Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No sources provided for information, clais myself as the author, possibly another Jermboy sock. Fry1989 eh? 02:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Windows Phone Store Screen 01.png Gamer9832 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- :: I, the uploader of this file, would like to delete it. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Windows Phone 8 Start Screen.png Gamer9832 (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I, the uploader of this file, would like to delete it. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Likely from here under cc-by-nc-sa Morning ☼ (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete, good finding. Sorry I took from flickr and I did not realize, excuse me .--Coronades (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Rafatalam100 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
i have uploaded a better file on subject Rafatalam100 (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of the copyrighted Sesame Street character Big Bird. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of the copyrighted Sesame Street character Big Bird. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused and hardly usable personal image. Possibly also a personality rights violation. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal image that is only used on the uploaders talkpage on :en, where he/she has shown no further activity since January 2012. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
EXIF meta-data, shown at the foot of the file page, states that the file is non-free John of Reading (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense by another Jermboy sock. Vietnam has it's own language, it wouldn't use the New Zealand sign assembly. The other two signs need to go for that reason as well. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E9%99%88%E7%82%B3%E9%A1%BA.jpg Woonfui93 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
No FoP en France et sculpteur décédé il y a moins de 70 ans (1955). Suite réponse à demande de conseil. Week-et-pédia était mon nom d'utilisateur avant renommage. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 00:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope / no educational value. Commons is not a repository for personal snapshots of one's self, friends, etc. Senator2029 02:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I see some similar images on Blogspot users. Perhaps this one can't be considered own work, because maybe it was made with some non-free software from non-free templates. Ralgistalk 02:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader. Remove this image, was generated by online private software. (Sorry for my english). --Alan.lorenzo (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this logo is not simple enough. Ralgistalk 03:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I can get this image with a Google search. Perhaps it isn't original. Ralgistalk 03:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Mathematica is copyrighted software, so this screenshot is copyright violation. It is used in many Wikipedia articles, some of them apparently under fair use (which is not allowed on Commons), so this image can be uploaded locally on those wikis which allow fair use. Jfd34 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- 1. A screenshot it is not but could be debated to be violating copyright, unless the picture would be for 2. fair use. Therefore, no copyright violation. 84.170.39.230 08:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - no copyrightable part is depicted. Essentially it merely contains a chart and source code to generate it. The chart is a well-known bifurcation diagram of logistic map, and the source code appears to describe faithfully its dynamics and the configuration of the chart. I don't think someone can hold an exclusive right on it. --whym (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Useless photo. No value to Commons (or anyone else for that matter). Senator2029 04:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep photo of a notable actress and it shows of her red hair well.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even identifiable. Nymf (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Ditto. Pointless image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This logo does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore is not in the public domain. Senator2029 04:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe the photographer released this image as public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see any reason for what I should not believe what was stated in the photo's version in the English Wikipedia. DO NOT DELETE! --MartinHansV (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I realize that we have COM:GRANDFATHERED as a possible guideline. But the uploader didn't even assert permission; s/he just flatly stated it as fact, which leaves me thinking that it is more likely that s/he is unaware of copyright rules, rather than the likelihood that s/he received some form of permission from the copyright holder. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete unless we obtain info through OTRS. --Bob247 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Too recent for COM:GOF and it's unlikely that permission would have been granted anyway. COM:GOF only applies for files uploaded before 8 January 2006 (if the file information page doesn't even mention anything about permissions), but this was first uploaded on 24 May 2006, meaning that full OTRS permission is required. This looks like a very common misunderstanding: if it is publicly available, then it is in the public domain. I see this mistake all of the time when checking recent file uploads, and all of those files just get deleted as having no evidence of permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/File:AIRFIELD.gif Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- see [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:AIRFIELD.gif] What tells you that this photo was not released to public domain? --MartinHansV (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Found here. Possible copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:PENIS: "Very similar to, and no better than, existing images" & COM:PORN: "Commons is not an amateur porn site" Rrburke (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete poor quality. However, I dislike the way our balanced and thoroughly worked out policy on pornography has been reduced to a slogan that (in the way it is used) almost completely contradicts it. --Simonxag (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Flag was never established in use, as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_Austria-Hungary.svg. This image is also unused. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative from the movie "Starship Troopers" User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative from the movie "Starship Troopers" User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Website has no CC-Zero declaration and missing essential permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The website says "© 2012 SCDP, Inc. All Rights Reserved." but not sure if this would be too simple (text with the tree from the state flag). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Lacking permission from the ACP. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"Copyright © Socialist Currents " on the bottom of the site, no mention of FAL. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
When asked on his talk page, the uploader never replied that he had permission from the FSB or was an official in that party. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Logo from 1982 and no assertion of permission to use it under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Logo of Kaifanme [1]. 石 (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal image that is only "used" on the uploaders "vanity" userpage on :en, which were her/his only edits ever since January 2012. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The medal itself is not copyrighted, but this photo is not trivial "scan" and is copyrighted. Daryona (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused image that is redundant to File:Kardinya Sign.jpg, which is an identical image and is used AussieLegend (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not all files of Nationaal Archief are CC-BY-SA, there is no indication that this particular photo belongs to the sets that have been released under a free license 206.126.18.192 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author, stamps are copyrighted in the Netherlands 206.126.18.192 09:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of several images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient (parts deleted as no fair use, no source, per DR), compromising the montage. Gunnex (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio (or need OTRS) --MGuf (d) 09:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a copyrighted poster. The Flickr uploader has certainly no right to release it under a free license. Freedom of panorama isn't applicable for posters. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 10:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not used, better version available. Chjb (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded a lot of copyvio photos from different sites. I suspect that this picture is derivative of "pictures from internet" Daryona (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope --MGuf (d) 10:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded a lot of copyvio photos from different sites. I suspect that this picture is derivative of copyrighted photo, as original photo is not uploaded Daryona (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The statue of S. Batič (still living) and the promenade designed by J. Plečnik (died in 1957); per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio from http://jan25amir.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/381242_10150488465868817_91753888816_8325263_1796773017_n.jpg?w=400&h=280 , no exif --MGuf (d) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
derivated work, with copyrighted photos and logos --MGuf (d) 10:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded a lot of copyvio. Looking at the quality of picture I suppose this is a scan/photo of some published picture Daryona (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
То что вам кажется, не обязательно же быть так как вам кажется!! Это фото лично я сканировал с фотографии из моего домашнего альбома. Я был лично знаком с этим человеком АбуУбайда (talk)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted screen, out of scope --MGuf (d) 10:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Published, for example on http://darginec.livejournal.com/83706.html Maybe the picture is too old to be copyrighted? Daryona (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Seems like coloured old pictured (see for example http://www.gazavat.ru/history3.php?rub=18&art=239). If the picture is old enough, it may be in Public Domain, but colouring is copyrighted anyway Daryona (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not own work (see for example http://darginec.livejournal.com/83706.html). May be too old to be copyrighted Daryona (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Another variant of the same photo is published on http://naqshbandibeirut.com/ Daryona (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrigted logo : to upload on fr:wikipedia --MGuf (d) 10:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not own work. Can be found by TinEye on mane sites: http://www.tineye.com/search/c3d60191780af600f9c9db598d18a77599fbf6c2/ Daryona (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded a lot of copyvio photos from different sites. I suspect that this picture is derivative of "pictures from internet", because user uploaded a lot of photos of Makhachkala, but no one of these photos were uploaded Daryona (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture, no FOP in Italy. Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: same simple reason of Eleassar. Raoli ✉ (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable evidence that the image would be originally published anonymously or that the author would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable evidence that the image would be originally published anonymously or that the author would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster. Eleassar (t/p) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Can be replaced by {{TeX}}: McZusatz (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please delete this file, I created it as test and it is no longer needed. (My first try editing an .svg file. Was able to successfully update the original User:Cburnett File:L Game start position.svg.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
{{TeX}}: McZusatz (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, possible copyright violation Stas1995 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by Joan Gardy Artigas (still alive) photographed in France where there is no freedom of panorama. Bob247 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Picture about ticket "2012102510009322". The image came from From Forbes. The user it's not the copyright's onwer. Ticket cancelled. +PrinceWilly 17:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- This image was provided by Ahuja to Forbes. It is now sourced to Ahuja's website where it has been released with a Creative Commons license. See: http://www.maneetahuja.com/photos.html. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes. OTRS granted. It'a okay now. Let's wait a sysop close this undelete discussion. +PrinceWilly 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted work ("banner") is the central part of the subject. No de minimis.--Wdwd (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Yann (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose FOP covers this? Yann (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- FOP in germany covers only permanent objects like buildings. Not temporary objects in public like a billboard. Please see Commons:FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary. --Wdwd (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is an event advertisement for a visit of the pope in 2006 to three Bavarian cities. Like all event posters it was most likely removed the day after the 14th September 2006 (The website mentioned on the poster has also been removed). So FOP does not apply for it. -- Cecil (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, delete then. Yann (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
All the description appears to be the instructions not the actual information about the image, and it looks exceptionally stylized/professional for a user-created free image DMacks (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Speedy delete as copyvio: false claim of "own work" + no EXIF + prior publication = COM:PRP. Rrburke (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
advertisment McZusatz (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
advertisement McZusatz (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, not educational. GeorgHH • talk 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Bild ist öffentliches allgemeingut!Avron (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Bild ist öffentliches allgemeingut!
