Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
There is no evidence this is the uploader's own work. Indeed, the exif info militates against it. This picture is on multiple websites, including http://www.starswelove.com/celebrities/ericmccormack/photos-pictures/39660/. Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
yes i messed up Ron Jeremy906 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
He hehehJock hick lxhslcjcdweocchejwncdvfvslefvjjksccoccdwrdcdhunjdccdcuyjccccjcmcnui cmnc jkvfkjdcdc 217.251.111.138 09:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Hoax request. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Gallery without images or other media files. MehdiTalk 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close. Please do not use {{Delete}} for simple housekeeping. {{Speedy}} uses fewer resources. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already uploaded an SVG of this sign, see [1] Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already uploaded an SVG of this sign, see [2] Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already uploaded an SVG of this sign, see [3] Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear license data. Work's sources (i. e. SHASSA) prohibit commercial use of the image without explicit permission (http://amundsen.swarthmore.edu/ack.html) 2.94.162.51 01:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
not in scope: not useful as nearly identical but poorer quality than File:Windrad OSZ TIEM 2.JPG. ELEKHHT 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator, out of scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, out of scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, out of scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, out of scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, out of scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, fails to meet requirements here. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Ieyasu2.png. Froztbyte (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
doubtful own work as found on different websites AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's an image of Hindu goddess Kali. Definitely not the user's own work. Many sites have higher quality versions of this file (e.g. http://www.spiritualbangalore.com/knowledge-center/articles/goddess-durga-form-and-weapons/ ). Without the original source it can't be used as PD -- Meisam (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
doubtful own work as found on different websites AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely not user's own work. Different versions of file with higher quality are available on the web (http://newswali.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/kali.gif) -- Meisam (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, fails to meet requirements here. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no clear educational use -Pete F (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, fails to meet requirements here. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, fails to meet requirements here. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not "hexanol" but rather "cyclohexanol", and we already have a bunch of as-good and better-resolution (in modern raster fileformat and also vector) in Category:Cyclohexanol DMacks (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Very poor quality. --Leyo 10:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete wrong name, terrible quality (digitally re-sized jpg), inappropriate format -- Meisam (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Esta foto donde se muestra al musico en el Establecimiento Joanico, formo parte del disco "Noches" presentado en Australia..JPG
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Long tagged for low-quality; unused, replaceable by File:3-Indoxylsulfuric acid.PNG DMacks (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In addition, {{BadJPG}}. --Leyo 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems a copyrighted poster to me. Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Seems likely to be copyright Emirates Environmental Group --moogsi(blah) 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems a copyrighted poster to me. Lymantria (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely the work of the uploader - seems to be a screenshot from. Tv screen or some magazine scan 188.104.114.188 06:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a grab from a video --moogsi(blah) 15:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Author's request, no usage, low quality Ivar (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Many other pictures of the subject --moogsi(blah) 15:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
ISBN search reports publication date of 10/28/2005, definitely not PD-pre-1923 as uploader asserts DMacks (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, copyright violation -Pete F (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Simple formula would better go as TeX, with which I replaced it at en:Leaching (chemistry) DMacks (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
PD-art is wrong, definitely not 2-dimensional. FA2010 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
According to w:List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines, this is a building from 2006. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to w:List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines, this shows the interior of a building from 1993. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to w:List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines, this shows the exterior of a building from 1991. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. Respectfully submitted, no objection to the deletion.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to w:List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines, this shows the exterior of a building from 1991. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to w:List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines, this shows the interior of a building from 2003. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Description says all rights reserved. Funfood ␌ 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Official logo/seal, no evidence of permission GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, {{BadGIF}}, replaced by single structures in Category:Naphthylamine, not used anywhere. Leyo 13:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
because it's mine and i want to change something on it, please delete it! Greentrancer (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I put a speedy delete request on it for you. That should remove it easier. These discussions are for more controversial deletion requests.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Jmabel Morning ☼ (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused, small and out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --moogsi(blah) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an incomplete drawing. Not really helpful. Sreejith K (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
löschen oder Kamerastandort ändern in 53 41´ 38,00´´N 13 15´ 06,27´´O Dguendel (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000 Jump to: navigation, search Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost certaninly not work of the uploader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BokicaK (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Subject is uploader, claims own work. Also SPAM . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is pictured, therefore not own work as claimed, SPAM . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
SPAM, violates COM:ADVERT . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
SPAM, violates COM:ADVERT . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dark image which is of no real use. Sreejith K (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't look salvageable in any way, plenty of other pictures of the subject including a night shot, File:Millennium_Force_lift_hill_at_night.jpg --moogsi(blah) 16:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
