If a user says that this photo was published at a certain date, then this user must know where it was published, otherwise the user cant say that it was published. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- As per photographs are concerned, they are normally published as soon as they are clicked/created. Assuming good faith that there wasn't anything called Internet in 1940s, it is impossible to get you evidence of the date published, neither the creator would be alive as of now. Secondly, this image is a historic image, while will and must be kept in Wikipedia (local) though if they are deleted here, probably which should be a concern. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-India. Yann (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the previous decision. The previous request clearly says that it is not PD in the US and thus clearly not inside COM:L. Besides the unfree copyright status in the US also for PD-India there is no evidence, I see no reason to close the above request with such a wrong comment. Martin H. (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --Denniss (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Identical image in better format exists: File:Uiquipedia.png. The PNG version can be further improved for transparency in the future. Also, as it is already (an almost exact duplicate of this GIF) it behaves better when it comes to smoothness of MediaWiki thumbnailing. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but please update the png file description page with the full original upload log of the gif file, for historical reference. --Waldir talk 13:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Почему удаление? Объясните по Русски!
- Если эту фотографию действительно сделали Вы, то загрузите ей в полном разрешении с информацией EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Хорошо, скоро загружу
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ce fichier utilise des éléments sous licences CC-BY-SA 2.0 Allemagne mais est distribué sous CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. Quid de la compatibilité des licences -SA ? This file uses CC-BY-SA 2.0 Germany content but is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. What about the different -SA compatibilty? Furthermore, I would like the author gives source for EVERY icon, so we know who did what. Dereckson (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA 2.0 and 3.0 compatibility. Creative Commons FAQ wiki provides: “All of the ShareAlike licenses starting from version 2.0 are compatible with future versions of the ShareAlike licenses. If you want to make an adaptation using a photograph that is licensed under a BY-SA 2.0 license, you can apply BY-SA 3.0 to the adaptation. The licenses are not backward compatible, however. You cannot create an adaptation of a work licensed under BY-SA 3.0 and license the derivative under BY-SA 2.0.” --Dereckson (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Half of the image is from the English version of Cloud computing The other half (background) is from a picture of a cloud I found somewhere on wikipedia. Because I couldn't find the exact copyright license, so chose the nearest one. I really, honestly, do not think I have made any error, because EVERYTHING I have used is from Wiki. Thanks.
Deleted: Unclear copyright status with possibly conflicting licenses. FASTILY (TALK) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aan.kshipta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. User manipulated some of his uploads (already identified as copyvio) in size/lightness/etc.
Gunnex (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
not nice Nelson 22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Other Caption Nelson 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Other Caption PNC Nelson 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Replace Nelson 22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No Comments Dr. Nelson Pung 08:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain why you want this deleted. If you do not speak English, say in your language, someone can translate. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given for deletion . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Privacy breached Dr. Nelson Pung 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datonelson (talk • contribs) 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand. This appears to be a public -- perhaps even newsworthy -- event. How can there be a breach of privacy? I note that the requester above is also the uploader. Please explain why you want your image deleted. If you have trouble with English, use another language and we will deal with it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As with last time, nominator has not explained the rationale, so we're not going to delete it. If you cannot speak English at a native level, you can use your native language, chances are high that we have an administrator that speaks that language. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Medieval seals
[edit]- File:Terbelliou.jpg
- File:Seal of Tervel.JPG
- File:Tervel.jpg
- File:Seal of Tervel.png
- File:Gagikseal.jpeg
- File:PhilaretosSealI.jpeg
- File:Seal Mauros.jpg
- File:Medallion of Omurtag.png
- File:Seal of Boris I.png
- File:Seal of Constantine Tikh.png
- File:Seal of Emperor Ivan Asen I (1190-1196).jpg
- File:Seal of Georgi I Terter.jpg
- File:Seal of Ivan Aleksandar.png
- File:Seal of Georgi II Terter.jpg
- File:Seal of Tsar Kaloyan.png
- File:Seal of the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Asen II.png
- File:Seal of Teodor-Petar.jpg
- File:Seal of Ivan Asen II.png
- File:Seal of Ivan Asen I.png
- File:Seal of Ivan Stefan.jpg
- File:Seal of Kaloyan.png
- File:Seal of Konstantin Asen Tih.png
- File:Seal of Konstantin II.jpg
- File:Seal of Simeon The Great (Anonymous).png
- File:Seal of Todor Svetoslav.png
- File:Seal of Simeon The Great.png
- File:Seal of Emperor Peter I.jpg
- File:Seal of Emperor Peter I.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Per this discussion. Note that I have only included the files which clearly come from books or have unknown provenance, and not some which have been taken from CNG Coins, which has a license compatible with Commons. --Constantine ✍ 11:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dr. Shahid Alam (talk · contribs)
[edit]New mass DR for all initially [[8]]tagged as speedy files from uploader. Uploaders wish is no reason for speedy deletion.