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of artwork, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
Bild ist öffentliches allgemeingut!
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of artwork, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
File:ESTRATEGIAS PARA LOGRAR UNA ALIMENTACIÓN BALANCEADA EN LOS NIÑOS Y NIÑAS DEL PRIMERO Y SEGUNDO AÑO DE EDUCACIÓN MEDIA GENERAL DE LA U.E. “JOSÉ ANTONIO CHÁVEZ”.pdf
[edit]Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, so author and license wrong. Avron (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The statue in the front was designed by S. Batič (still living). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, this image is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Jaklič Hall was built in 1939, and there's no evidence that the architect would have died before 1945. The monument is work by France Kralj (1895-1960). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, the image is not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Does not seem 'de minimis' to me. The photo shows the balustrades and the lampposts in a larger extent than really necessary. See File:Kresija-Ljubljana.JPG for comparison. Eleassar (t/p) 10:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The arcades in the front are copyrighted (J. Plečnik, 1872-1957) and in the focus. They are visible more than would be necessary to show the palace. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 11:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
en:Google Chrome is not a free software (see the article), and this image is not just the web page itself. Liangent (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep So what? I do not see anything (from Chrome) that is eligible for copyright. --Leyo 12:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the permissions status of the browser border? Liangent (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-ineligible}} or similar. --Leyo 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine if the community accept PD-ineligible for it, but please tag it. Liangent (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-ineligible}} or similar. --Leyo 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the permissions status of the browser border? Liangent (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep the current version and delete all the previous versions. I nominate to delete the previous versions because they are different from each other and the File History has gone too long. But keep the current version. PinnuDas 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The mistake here was to allow people to upload new versions over old, rather than starting a new file for each new version. We should have kept all of the versions in separate files, We should certainly keep all of the versions here until someone takes this apart into separate files. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fine! But Microsoft Aero have other license and are not allowed in Commons. Here, from version 15 onwards all the images have Aero window which should not be allowed to keep. Rest of the versions are ok. PinnuDas 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just the border of a window is certainly not eligible for copyright, as it would make all screenshots from any application (partially) copyrighted by Microsoft. That doesn't make sense. That is similiar as if they would claim copyright for every document written in Word. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fine! But Microsoft Aero have other license and are not allowed in Commons. Here, from version 15 onwards all the images have Aero window which should not be allowed to keep. Rest of the versions are ok. PinnuDas 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted design (no FOP in Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 12:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple for ©. Just a Slovene outline map, a globus and a simple typeface, I see no threshold of originality here.— M♦Zaplotnik
my contributions13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)- The arrangement is undoubtedly copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per MZaplotnik. --Sporti (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We have no indication that Slovenia has any threshold of originality above the very basic. This would clearly have a copyright in the USA. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture, created after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 13:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.150.163 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems modern, probably from 1987,[2] therefore copyrighted. Eleassar (t/p) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork, out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's in use. See voy:Yakutsk and COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. I agree that this might not be the best image for the Wikivoyage article, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Move to WV/en? If this isn't allowable on Commons, it should be moved to WV/en, where we do allow photos of artwork. It is the lead image of a featured article over there, and I'm pretty fond of it in its usage there. --Peter Talk 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project says that any image is allowed here if it is needed on a Wikimedia project and Wikivoyage is a Wikimedia project. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete: It is modern artwork. Not painted by uploader himself.--Piggy58 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure? This looks like personal artwork that anyone could draw. Do you have any indication that this wasn't drawn by the Flickr user? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: While I tend to agree with the nom, it has been in use of Wikivoyage for a year or so. Even if it was painted by the Flickr user, it is, by our rules, in scope, particularly since multiple editors at WV:EN seem to like it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems copyrightable. Eleassar (t/p) 13:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrightable painting. Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The painting is the hallmark of this bus, thus not de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrightable advert. Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- The file has EXIF on Flickr but not on Commons. See [3]. Also, the Flickr user has used a Canon EOS 400D Digital camera for lots of other photos, so I'm guessing that the image is fine. The camera model is listed here. Can someone read the Turkish text? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can :) It's not related with our subject.--Rapsar (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep I removed the timestamp. No professional photographer would use timestamps. If I work f.i. with Corel PhotoPaint and save the pic as a new file EXIF data get lost. And it's possible that the user in 2007 made the file smaller and saved as a new file. And I didn't find the same pic otherwhere. So I doubt a copyright violation.--Hic et nunc (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because of this "doubt", it should be deleted as per COM:PRP.--Rapsar (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Not used. Newer SVG version (details added) available. DerFussi 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Policy is to keep older raster versions even when an SVG becomes available. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status is crystal-clear: copyright in Dutch stamps from this era is owned by (former) Dutch Post Office, they are not in the public domain. 206.126.18.192 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This map is an original research by the creator. It does not rely on any reliable sources. Grandmaster 21:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable unbiased source supports information on this map. Best, Konullu (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not express reality, and does not have any reliable sources. Alismayilov (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC+1)
- Delete. Information is not real but self-created. Koranse 00:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC+1)
- Delete. I have read the history of Ordubad from different sources. I have never encountered such map and information. Therefore, I request deletion. abduyev.elvin 00:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC+1)
- Delete. I have read the history of Ordubad from different sources. I have never encountered such map and information. Therefore, I request deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmer hale (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I suggest that the users commenting here (several of whom have made no other edits on Commons) read our rules before commenting. It is firm Commons policy not to take sides in the arguments over the authenticity of maps. Those decisions are up to editors, both within and outside WMF projects. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
No enlaza a ninguna página. Versión nueva en svg en proceso. Laukatu (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. We have many unused files. We do not delete old png files even after an svg has been created. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
No hay páginas que enlacen a esta imagen. En su lugar está File:Euskotren_tranbia_bilbo.svg Laukatu (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. We have many unused files. We do not delete old png files even after an svg has been created. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
No use, replaced by svg file Euskotren tranbia bilbo.svg Laukatu (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
No hay páginas que enlacen a esta imagen. En su lugar, File:Euskotren tranbia barakaldo.svg Laukatu (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