per description: Foto: Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR, no permission Morning ☼ (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Copied from Facebook FBMD in meta. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No hint of why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Though the "source" copy of this image is on :en since some years, IMO the statement "Picture by Juan F. Ricci (© 2004)" is not enough evidence to consider this image to be in the PD. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this one because the attention seems to be on the campaign literature as a whole, but does this one exceed the Commons de minimis standard? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I believe the main focus is on the copyrighted book cover. -Pete F (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not realistically useful for educational purposes. Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Jonund (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be copied (and converted from GIF to PNG) from http://flagspot.net/flags/it-ven.html which predates (to at least 2005) the 2006 upload to enwiki. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no clear educational value -Pete F (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No sirve para ilustrar artículos, es un asunto personal... Laura Fiorucci (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination: The file not even used on a user page, and it is difficult to see how the file would ever qualify under COM:SCOPE. --Closeapple (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
scan of a newspaper article uploaded as "own work" 67.230.148.138 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Promotional content. MehdiTalk 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
full page newspaper scan uploaded as "own work" 67.230.148.138 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning ☼ (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo of user; several vanity entries (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezatullah_Zaki) since deleted 67.230.148.138 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image used only for vandal attack on Commons:Featured pictures page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image used only for vandal attack on Commons:Featured pictures page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image used only for vandal attack on Commons:Featured pictures page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Exit metadata suggests the uploader is not the copyright holder. Jespinos (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a screenshot from a video. Likely a false claim of authorship. Jespinos (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Same picture has used in here in 12 September 2010. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for sculptures in Taiwan Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Note Undeleted per request. Ellywa (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The person depicted by the bust died in 1957 as per Mandarin Wikipedia (w:zh:靳珩). See this Village Pump/Copyright discussion. Latest correspondences from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reaffirmed that the non-commercial restriction for Taiwanese non-architecture extends to photographic reproductions like this image file. Since this photo shows the artwork intentionally, this cannot benefit from Taiwanese de minimis (in which the artwork must be incidental or at background). Correspondences in Chinese: [4] and [5]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Bilobalide.svg. Leyo 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure - there is much better svg version of it. I think such old files - if they have better replacement can be deleted automatically. Polimerek (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Polimerek. I'm not sure how this is being used on 2 pages (an en-wp user page and a pl-wp page) so perhaps a little consideration for that use is needed. But there is no need for the file to be kept. -Pete F (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Info There is no use in pl-wp (seems to be a software bug). The en-wp page is only for maintenance. --Leyo 09:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The one use on enwiki has been replaced. Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture in Maribor (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Jonund (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep, issues have been addressed since nomination -Pete F (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Pete F and withdrawal by nominator whym (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted as it appears on the watermark. Sreejith K (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No explanation whi it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Smaller version of File:Acheron River Canyon (1997).jpg. The user who created it (Harrygouvas at Greek Wikipedia) said that the other picture, the one without the watermark, has also the correct description. C messier (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate image — Habib M'HENNI [Message] 20:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Gottwald from Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R90009, Budapest, II. Weltfestspiele, Festumzug, tschechische Delegation.jpg
[edit]This image was cropped from a freely-licensed Bundesarchiv photograph, but in the original photograph, this image is just a foreign de minimis element. Anyway, we do not know the author and copyright status of this photograph. Mormegil (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Nicht erkennbar das das ist, keine Beschreibung 84.58.147.108 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Was ist das ? 84.58.191.72 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep kein zulässiger Löschgrund - es gibt Kategorien wie "unidentified locations" und Unterkategorien. Verbessern > Löschen. darkweasel94 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität, keine Beschreibung, Gebäude unbekannt. 84.58.147.108 18:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ohne Beschreibung, Farbverfälschung. 84.58.147.108 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ohne Beschreibung, Gebäude kann nicht kategorisiert werden. 84.58.147.108 18:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ohne Beschreibung, unscharf, Farbverfälschung. 84.58.147.108 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität, kann nicht eingeordnet werden, Farben verfälscht 84.58.191.72 23:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Question Do we have better photos of the same scene? If yes, it can certainly be deleted. darkweasel94 05:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ohne Beschreibung, unscharf, Farbverfälschung. 84.58.147.108 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Unscharfes Beild, verrauscht, störendes Brückenteil. 84.58.147.108 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Unscharfes Beild, verrauscht, störendes Brückenteil. Pedelecs (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Really, bad composition. The bridge parts spoil the view. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In welcher Kirche befindet sich das Kirchenfenster? 84.58.147.108 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Keine Beschreibung, schleche Bildqualität - This file has no description, and may be lacking other information. 84.58.147.108 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ohne Beschreibung 84.58.144.3 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Peab wikibildny.png. Froztbyte (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: WM's crappy thumbnail generation (the usual reason for having a png AND a jpg) works fine for this non-photo image, the jpg is superfluous --moogsi(blah) 08:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Exif mentions photographer Oliver Kraus, Flickr source is from LG company. Funfood ␌ 14:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As this search result, It seems like the photographer did not independently publish this image from LG company but he took the image as a employed photographer. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: the Flickr account belongs to LG Morning ☼ (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