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dr._Shahid_Cuba.png#File:Dr._Shahid_Cuba.png){kind=link}
- File:Dr. Shahid Alam.jpeg
- File:Dr. Shahid in Matanzas Cuba.png
- File:Dr. Shahid & Friends in Cayo Jutia Cuba.png
- File:Dr. Shahid Cuba 1.jpg
- File:Dr. Shahid Cuba.jpg
- File:Dr. Shahid Cuba.png
- File:Dr. Shahid New Style.png
- File:Dr. Shahid Cuban Style.png
- File:Dr. Shahid Alam 3.png
- File:Dr. Shahid Alam 2.png
- File:Dr. Shahid Alam 1.png
- File:Shahid 1.jpg
Funfood ␌ 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/fan images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own CC work by Flickr user: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP. Uploaded at Flickr on 11.10.2012 and on same day transferred to Commons by Capchars2 (talk · contributions · Statistics), known per User talk:Capchars2/logs for tons of copyright violations related to en:Bonde da Stronda (BDS), a Brazilian hip hop group.
Most likely Flickrwashing involved (Drakieyay = Capchars2) + user blocked at ptwiki for being sockpuppet of pt:Categoria:!Fantoches de Pé Espalhado --> a category filled with over 300 different users...
Nominating per above also by this user:
the lead singer and co-founder of this group, uploaded on Flickr and Commons simultaneously on 06.10.2012.
Gunnex (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucaslemos.jnl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Totalbhakticom (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from painting/photos.
- File:Totalbhakti.jpg
- File:Bolebaba.jpg
- File:ShirdiSaiBaba.jpg
- File:OmWallpapers.jpg
- File:Lordvishnu.jpg
- File:LordRama.jpg
- File:LordKrishna.jpg
- File:LordHanuman.jpg
- File:LordGanesha.jpg
- File:GuruNanakDev.jpg
- File:LordBuddha.jpg
- File:DurgaMaa.jpg
- File:BhagwanParasnath.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan12.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan11.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan10.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan9.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan7.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan4.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan6.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan5.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan2.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan3.jpg
- File:RakshaBandhan1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sharonnsue (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Looks not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Cabrera 7.jpg
- File:Flaco quiroga.jpg
- File:Fac oreja.jpg
- File:Bochi Licht.jpg
- File:Cuevitas.jpg
- File:Blengio.jpg
- File:Ger basualdo.jpg
- File:Monetti.jpg
- File:Pouso.jpg
- File:Barsottini.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: several (all?) copyvios Denniss (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
VOA photographs by Diana Markosian
[edit]Diana Markosian is not a VOA employee, she is a freelancer. See e.g. [9]: "freelance photographer for the Bloomberg [...] who also freelances for Voice of America".