No use, replaced by svg file Euskotren tranbia barakaldo.svg Laukatu (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Much of the sequence told here is inaccurate (for example, Back Bay was close to the last fill, not the first). It is not clear that this information has any place on Commons. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, I put that in there. My intent was to help the user looking for info on Boston Harbor. If it isn't helpful, well, it should go. If it is inaccurate, then clearly I have not fulfilled my role. I especially don't like to see inaccuracies promulagted on WP. You have two choices, it seems to me. You can correct it or you can delete it. I will support whichever you do. Since you have already put it up for discussion I would not feel comfortable deleting it myself. Since you know more about the topic and it is only one paragraph I think you also should fix it if you go that way. The serious student can figure out anyway that the modern harbor is not the old one. If anyone else has something to say we will probably be hearing shorty, so the matter can be quickly settled. Best wishes,Botteville (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not that isn't helpful -- it is that Commons is a place for images and other media. Information such as this belongs in the various Wikipedias. I think you ought to put your effort into Boston Harbor, which does not cover the subject well. There are a variety of good maps at Category:Maps of Boston Harbor and Category:Maps of Boston that will help you get the time line correct. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Moved to en:Talk:Boston_Harbor#Historical_note ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This page (Salamander (Ritual)) was created to hold one file which has since been deleted as a copyright violation. Why it is in the categories it is in, I can't tell. -sche (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty gallery page. Feel free to speedy those in the future. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of an identifiable person taken in a private place. No prior consent. ErikvanB (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- What are you saying, ErikvanB! It's a CC-BY picture published on Flickr, what needing of consent are you inventing? Odontocrate (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- The eyes have been wiped out since this file was nominated, but I have removed it cross-wiki anyway, since it's not the kind of picture you'd expect in an encyclopedia. --213.10.17.29 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikimedia has policies, what do you aim saying "not the kind of picture you'd expect in an encyclopedia"?! Odontocrate (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Persons seems to be posing for the shot, maybe even in a studio setting. Missing consent cannot be inferred. Also, Commons is not an encyclopedia. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the file name, looks like this is a scaled down dupe of the actual SVG. Fry1989 eh? 21:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled-down version created from SVG file. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ivan Pozdeev as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: proprietary INeverCry 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a simple geometric shape. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Olei as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: does not meet wp quality requirements INeverCry 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - but would recommend a crop to show the moth better; the image is decently sharp and the moth may well be identifiable to someone with a good knowledge of the family. - MPF (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Sufficiently high resolution, can be useful when cropped. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose it is a logo created by the OV-Bureau Randstad, an organisation created by the Dutch government. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not realeased under CC-BY-SA by the credited author. Not immediately clear that it would qualify for pd-shape or pd-textlogo either. Bestand is niet vrijgegeven onder CC-BY-SA door de aangegeven auteur; niet direct duidelijk dat dit onder pd-shape of pd-textlogo zou vallen. Pbech (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's {{PD-text-logo}} so its copyright status is not important. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Licensing cannot apply. Should either be pd-textlogo (but 'm not going to put that here, since I do not agree with that assessment) or this logo is not free. Pbech (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Not properly licensed, not simple text. Would need OTRS permission by the company. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mathematica tutorials
[edit]Mathematica is copyrighted software so these videos showing Mathematica screenshots should not be here on Commons
- File:Eqd00b1.ogv
- File:Eqd00c1.ogv
- File:Eqd00d1.ogv
- File:Eqd00e1.ogv
- File:Eqd00f1.ogv
- File:M04a10.ogv
- File:M04a1a.ogv
- File:M04a1b.ogv
- File:M04a1c.ogv
- File:M04a1d.ogv
- File:M04b1.ogv
- File:M04b2.ogv
- File:M04b3.ogv
- File:M04b4.ogv
- File:M04b5.ogv
- File:M04c1.ogv
- File:M04c2.ogv
- File:M04c3.ogv
- File:M04d1.ogv
- File:M04d2.ogv
- File:M04e1.ogv
- File:M04e2.ogv
- File:M04f1.ogv
- File:M04f2.ogv
- File:M04f3.ogv
- File:M04f4.ogv
- File:M05a1.ogv
- File:M05a2.ogv
- File:M05a3.ogv
- File:M05b1.ogv
- File:M05b2.ogv
- File:M05b3.ogv
- File:M05c1.ogv
- File:M05c2.ogv
- File:M05d1.ogv
- File:M05d2.ogv
- File:M05d3.ogv
- File:M05d4.ogv
- File:M05d5.ogv
- File:M05d6.ogv
- File:M06a1.ogv
- File:M06a2.ogv
- File:M06b0.ogv
- File:M06b2.ogv
- File:M06b3.ogv
- File:M06c0.ogv
- File:M06c1.ogv
- File:M06c2.ogv
- File:M06c3.ogv
- File:M09a1.ogv
- File:M09a2.ogv
- File:M09a3.ogv
- File:M09b1.ogv
- File:M09b2.ogv
- File:M09b3.ogv
- File:M09c1.ogv
- File:M09c2.ogv
- File:M09c3.ogv
Jfd34 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, our policy states that screenshots of non-free software are generally not allowed. I have some trouble with this blanket policy. At first glance it does not look like there is any copyrightable material in those videos. The window decorations ate at best de minimis, but realistically too simple to be copyrightable. --Dschwen (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Think of the videos as pages in a mathematics textbook. While any single page might be too simple, it is clear that the coolection of pages (screens) in each of these videos would have a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Athens Olympic Stadium 1
[edit]w:Athens Olympic Sports Complex tells that the building was made in 1984 and changed in 2004. Unfortunately, you can't upload photos of Greek buildings unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. See COM:FOP#Greece. In some cases, the purpose of the images seems to be to show a team playing at the stadium. In those cases, I would argue that the building is de minimis as the main purpose is the game, so I didn't include those images in this request.
- File:Agora - Wandelgang unter Stahlarkaden.JPG
- File:Athens 2004 Main Olympic Stadium.jpg
- File:Athens Olympic stadium.jpg
- File:Athens Olympics Sports Complex.jpg
- File:Athens Torch.JPG
- File:Dachkonstruktion.JPG
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (01).jpg
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (04).jpg
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (08).jpg
- File:Olympic stadium.JPG
- File:Olympic Stadium.jpg
- File:PaoVsDinamo.jpg
- File:PaovsDinamo3.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Object to deletion. Images are necessary for educational purposes and all are freely licensed. Freedom of Panorama policy is a mess and very inconsistently applied. Deletion would represent the destruction of valuable free content against which no copyright claim has been made. --Kafuffle (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment COM:FOP#Greece is under discussion at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#FOP_Greece. The premise for deletion, that FOP in Greece is not expansive enough to allow free use, seems to depend on the interpretation of two words in the law, one of which has been mistranslated. I'd suggest we don't decide on these images until that discussion is resolved. Until it is, I--Avenue (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Oppose deletion.
- Striking my oppose, as that discussion seems to be resolved. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, sorry, I'm a bit behind with following pages on my watchlist, so I hadn't noticed that discussion. I agree that it is better to wait with deciding what to do with Greek FOP deletion requests until we have seen some clarification on those points. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, I think, since the discussion started after you launched this DR. --Avenue (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, sorry, I'm a bit behind with following pages on my watchlist, so I hadn't noticed that discussion. I agree that it is better to wait with deciding what to do with Greek FOP deletion requests until we have seen some clarification on those points. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I will respect the requests above and not close this now. A couple of comments, though:
- The comment above:
- "Deletion would represent the destruction of valuable free content against which no copyright claim has been made."
- is explicitly rejected by COM:PRP. It is unfortunate that we cannot keep images of every created work on Commons, but our first duty is to respect the copyright of those who create the works that we photograph.
- My reading of the discussion of Greek FOP is clear -- while it may indeed intend "mass comunication" rather than "mass media", it still fails on the word "occasional" and on general commercial use. If I took one of the photographs in this list, printed it on a tee shirt, and sold tens of thousands of them, that would not be neither "occasional" nor "mass communication", no matter how you read the words in Greek. We have consistently rejected FOP rules that do not pass the tee shirt test and should do so in this case.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it is clear now: Greek FOP is insufficient. However, it was much less clear earlier during this deletion discussion: it was stated at CT:FOP that the section COM:FOP#Greece partially was based on a mistranslation of Greek copyright law, and this needed to be sorted out first. This seems to have been sorted out by now. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all
except File:Athens_Olympics_Sports_Complex.jpg. It seems dubious that Greek law would apply to a photograph taken from space. (See also Commons:FOP#Choice of law.) --Avenue (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)- Ah, yes, we've kept a few images where the camera is in one country while the object is in a different country. I'm not sure whether the camera can be found to be in a country, which may be relevant. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I could make two arguments:
- 1) Why is a satellite image any different from an image taken from an airplane? There is still a copyright on the subject. FOP is an exception to the general law of copyright, so the Greek copyright is still in force.
- 2) It was taken from a NASA satellite, so US law should apply. Since the US has FOP for architecture, it is OK.
- I think the former is the better of the arguments, but I'll ask Carl Lindberg to comment. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, en:Airspace tells that there is no fixed upper limit, so it is not clear if a satellite in the space is in Greece or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, the possible airspace limits mentioned there range from 30 km to 160 km, and this satellite orbits about 700 km above the Earth. So it seems to be a long way outside anyone's airspace. --Avenue (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have looked at the source link for this photo earlier. It says that Space Imaging, Inc. hold a copyright on this photo, as it was taken from their IKONOS satellite. So it too should be deleted. The debate over which country's FOP applies was fun, so I'm a little sad that it's now moot. --Avenue (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, en:Airspace tells that there is no fixed upper limit, so it is not clear if a satellite in the space is in Greece or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I could make two arguments:
Deleted: I think we are all now agreed that this is ripe for closure. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Athens Olympic Stadium 2
[edit]There is no FOP in Greece, the architecture on display is copyright.
- File:2014 Olympic Stadium Athens.JPG
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (06).jpg
- File:Inside the Athens Olympic Stadium-panoramic.jpg
- File:OAKA ACDC.jpeg
- File:Original21AEK.jpg
- File:PANATHINAIKOS FANS.JPG
- File:Paralympics Opening Ceremony.jpg
LGA talkedits 08:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
In the last six one can argue that the architecture of display is de minimis, espescially in File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (06).jpg and File:OAKA ACDC.jpeg. Delete only the first. --C messier (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Comments:
- File:2014 Olympic Stadium Athens.JPG -- stadium is the only thing in the image
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (06).jpg -- no action on the field, just about the only thing in the image is the stadium and a few balloons
- obvious signs of crowd, preparations on field, blue and white balloons of Greece. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- File:Inside the Athens Olympic Stadium-panoramic.jpg -- again no
visibleaction on the field that can be understood -- the only thing in the image is the stadium
- I am no lawyer but my understanding is that the image may not be CC but it is allowed on the wikipedia since it is a something situated in "public space" and it is for distributed by means of mass communication. So is it more appropriate to change the license than delete it? Would it be technically better to upload it again under another license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoukoul (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is never necessary, or even allowed, to reload an image. Commons does not actually delete anything and the image will be restored if the community decides it is appropriate.
- The Greek "mass communication" clause is not sufficient for Commons. Commons requirement that an image be free for all uses, including commercial use, goes well beyond "mass communication". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that now, that the licensing I have provide for the picture is incorrect. But since I have the copyright of this image, am I not allowed to change the license? If I upload it as copyrighted but give it for use at least to wikipedia sites, which comply with the Greek law of "mass communication", would that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoukoul (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for all uses, including commercial use. That cannot be accomplished for images taken of copyrighted works in Greece without permission from the copyright holder, in this case, the architect. That is why Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece is clearly marked with
Not OK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Crowd scene (not populous) taken during a field event, framed by the stadium. It is more than just image of stadium — billinghurst sDrewth 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- On close inspection of the full size image, I see that you are correct. You can see that something is going on on the field. However the framing and the inability to see what is actually happening, makes it clear that the principal subject is the stadium itself. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Crowd scene (not populous) taken during a field event, framed by the stadium. It is more than just image of stadium — billinghurst sDrewth 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for all uses, including commercial use. That cannot be accomplished for images taken of copyrighted works in Greece without permission from the copyright holder, in this case, the architect. That is why Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece is clearly marked with
- I understand that now, that the licensing I have provide for the picture is incorrect. But since I have the copyright of this image, am I not allowed to change the license? If I upload it as copyrighted but give it for use at least to wikipedia sites, which comply with the Greek law of "mass communication", would that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoukoul (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am no lawyer but my understanding is that the image may not be CC but it is allowed on the wikipedia since it is a something situated in "public space" and it is for distributed by means of mass communication. So is it more appropriate to change the license than delete it? Would it be technically better to upload it again under another license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoukoul (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- File:OAKA ACDC.jpeg -- aside from the copyright issues -- is this useful? You could argue that the images of the rock band make it useful, but, unfortunately, that argument comes against the fact that those images also have a copyright, so you can't argue to keep the image because of the rock band because that says that the rock band is not de minimis..
- crowd scene showing evidence of the popularity of a band in concert and the effects used in a concert. What copyright issues, it is a crowd — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- File:Original21AEK.jpg -- the image on the screen that is dead center here has a copyright.
- Again a crowd scene with obvious demonstration of the use of a flare. The image on screen does not stop taking of photograph, or prevent other components
- File:PANATHINAIKOS FANS.JPG -- again, the image on the screen has a copyright
- so what, it is not the only thing in the photograph, there is a crowd there with flares. Copyright law does not prevent or stop someone taking a photograph of a crowd scene, there is a crowd display of flages
- File:Paralympics Opening Ceremony.jpg -- nothing here but the stadium and a large tree. Since the tree is almost certainly not real -- how would you transport a real tree and keep it green? -- the tree has a copyright as a sculpture. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- The ACDC image depicts a concert of the band. It can be cropped and still maintain its ues. Educational use: use of the stadium aside athletic events, the tour of the band in 2009, use of comfetti etc... --C messier (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC) - I uploaded a new cropped version, removing the stage and as much of the stadium as possible. --C messier (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which makes the image useless imo so still delete. LGA talkedits 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Paralympics Opening Ceremony.jpg. There are people walking on the track, there is a crowd. This is a scene photograph in context of the opening ceremony. How else can you demonstrate the support, how else do demonstrate the context? Clearly more than FOP. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which makes the image useless imo so still delete. LGA talkedits 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- per C messier, delete the first, keep all the others. Some people need to get out and experience a sporting event and understand that there is preparation, and taking a photograph within a stadium of the event is going to capture the stadium. Copyright is not to prevent recording of history, and no court would declare those images in breach of copyright when the public is let in to participate, and record the event. Further, anyone who believes that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are not mass communication clearly needs to come into the 2000s. More views than any newspaper. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- That may be your view but it is not how the law sees it. In most countries architecture is protected and to take images of it requires either a Freedom of panorama exception or permission of the architect as you will see here there exist no Freedom of panorama in Greece. As for images on large screens, I am not aware of any country that permits reproduction of them that do not require consent. With a number of these images different strengths of fair use claims could be made to over come the copyright concerns, however such claims can not be made on commons. LGA talkedits 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Billinghurst's remark about mass communication misses an important point. WMF may indeed be the most important mass communication channel in the world, but Commons exists to serve all possible users of images, including many that are not by any stretch of the imagination "mass communication". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Closure
[edit]Rationale:
- File:2014 Olympic Stadium Athens.JPG
- File:Greece v Malta, 17 Nov 2007 (06).jpg
- File:Inside the Athens Olympic Stadium-panoramic.jpg
- File:OAKA ACDC.jpeg
- File:Original21AEK.jpg
- File:PANATHINAIKOS FANS.JPG
- File:Paralympics Opening Ceremony.jpg
- No FOP in Greece,the stadium is the only subject in the photo Not OK
- Cropped to remove architectural design elements, photo focuses on balloons.
OK - As the title suggests, the stadium is the main part of the photo Not OK
- Cropped, now OK
- Screen shows the stadium from above, DW of (c) content Not OK
- Cropped, now focus on the fan block OK
- Cropped, tree sculpture and most of the stadium parts removed. OK
Closed: The remaining visible parts of the stadium can be considered generic not protect by (c). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Athens Olympic Stadium 3
[edit]This stadium was originally designed by Weidleplan (architects H. Stalhout, Fr. Herre, and D.Andrikopoulos). The renovated parts including the roof were designed by still-living architect Santiago Calatrava. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). 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 Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Greece has no Commons-acceptable FoP. What is only allowed legally for images of copyrighted landmarks in Greece is the "incidental inclusion in mass media." Greek TOO might be strict too as the country is a member of the copyright-conscious European Union. Only way to counter no FOP is an amendment and/or reform in their copyright law to allow commercial photography and commercial publications of photos of copyrighted Greek architecture and sculptures, but as far as I know there's no indication of such reform in their copyright law as of this writing.
- File:AEK Athens - AC Milan, 2017.jpg
- File:Athens Olympic Stadium (201813879).jpeg
- File:Athens Olympic Stadium (201816177).jpeg
- File:Olympic Stadium - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Olympic Stadium 08-2008 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 15.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 16.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 17.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Athens Olympic Stadium 4
[edit]The stadium is originally completed in 1982 and was renovated in 2004 by Santiago Calatrava (born in 1951). There is no freedom of panorama in Greece, permission from the architect is required.