- File:Domodedovo after bombing 2011 (dogs).jpg
- File:Domodedovo after bombing 2011 (flowers).jpg
- File:Domodedovo after bombing 2011 (hall).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Trycatch (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see your point. The only difference between an employee and a freelancer is that the freelancer doesn't have a long term contract. In any other respect they are the same. In particular, Ms. Markosian in this case has been paid by the US Federal Government and released her work on the same term of use as any other VOA employee i.e. in public domain. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can we know the details of Diana Markosian contract, whether her work was released on the same term of use?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the webpage it is said that photos have been made by Диана Маркосян, «Голос Америки» (Diana Markosian, Voice of America) which is clearly means, as I understand it, that these photos have been made by Ms. Markosian and this work have been paid by VOA. In cases when VOA uses photos made by other agencies it is never stated that VOA is the author of the photos (e.g.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem Korzhimanov (talk • contribs)
- Well, the photos at the VOA site currently have AFP watermark, so it's unlikely that they were "produced exclusively by the Voice of America". --Trycatch (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those watermarks appeared at the photos during VOA site reconstruction. There were no watermarks when I downloaded photos. I would assume that this is a kind of mistake because there are no other evidences that these photos were produced by AFP. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- And why do you think these photographs are AFP-watermarked if they were not produced by the AFP? Anyway, it's all just guesswork, it may be a mistake, it may be not. --Trycatch (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because they were not marked for more than a year. And there were no other signs that they are copyrighted by AFP. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- And why do you think these photographs are AFP-watermarked if they were not produced by the AFP? Anyway, it's all just guesswork, it may be a mistake, it may be not. --Trycatch (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those watermarks appeared at the photos during VOA site reconstruction. There were no watermarks when I downloaded photos. I would assume that this is a kind of mistake because there are no other evidences that these photos were produced by AFP. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the photos at the VOA site currently have AFP watermark, so it's unlikely that they were "produced exclusively by the Voice of America". --Trycatch (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- At the webpage it is said that photos have been made by Диана Маркосян, «Голос Америки» (Diana Markosian, Voice of America) which is clearly means, as I understand it, that these photos have been made by Ms. Markosian and this work have been paid by VOA. In cases when VOA uses photos made by other agencies it is never stated that VOA is the author of the photos (e.g.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem Korzhimanov (talk • contribs)
- Freelancer doesn't have an employment contract, so the legal relationship between an employer and a freelancer is very different. Template {{PD-USGov}} is only relevant to the works "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". The template absolutely doesn't mean that any work bought by the US Government magically becomes copyright-free. See also w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#Works produced by contractors. --Trycatch (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I am not a specialist, of course, but it is said here that "Civilian agencies... are guided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)... Under the FAR general data rights clause (FAR 52.227-14), the government has unlimited rights in all data first produced in performance of or delivered under a contract, unless the contractor asserts a claim to copyright or the contract provides otherwise." Probably we could ask Ms. Markosian about details of her contract with VOA. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- When "the government has unlimited rights", etc., it doesn't mean that the work is the public domain. That's why some US coins are copyrighted, and so on. So that thing anyway can't help us. See w:WP:Public domain#U.S. government works, it has better description, I guess. --Trycatch (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. Well, I agree that there are to many guesses and at the moment there are no enough evidence that the photos are in PD. Anyway I will try to contact to Diana and probably to Voice of America in order to clarify this question. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- When "the government has unlimited rights", etc., it doesn't mean that the work is the public domain. That's why some US coins are copyrighted, and so on. So that thing anyway can't help us. See w:WP:Public domain#U.S. government works, it has better description, I guess. --Trycatch (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I am not a specialist, of course, but it is said here that "Civilian agencies... are guided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)... Under the FAR general data rights clause (FAR 52.227-14), the government has unlimited rights in all data first produced in performance of or delivered under a contract, unless the contractor asserts a claim to copyright or the contract provides otherwise." Probably we could ask Ms. Markosian about details of her contract with VOA. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can we know the details of Diana Markosian contract, whether her work was released on the same term of use?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Freelancer means "not employee". It is well established policy here that works made for the US Government by persons who are not employees often have copyrights. This includes some US coins, several official White House portraits of presidents, and many others. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sudhir kumar garhwal (talk · contribs)
[edit]1st contribuition = copyvio, last contribuition = copyvio. Resting 2 unclear files. Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Jawaharlal Nehru University JNU New Delhi Campus....view from flight, By Sudhir Kumar Garhwal -9911318488.jpg
- File:SHRI HARI BABA, CHATRANA JOHRA, BIDSAR.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)