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 01.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 02.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 06.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 07.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 08.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 09.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 10.JPG
- File:Olympic stadium,Athens 18.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Buses in Ljubljana
[edit]Copyrightable architecture; per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Bavarski dvor.jpg
- File:Bežigrad - Železna cesta.jpg
- File:Linija 3G (LPP).JPG
- File:Šmartinska.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 14:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Files of Silvio Benedetto
[edit]- File:L Iliade di Silvio Benedetto-opera in ceramica con a destra un particolare.jpg
- File:L Iliade di Silvio Benedetto-opera in ceramica foto Silvia Lotti.jpg
- File:Murales polimaterico-galleria pedonale Riomaggiore opera di Silvio Benedetto.jpg
- File:Silvio Benedetto a Piazza Capellini da lui realizzata nelle Cinque Terre foto Silvia Lotti.JPG
- File:Premio Dioniso-opera di Silvio Benedetto.JPG
- File:Silvio Benedetto nella sua Divina Commedia.jpg
- File:Campobello di Licata-il Ponte.jpg
- File:Giovane1.jpg
- File:Vasca.jpg
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Italy. JuTa 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same applies to File:L Iliade di Silvio Benedetto-opera in ceramica foto Silvia Lotti.jpg. --JuTa 17:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete I add others files with the same reason: no freedom of panorama (Italy). Raoli ✉ (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rúrí
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Iceland. is:Þuríður Rúrí Fannberg still seems to be alive. I don't know if the giant rocks are copyrightable, but File:RuriRainbowIce.JPG is clearly copyrightable.>
Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The great rocks are built by the municipality of Reykjavik. The artwork is not the rocks, the artwork is is the structure of the water system, the flow, the waterfall (not working right now). The waterstructure is not showing on the photo just the site of the work. This is an artistic photo by me, Salvor Kristjana that I donated to Wikimedia. It is showing the mood of the garden. The rocks happens to be in part of the photo their color part of the contrast that I use in my artwork. I am talking about this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grasagar%C3%B0urinn_listaverk.jpg the other photos are not by me. --Salvör Gissurardóttir (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The "rocks" referred to above are sculpture -- cut to specific size and shape and clearly have a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Ljubljana Tivoli Castle (including end of the Jakopič Promenade), seat of the International Graphic Center Ljubljana.jpg
[edit]The lights were designed by J. Plečnik (died in 1957); see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 10:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep lights are de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- They're not. The end of the promenade is mentioned in the file name, in the description and in categories. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the file name, description or categories do not have any effect on the copyright of the photo. Lights clearly take only a small % of the photo and are not in its focus so they are de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- These are all the criteria that count in determining whether a file is 'de minimis' (see Commons:De minimis). Lights are an integral part of the promenade, arranged according to the plans by J. Plečnik. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can only see the last 2 lights on the photo, so how can you see the arrangement of lights? --Sporti (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The lights are an integral part of the arrangment and they're copyrightable by themselves. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- These are all the criteria that count in determining whether a file is 'de minimis' (see Commons:De minimis). Lights are an integral part of the promenade, arranged according to the plans by J. Plečnik. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the file name, description or categories do not have any effect on the copyright of the photo. Lights clearly take only a small % of the photo and are not in its focus so they are de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as is, per Eleassar. The image is an odd shape, apparently deliberately to include the left hand light. Keepafter cropping the left hand light. Then the remaining light would be de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Jameslwoodward: The image currently deliberately includes the ligt. The character of the image would be completely different if the light in the foreground was not there. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a cropped version at File:Ljubljana Tivoli Castle.jpg. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion -- cropped image has better, shorter, name . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Fictional augmentation of the Czech coat of arms in the 4rth quarter to include Slovakia. Absolutely fake. Fry1989 eh? 20:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
this was a working file, see File:Coat Arms Empire of Brazil.svg Antemister (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
No hay páginas que enlacen a esta imagen. En su lugar está File:Euskotren_tranbia_bilbo.svg Laukatu (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Unneccesary, we have SVGs of these flags that can be placed side-by-side when needed. Fry1989 eh? 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status; per Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia. We had a similar example of flags that were also deleted at File:GEOSS flags.jpg. Eleassar (t/p) 09:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep similar as #3 Commons:De minimis#Examples. --Sporti (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Sporti Morning ☼ (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the architect would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 14:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't it be more constructive to find out the year of construction and the arhitect before creating a deletion requests? --Sporti (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can try. I haven't been able to after a serious effort. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what did you find about the building? --Sporti (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if I would have found anything it would have been added to the description page already. You can try too instead of questioning me. The burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what did you find about the building? --Sporti (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Ordinary building. General view. Yann (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"All rights reserved. Reproduction without reference to source prohibited." [4] Talks of reproduction, not of modification. It is also no positive permission, ie., it does not imply that reproduction with referece to the source is permitted. Use logic. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - at least until someone compares the Polish and English versions of the license, or contact the Sejm to ask for clarification.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Lhademmor (talk • contribs)
- I have asked User:WarX for help ([5]). Kjetil r 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Afaik it was self-invented by site admin, there are differences between polish and english text, someone from pl.wiki is negotiating release on normal license--WarX 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's another problem. While English version is possibly NonDerivative type, in 2007 (circa February) Polish text of the license was changed to NonCommercial: see now and previous versions. This was discussed earlier on Polish Wikipedia ground: as WarX said someone tried to contact Sejm official, but since then we haven't got any response. So either this tempate (and photos using it) will be kept or not, tempate text should be changed to include both original and changed license and any further uploading of Sejm photos should be prohibited, unless, of course, those negotiations are successful. Tough luck. A.J. 11:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)- Keep, but change text of the template, because it is valid for pictures uploaded before February 2007 (before changing the license). Since February it is non-commercial only, not accepted in Commons. Julo 12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. --Rtc 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{noncommercial}} then? That will be a sad day for Polish Wikipedia. A.J. 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the redirect can't be avoided here. However, I don't think it would be a sad day at all. It would encourage people to take out their cameras and make genuinely free ones. After all, we want to create free content, not collect it on the web. How about creating a photo project on polish wikipedia where people can ask for specific images? For example if I live in A and want a picture of a person or place in far away B, I could ask there whether someone lives in B and could make such a photo. --Rtc 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Julo pointed on my talk page, Non-Commercial condition does not apply to already uploaded media.., so I reverted my non-commercial template inclusion and placed a warning that explains that situation. A.J. 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what about derivative works? Did they ever mention that? Kjetil r 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The two versions differ only with one word: niekomercyjne (noncommercial). A.J. 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So it did/does not mention derivative works? We'll have to redirect it to {{nonderivative}} then. Kjetil r 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it required by some Commons policy, that license must include exactly the phrase "derivative works"? A.J. 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly the phrase "even commercially", exactly the phrase "derivative works" and exactly the phrase "for any purpose" or anything that is equally explicit: "In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: * Republication and distribution must be allowed * Publication of derivative work must be allowed * Commercial use of the work must be allowed" COM:L. Licenses are permissions to do something that is forbidden by copyright law otherwise, and such permissions are valid only if they are explicit. --Rtc 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it required by some Commons policy, that license must include exactly the phrase "derivative works"? A.J. 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So it did/does not mention derivative works? We'll have to redirect it to {{nonderivative}} then. Kjetil r 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The two versions differ only with one word: niekomercyjne (noncommercial). A.J. 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what about derivative works? Did they ever mention that? Kjetil r 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. So yes, Non-commercial applies to already uploaded media. --Rtc 10:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Julo pointed on my talk page, Non-Commercial condition does not apply to already uploaded media.., so I reverted my non-commercial template inclusion and placed a warning that explains that situation. A.J. 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the redirect can't be avoided here. However, I don't think it would be a sad day at all. It would encourage people to take out their cameras and make genuinely free ones. After all, we want to create free content, not collect it on the web. How about creating a photo project on polish wikipedia where people can ask for specific images? For example if I live in A and want a picture of a person or place in far away B, I could ask there whether someone lives in B and could make such a photo. --Rtc 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{noncommercial}} then? That will be a sad day for Polish Wikipedia. A.J. 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The license was clarified, not changed. The current terms have always been in effect and and had merely been described in a less explicit way before. --Rtc 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![83 File:Dushyant Pratap Singh " A Poet".jpg](#File:Dushyant_Pratap_Singh_"_A_Poet".jpg){kind=link}
,_seat_of_the_International_Graphic_Center_Ljubljana.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/23#c-High_Contrast-2012-11-23T21:46:00.000Z-File:Dushyant_Pratap_Singh_"_A_Poet".jpg){kind=link}
![23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/23#c-INeverCry-2012-11-29T23:51:00.000Z-File:Dushyant_Pratap_Singh_"_A_Poet".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_seat_of_the_International_Graphic_Center_Ljubljana.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_seat_of_the_International_Graphic_Center_Ljubljana.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I searched through my e-mail archive and found a message that says:
- Witam!
- Dziękuję za informację. Z mojej strony nie ma żadnych zastrzeżeń co do publikacji tych treści.
- Z poważaniem,
- Hanna Mierzejewska (pos4246 at sejm.pl)
- (Translation: "Thanks for the information, as for me, I have no objection in regard to publication of these contents")
but sadly I can't find the message she was replying to, and I can't remember what I asked about, specifically. Ausir 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, the both chambers of Polish Parliament must work under the same laws. After today's information direct from Polish Senate - see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PolishSenateCopyright - we should use the same rules here, i.e. GFDL for newly uploaded files, and keep this SejmCopyright template as obsolete. Julo 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is private matter, not a public one. The licensing of pictures is not a matter of law; it is a matter of private contracts. --Rtc 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete First of all admin of Sejm's website has NEVER been the copyright owner of MP's photos. This has now been clarified as they say that non commercial use is allowed for all the content apart from what is separately copyrighted. I would think that all the MP's photos were taken by some photographers, somewhere (maybe at their place of residence) who actually own the copyright and not by the Sejm's website admin who has "released" them into the public domain. This is a guess, but I also think that MP's don't have to consent to have their mugshots released into PD before they take the post ;). So we have wrongly assumed (in good faith, although it was quite clear that it was too good to be true) that admin has had the copyright, which he never did. Well now we can just delete all those photos, and send our own photographers to take some new ones.... --Robek 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Although the tag is obsolete now, the license was valid before, so it isn't really an issue if people simply don't upload anymore of those images. Da Man2 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
template kept. However, it is necessary to delete all images which were uploaded after January 2007. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:SejmCopyright renomination
[edit]This discussion affects all images in Category:SejmCopyright. On Commons we only allow files which are available under an irrevocable free licence. To avoid problems, such as with this template, we generally require that permission to be explicit. Up until 2006 the Sejm website stated that materials on the site were available for use or copying, so long as the source was indicated. This is problematic, as it doesn't explicitly allow for derivative or commercial works. Then in 2007, they changed this to non-commercial use, which obviously indicates that they never intended for commercial usage of their materials, and are making that clear. In essence they have revoked their usage allowance which was available up until 2007. The copyright as of today on the Sejm website have all but reverted back to the 2006 conditions. Again they don't explicitly allow for derivative and commercial usage, and as can be seen by the 2007, their terms are clearly revocable. The vagueness of the terms are akin to Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites, which led the deletion of {{Kremlin.ru}} (which was reinstated upon receiving clear permission under a free licence). I suggest leaving this discussion open for a month, in order to give time for the Sejm to be contacted, and for clear, explicit permission under a free licence to be obtained. russavia (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Precisely their copyright notice stated (numbers are mine): Zezwala się na używanie1, kopiowanie2 oraz wykorzystanie3 materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia., which literally means: It is allowed to use1, copy2 and utilize3 materials from the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. In polish there is a difference in meaning between words: używanie (verb: używać = to use) and wykorzystywanie (verb: wykorzystywać = to utilize), where the latter describe more extensive action than a simple re-use. For me, as a polish speaking person, "wykorzystywać" almost directly points to any possible usage. The second translation of this word ("wykorzystywać") is "to exploit", which kind of reflects its intended "seriousness" and a scale far beyond the "re-use without modifications/derivatives and commercial purposes". For me this copyright statement is valid and equal to the similar: {{Copyrighted free use}}. Masur (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as Masur wrote above. Julo (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually the copyright note on Sejm page has been recently changed and it actually allows any use and re-use of pictures except otherwise stated. The copyright notice is for all materials on current Sejm page and its older versions, starting from 1995. The change of copyright notice was forced by Ministry of Administration which is actually cleaning up copyright notices of state institiutions, accoridng to the Law of access to public information, which made free all public information in Poland. See: [6]. I think that the text of template should be changed according to this page. Polimerek (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Masur, thank you for your comments, especially your clarification of "wykorzystywanie". It is this that is problematic, for it isn't explicit in directly stating any possible usage. As you say, it "almost directly points" to such usage, but unfortunately, this isn't adequate for Commons. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Evasion license tags, and comments from Rtc there are relevant here. In particular, "These tags are all problematic, since they are over-optimistic personal interpretation of unclear statements from websites, done by some commons users." We have a responsibility to not only our projects, but also re-users of our hosted content, that materials is free to use "by anyone, for any purpose". I'd really suggest contacting them to get a clear and explicit licence, as we can't leave it open to our interpretation. :( russavia (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I can only understand the Google translation of it, but what I see does not indicate derivatives would be allowed. I think that if the wording is ambiguous to native speakers we should delete due to COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, we Poles are really sorry that there is no exact and direct translation of a word "wykorzystywać", which would literally reflect its wider than "to use" meaning ;) Please note (per Polimerek above) the current copyright notice. It again confirms the previous status and again uses the word "wykorzystywanie", but also explicitily stresses that it is something different than merely copying, this time by a phrase: Zezwala się na wykorzystywanie1 (w tym kopiowanie2) materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie to nie dotyczy jedynie elementów odrębnie zastrzeżonych.; meaning: It is allowed to utilize1 (including copying2) materials contained on the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. This permission does not cover elements, which are separately indicated as restricted. And here, again as in previous version of this copyright notice, there is a clean separation of words "wykorzystywanie" and "kopiowanie" (previously it was "wykorzystywanie", "używanie" and "kopiowanie"), which points to this wider sense of a verb "wykorzystywać", beyond a mere "re-use". It is true that it isn't explicitily stated that derivatives or commercial works are allowed, but this is only because a word "wykorzystywanie" has this wide meaning. In polish once you say "wykorzystaj", you mean "use it as you wish"; otherwise you would rather say "użyj". That's why english verbs like: to abuse, to exploit, to take advantage, to utilize - all are translated as "wykorzystywać". So, I really don't know how we (polish speaking Commons contributors) are able to reassure you (non-polish speaking "commonists"), that when our Sejm says "wykorzystywać" it is fine with Commons licensing policy. We do really know what it's all about and have pure intentions ;) Masur (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the way you say "we, the Poles", Masur. I happen to be a Pole, too, and I do not agree with a word you have written above. To me, this is a mere interpretation of what the Chancellery put on the website that is here to defend the thousands of images that people have been so thoroughly uploading to Commons over the years (which I appreciate greatly) — but I also think that we need to apply the same rules to the Chancellery of the Sejm that we applied to all the other institutions that had their images deleted from Commons before. I think that this situation is a perfect opportunity to get the copyright status of the images clear once and for all, and I would like to see someone contact the Chancellery about it. (The Polish Wikimedia chapter would be my first guess here.) odder (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also The Great Polish-English Dictionary, Wiedza Powszechna" State Publishing House, edition fifth, Warszawa 1980, vol. II, ISBN 83-214-0107-4 (page 600) to understand more meanings of the word "wykorzystać". Julo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, we Poles are really sorry that there is no exact and direct translation of a word "wykorzystywać", which would literally reflect its wider than "to use" meaning ;) Please note (per Polimerek above) the current copyright notice. It again confirms the previous status and again uses the word "wykorzystywanie", but also explicitily stresses that it is something different than merely copying, this time by a phrase: Zezwala się na wykorzystywanie1 (w tym kopiowanie2) materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie to nie dotyczy jedynie elementów odrębnie zastrzeżonych.; meaning: It is allowed to utilize1 (including copying2) materials contained on the Information Website of Sejm, providing their source is indicated. This permission does not cover elements, which are separately indicated as restricted. And here, again as in previous version of this copyright notice, there is a clean separation of words "wykorzystywanie" and "kopiowanie" (previously it was "wykorzystywanie", "używanie" and "kopiowanie"), which points to this wider sense of a verb "wykorzystywać", beyond a mere "re-use". It is true that it isn't explicitily stated that derivatives or commercial works are allowed, but this is only because a word "wykorzystywanie" has this wide meaning. In polish once you say "wykorzystaj", you mean "use it as you wish"; otherwise you would rather say "użyj". That's why english verbs like: to abuse, to exploit, to take advantage, to utilize - all are translated as "wykorzystywać". So, I really don't know how we (polish speaking Commons contributors) are able to reassure you (non-polish speaking "commonists"), that when our Sejm says "wykorzystywać" it is fine with Commons licensing policy. We do really know what it's all about and have pure intentions ;) Masur (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Putting aside the subject of the Chancellery of the Sejm ever being the owner of the copyright to these images (which we cannot be sure of), there is no clear indication that these images can be used for commercial purposes. On the contrary, the Chancellery has given a clear sign that it did not wish the images to be used for commercial purposes, and it would perfectly align with the beliefs of the other branches of power in Poland that their content cannot be used for commercial purposes (e.g. the beliefs of the Chancellery of the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc.). In other words, in the current state this is a delete for me until we get a clear permission from the Chancellery of the Sejm that they agree for the images to be used for commercial purposes. odder (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Question the Chancellery has given a clear sign - where? Masur (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unsure Personally, I'm in favour of keeping, but I won't argue against deletion anymore; although meaning of "wykorzystywać" seems straightforward to any Polish native-speaker, one can easly produce an legal "newspeak" argument that, fot example, re-selling is not "wykorzystywać" (National Bank of Poland already did similar work and stated that Polish money do not belong to "official documents, materials, signs and symbols" from {{PD-Polishsymbol}}). Lack of clear re-use law for public information means any public instutution (Sejm, President, etc.) puts statemets (often written by a clerk not competent in copyright law) which do not necessary have legal validity. A.J. (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)- Question Has there been any progress with this? Has anyone contacted the Sejm for clear and explicit unrevocable licencing? russavia (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. As a Polish citizen, it breaks my heart to see almost 700 pictures of Polish politicians (most of them of former members of the Sejm) gone from Wikimedia Commons, and, by extension, from hundreds of articles & pages on our wikis; it is also probably one of the toughest decisions I had to make as an administrator on this project over the years, especially due to the number of pictures that will be affected by this decision. However, seeing that this request for deletion has been lying open for more than two months, and not obtaining new comments since late November 2012, I think it's due time to reach a conclusion here.
As a Pole, I am aware how hard it is to receive a definite and explicit answer to copyright-related questions from our governmental institutions; there are tonnes of examples, including the well-publicised case of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage back in 2007, the case of the Chancellery of the President not agreeing to release their video of a speech made by the President where he wished a happy birthday on the tenth anniversary of the Polish Wikipedia, or the case of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs releasing parts of their Flickr stream under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs licence (while keeping the rest under full copyright).
This situation only proves the point that Polish government (and, in this case, also the lower chamber of the Parliament), despite its assurances of openness ("What is developed with public funds is the property of the public, hence also of those who want to use it in a way they choose themselves."), is not, in its majority, aware of how free licencing and public domain works, even though these subjects are no longer as little-known as they were when this template was created back in 2004.
Wikimedia Commons has previously witnessed mass deletions of files uploaded with similarly unclear licencing tags; I believe that the deletion of pictures marked with {{Kremlin.ru}}, linked by Russavia above, is one of the most known examples.
We do sometimes delete such images because, as the biggest repository of free media files on the Internet, as someone rightly pointed out, we decided not only to care about possible usage of the files in an educational environment, but also about any usage at all, including a commercial one, to match the free licence used by Wikipedia in its beginnings (the GFDL; we didn't use CC-BY-SA 3.0 when our policies were first adopted).
Commons:Licensing, which is considered an official policy of this project (and might also be considered as one of its core pillars), defines that an acceptable licence has to (1) "specifically and irrevocably allow anyone to use the material for any purpose" and that (2) "simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient." What is more, a licence is deemed free when it is also (3) perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.
A careful study of the copyright notice available at the official website of the Chancellery of the Sejm and its history—available in the deletion request above—shows that it does not meet any of these three criteria. The copyright notice in question was changed at least twice: from a general one to non-commercial, and then back again; it also does not explicitly mention that the images available on the website of the Sejm can be used for commercial purposes, neither does it specifically allow creation of derivative works.
Taking all of the above in mind, I am going to delete the 668 images tagged with this template, starting around 19:00 (UTC). Being aware that this means removing images from 3,824 pages around the wikis, I can only hope that our community will stand up to the task, and replace the deleted images with free ones wherever possible. It is also my hope that one day, we can get a clear permission not only from the Chancellery of the Sejm, but also from the other institutions which Polish Wikimedians have uncessfully been trying to reach to with request for releasing their content under a free licence.
odder (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reopening. I think you forgot to apply relevant Polish law, namely art. 4 subsec. 2) of the Polish copyright law, which excludes all sort of official material out of being subject of copyright law, that excludes application bogus licenses published on various government websites. This template should be converted to indicate the stated license (for bookeeping and future discussion) but otherwise it has a similar effect like Template:PD-Polishsymbol (this template should be improved or other should be provided for art. 4 cases). Second, Kancelaria Sejmu cannot be subject of any copyright law and acts as a normal statio fisci. It can only manage some rights in the name of the Skarb Państwa. « Saper // @talk » 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you are aware, Saper, that such an interpretation of article 4 of the Polish copyright law would mean a total change of how images coming from all kinds of state offices (governmental, parliametary, and judicial) are treated not only on Wikimedia Commons, but also simply under the Polish law.
- As far as I am aware, the current defition of official material (the article in question states that Copyright shall not cover: (...) official documents, materials, logos and symbols) does not include photographs and other works that are not strictly documents, logos and symbols—though one can argue that, for instance, pictures of banknotes do fall under the term "material"—and this has been a stance taken by the various offices and agencies that I mentioned above over the years (including the National Bank of Poland, the Chancellery of the President, and even the Chancellery of the Sejm). And even though the Chancellery itself is not a legal entity under the Polish law, they claim that they can hold copyright to works simply by acquiring it from other legal entities (or natural persons). odder (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- We are not interested in the "official stance" but in the interpretation based on law. Copyright exceptions under article 4 are pretty strong and have a clear goal to protect recipients of official material from any kind of copyright claims. Official material may be part of the public information, where public offices are obliged to provide to interested parties (as per Consititution and Freedom of Information Act) and it is understandable that if public office is mandated to disseminate some materials they cannot violate copyright law while executing FOIA law. There are numerous attempts to limit access to official material (charging fees, claiming copyright or other intellectual property), but so far there are only specific limits to distribution of official material (that do not apply here, like state secrets and some exceptions in the FOIA law). Just because various officials make non-binding claims against the text and the spirit of article 4 of the copyright law it does not mean they are the correct interpretation. The comment you have linked to is correct; Kancelaria Sejmu manages some part of Skarb Państwa rights in a limited manner; in fact, the comment says that Kancelaria acquires copyrights from third parties by the means of employment ("nabycia przez pracodawcę praw do utworu pracowniczego") or by copyright assignment ("bądź na podstawie umowy o przeniesienie autorskich praw majątkowych"). Please take note that licensing is explicitly not mentioned here. This comment also confirms that Kancelaria Sejmu cannot claim copyright on its own (it acts only on behalf of Skarb Państwa in a limited manner), so that the blanket copyright license is simply bogus ("nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet"). If there is any issue between the copyright holder regarding any official material published by Kancelaria Sejmu in its official capacity, it is to be resolved between those entities. Just like you are not requesting a proof from federal agency of the United States Government that the author of the material is indeed somebody employed by them. Copyright law in article 4 gives a pretty strong level of certainty for re-users of the official material, that those issues do not affect the re-use, irrelevant whether it is commerical, non-commercial or under CC licence like Commmons does. « Saper // @talk » 21:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing this very interesting background information, Saper, it's appreciated (though I don't really think that the Freedom of Information Act can actually influence copyright status of government-made works). Let me remind you, however, that what you wrote above is merely your interpretation of article 4 of the copyright law; I believe I have proven that it is not shared by any of the institutions mentioned previously. However, we cannot really tell who's right here, and it is also my belief that we are not the body that should decide that.
- We are not interested in the "official stance" but in the interpretation based on law. Copyright exceptions under article 4 are pretty strong and have a clear goal to protect recipients of official material from any kind of copyright claims. Official material may be part of the public information, where public offices are obliged to provide to interested parties (as per Consititution and Freedom of Information Act) and it is understandable that if public office is mandated to disseminate some materials they cannot violate copyright law while executing FOIA law. There are numerous attempts to limit access to official material (charging fees, claiming copyright or other intellectual property), but so far there are only specific limits to distribution of official material (that do not apply here, like state secrets and some exceptions in the FOIA law). Just because various officials make non-binding claims against the text and the spirit of article 4 of the copyright law it does not mean they are the correct interpretation. The comment you have linked to is correct; Kancelaria Sejmu manages some part of Skarb Państwa rights in a limited manner; in fact, the comment says that Kancelaria acquires copyrights from third parties by the means of employment ("nabycia przez pracodawcę praw do utworu pracowniczego") or by copyright assignment ("bądź na podstawie umowy o przeniesienie autorskich praw majątkowych"). Please take note that licensing is explicitly not mentioned here. This comment also confirms that Kancelaria Sejmu cannot claim copyright on its own (it acts only on behalf of Skarb Państwa in a limited manner), so that the blanket copyright license is simply bogus ("nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet"). If there is any issue between the copyright holder regarding any official material published by Kancelaria Sejmu in its official capacity, it is to be resolved between those entities. Just like you are not requesting a proof from federal agency of the United States Government that the author of the material is indeed somebody employed by them. Copyright law in article 4 gives a pretty strong level of certainty for re-users of the official material, that those issues do not affect the re-use, irrelevant whether it is commerical, non-commercial or under CC licence like Commmons does. « Saper // @talk » 21:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the current defition of official material (the article in question states that Copyright shall not cover: (...) official documents, materials, logos and symbols) does not include photographs and other works that are not strictly documents, logos and symbols—though one can argue that, for instance, pictures of banknotes do fall under the term "material"—and this has been a stance taken by the various offices and agencies that I mentioned above over the years (including the National Bank of Poland, the Chancellery of the President, and even the Chancellery of the Sejm). And even though the Chancellery itself is not a legal entity under the Polish law, they claim that they can hold copyright to works simply by acquiring it from other legal entities (or natural persons). odder (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You claim that the images fall under article 4, and hence cannot be copyrighted as official materials or documents, but the institution that publishes them apparently does not agree with that opinion by publishing a copyright note on their website. (And I do not feel knowledgeable enough to judge its validity, I am merely stating a fact.) Since your comment does not change anything about the copyright status of the pictures tagged with {{SejmCopyright}} — we still do not have any evidence on whether they can be used for commercial purposes, and whether one can create derivative works of them — I believe that the reasons for deletion I cited in my original closing comment stand true.
- Just as with the Kremlin pictures I referred to, I believe the images from the Sejm website should stay deleted until there is an explicit permission to use them for commercial purposes, or an explicit statement that they do not fall under copyright and are in the public domain; until that time, I guess we should assume that they do fall under the copyright of the Chancellery of the Sejm (who might have acquired it "by means of employment or copyright assignment"). odder (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I am the nominator of the images/template for deletion, I can only support, given current information, the delete close by Odder. The desire to keep valuable images can never override the copyright requirements of this project. Unless there is a clear release, under COM:PRP we need to delete these images. I should also note that Art 4 P2 of Polish copyright law is analogous to the Russian example; which saw those images being deleted until the acquisition of a clear release. I wish someone would contact the Sejm and get such release, but we can't leave such discussions open forever on the project. russavia (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't read Polish, so I cannot comment on specific subtleties of the Polish law, but, as Russavia points out, Art 4 (2) appears to be very similar to laws in many other countries that makes certain official documents free of copyright. Our reading of such laws, and the case law we have seen on them, does not extend that freedom to ordinary photographs which happen to be published by the government. It is clear that there is significant doubt as to whether these images are free or not, therefore COM:PRP must be applied. It is up to those who would keep these images to prove beyond that doubt that they may be kept, and I don't see that here -- far from it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing again per Russavia and Jim; I believe that the points I raised in my original closing comment still stand true. I would also like to express my thanks to Jim for reminding us all about the weight and importance of the precautionary principle, which I am now applying to the images in question. odder (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I formally object to the express mode of this request. I only figured out today that there discussion continues and after 2 days it is closed again. This is not a consensus what we are having here and there is no search for a solution and a proper discussion on legal issues. « Saper // @talk » 08:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong formal objection for forcing per decision its own minority opinion expressed earlier in the same discussion, and mass deletion of ten thousands times linked files without explicit consensus, and against the large number of other opposition votes! --Alan ffm (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep this in perspective, please. Odder closed this discussion on February 3rd after it had been open for discussion for more than two months. His closing rationale was put forth at significant length and considered all sides of the argument.
It was then reopened, out of process. Rather than simply closing the discussion and removing the post-closing comments, as required by policy, odder, Russavia, and I allowed the discussion to continue. No new arguments were put forth. Those of us with significant Commons experience have heard these arguments before -- they have come up for almost every country that puts its laws and official documents in the Public Domain. Commons position and precedent is clear -- photographs of the sort under discussion here are not laws or official documents with the meaning of similar exceptions in most countries. Licenses must explicitly allow commercial use and derivative works, both of which are at issue here.
Please also note that DRs are not votes, they are discussions. The closing Admin, if he or she has good reason, must close a DR according to his reading of the situation even if it is against the wishes of all of the other participants. In this case the Delete side of this argument has at least four highly experienced editors with around half a million Commons actions among them. To be sure, the Keep side also has several experienced editors, but their points seem to have been addressed, at least to my satisfaction.
Finally, please remember our Precautionary Principle -- it is up to those who would keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that an image is freely licensed according to our requirements. Whatever you say about this discussion, it is clear that there are significant doubts about the status of these images.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As Alan ffm wrote: I formally object, too. For me here is no doubts that Sejm alows everybody to make everything with the materials of their site. Only their authorship must be produced. So it is a free license, such a Copyrighted free use. I am of the opinion that it is clear for everybody who knows Polish legal lenguage... To be on the safe site and dosn't argue (from time to time) with persons who don't understand Polish and Polish law nuances I propose to transfer all such files to Polish Wikipedia. There is best place to consider the nuances of Polish copyright law in the native language for all Poles. Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- +1 - This is different situatuon as the Polish Parliament explicitly allows any use and re-use of the pictures only under conditions of proper attribiuton. Even CC-BY licence does not put it more clearly. Read for example legal code of CC-BY. It also does not clearly allow commercial use. It just allow any use and re-use. Moreover in many jurisdictions all copyright licences are revocable (including Poland) and the non-revocable claim has no any legal meaning. So, both Odder's arguments: revocability and no clear statement of commercial use hit also CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licences in many jursdictions. So, should we delete all the files marked "CC-BY" and "CC-BY-SA" in countries where non-revocable licences are not allowed?? Polimerek (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously creating a bit of consternation with Polish Wikipedia editors, and rightly so, but the distress is being directed at the wrong people; i.e. the various organs of Polish government for not being open to the concept of free licences. This is the same consternation that Russian Wikipedia editors had when all of the Kremlin.ru images were deleted some years ago. Honestly, the Polish Wikipedia community, and perhaps Wikimedia Poland, need to lobby the various Polish government departments to embrace Creative Commons licencing; it simply needs dedicated editors to do this lobbying, and to do so in the right way. With Polish government, we have the "The Law on Access to Public Information" (Ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej) which Polish citizens can use to their advantage -- this law basically dictates that government department have 14 days to respond to requests from the public -- User:Odder is knowledgeable on this aspect, given that he contacted the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs at my suggestion after I unsuccessfully asked for them to relicence an image on their flickr stream -- this is still in progress. After the Kremlin images were deleted a few years ago, I wrote to the Kremlin and requested that they relicence their materials under a CC licence. This is the result. I have left a copy of the letter that I wrote to the Kremlin at en:User:Russavia/letter -- as you can see, it outlines the issues, and why their images are important to us. I have offered to help Polish Wikipedians to write up a similar request to the Sejm, but sadly, none has taken me up on that offer. So I am stating again for the record, that if Polish Wikipedians wish to work with me on a draft letter to the Sejm, which can be provided to them in both English and Polish, I am more than happy to assist with this, because like everyone above I too recognise the importance of the images to our articles -- we need to make the Sejm aware of this. I sincerely hope that I do get contacted by some of you guys to do this, but if I'm not I would be disappointed. Also, note, that getting one organ of government to CC licence their materials can have a knock-on affect, as seen by Template:Premier.gov.ru and Template:Government.ru after the granting of CC licence by Kremlin. Please guys,get in touch with me. russavia (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It hardly make any sense, because the current copyright clause on Sejm web page is already an effect of pushing it to follow the mentioned law by us, Coalition for Open Education and Foundation "ePaństwo". And this statement is absolutely clear to anybody able to speak Polish and understand the legal language except Odder. In fact the deletion was made by him without any legal advice or discussion with anybody who has some knowledge about copyright law in Poland. Electron is professional lawyer, I am involved in Polish copyright law issues for years, also for advocating for changes. The same applies to Saper. Bu who cares... Odder POV is more important than the opinion of anybody else... I doesn't make sense to advocate for change of the Sejm clause - because it already allows for any use and reuse. It is obvious for anybody speaking Polish except Odder. So, should we ask Sejm officials to change the statement to make Odder happy? It is ridiculous. Maybe I will talk on Thursday with someone from Ministry of Administration and Digitsation about it [7] - but for sure - informally, because in fact there is nothing to change here from legal POV. This is not Polish goverment fault, that such kind of discussions on Commons tends to be crazy. Read again this discussion and show which - exact legal issues were in fact discussed... There was rather silly discussion of the meaning of simple word "wykorzystywanie" and then empty words of Odder that he "examined the clause". I would like to see more detailed results of his "examination" constructively discussed by other people having at least basic knowledge about Polish copyright law before such a harsh action was taken. I am 100% sure it was wrong over interpretation by Odder + missunderstanding the language by you and Jim. Morever I (and Saper) are pissed off with the situation because such a wild action weakness our negotiation situation in Poland. Who can take seriously a project which mass delete its own content without any good reason, although it advocated before to change the copyright note of Sejm web page??? Polimerek (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have followed some of what is occurring surrounding this issue, both on Commons and on WikiPL-l, and I am dismayed at the amount of bad faith flying around, and the number of personal attacks that are occurring against editors on this project, and by editors who should know better. As it stands now, the images are deleted, they will stay deleted, and until such time as people start discussing this DR in such a way that the discussion is entirely on the issues, rather than on editors, I really can't be bothered discussing any further the issues which existed with the "licencing" (I would not have nominated them otherwise); everything was clearly explained in the nomination, and in the close, and it is all within Commons' licencing policy (especially the irrevocable part which everyone seems to have totally forgotten about). If anyone wishes to request undeletion, COM:UNDEL is that way. End of discussion from me on this matter, until people stop with personal attacks on others. russavia (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Funny how you fail to address any of Polimerek's points. tsca (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note that normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights. That's the principal law. See {{PD-Polishsymbol}} for details. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)