To me, the composition here cannot be PD-ineligible as it contains many, many different elements. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's a pretty standard poster used for a one-time demonstration. It seems unlikely to me that the author will ever become known or that the organization which created it would ever claim copyright on this flyer. Especially since the organization it was created for has not existed in several decades. I do not see anything here that is incredibly unique and unable to be replicated in Word with 10 minutes of effort. I also do not think there is any realistic chance that the original author intended to claim copyright - although I concede that it is impossible to know what the original author intended without asking them directly. All of that said, it is not an article critical image nor one that I feel very strongly about - just wanted to offer my two cents as the uploaded. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think that "many, many different elements" is slightly misleading. There are six posters, perhaps we could cut them up into six derivatives if that solves the issue? Individually there is little here beyond basic printed words. As for the organization, Queer Nation described itself as a loose collection of groups and individuals. There was no intention for QN to have copyright over campaign materials which were printed to be used freely and widely by volunteers (who were not "members"). In this regard the idea of now restricting these materials, against the benefit of public knowledge, due to overly hypothetical and wiki-lawyerish concerns for a form of creative copyright that nobody is here to enforce or request, would be an anathema to the organization - if it still existed. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this image should be kept as there is only vanishingly insignificant doubt rather than the significant doubt we require to remove this from public view. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This looks very simple and basic. I think PD-ineligible applies. INeverCry 00:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The book itself may have fallen into the public domain, but the artwork on this dust jacket has not; it is copyright. Sreejith K (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The artwork is File:Ernst Ferdinand Oehme - Cathedral in Winter - WGA16631.jpg, and the copyright for that has also expired. But since the UK effectively has no threshold of originality, I guess you could argue that Oxford University Press holds the copyright to the typographical arrangement of the title. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: LX is right, but the UK typographical copyright lasts only 25 years from publication. This is a 1986 book, so it does not apply. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Also, no author given. Jonund (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
CommentThe image shows only a gun barrel (?), a few flags and some buildings in the background, the latter competing for the focus of the image. --Jonund (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- So your complaint is now about the quality of the image? That's reasonable, but different from the nomination. I don't speak much Spanish, and Google Translate isn't much help. If this photo is from a place that has minimal coverage, it seems worth keeping to me; but it should be properly categorized. If there is reasonable coverage of this area, deletion may make sense. I would err on the side of keeping it, but would like to see it categorized by the uploader. -Pete F (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I originally meant that the image is out of scope because it doesn't depict anything that I think is of realistic educational value. I regret the unclear motivation. There are other images which give coverage of the place, see Category:Port of Mar del Plata (possibly a few images from Category:Libertad (ship, 1956) might also be used for the place.) --Jonund (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I am striking my "keep" !vote above. I don't really see the use of this picture, and if Ezarate does not come by explain, I think the file could be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I originally meant that the image is out of scope because it doesn't depict anything that I think is of realistic educational value. I regret the unclear motivation. There are other images which give coverage of the place, see Category:Port of Mar del Plata (possibly a few images from Category:Libertad (ship, 1956) might also be used for the place.) --Jonund (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- So your complaint is now about the quality of the image? That's reasonable, but different from the nomination. I don't speak much Spanish, and Google Translate isn't much help. If this photo is from a place that has minimal coverage, it seems worth keeping to me; but it should be properly categorized. If there is reasonable coverage of this area, deletion may make sense. I would err on the side of keeping it, but would like to see it categorized by the uploader. -Pete F (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As out of Scope. Badseed talk 10:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jonund (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It shows the ARA Libertad ship entering to port of Mar del Plata Ezarateesteban 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The ship is distant; we have a selection of good images of it. --Jonund (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not enough reason to deletion. Educational purpose could also be marine flags, i.e. --Andrea (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ezarate's Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jonund (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously within scope. Badseed talk 10:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Flickr license is no commercial use, and that isn't OK on this site WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just now contacted image's author, on possibly releasing the file "as-is" under cc by-sa 3.0. Please allow some ~14 days for a possible answer. [w.] 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No news from the photographer per User_talk:W.#File:Dramyen_.28Himalayan_lute.29_cropped.2Bedited_version.jpg Badseed talk 06:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Kann nicht eingeordnet werden. 84.58.144.3 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. INeverCry 20:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the journal switched to Open Access (using CC BY 2.0) only in 2013. Needs checking. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true.
- The journal (even before 2013) is owned by the Société Française de Parasitologie (SFP) - which document should be provided to certify that the SFP agrees with this upload? Jeanloujustine (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are several options, e.g.
- the SFP could put up the file (and others, of course) on their own website, labeled with a suitable license
- someone from SFP could upload it to Commons by themselves, using a suitable license
- someone in an official SFP capacity could send an email to OTRS with evidence of the permission
- -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The President of the Society, writing in a capacity as President, has provided a standard permission statement. OTRS ticket 2013012410012362--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are several options, e.g.
File not available at indicated source with this resolution (low-res is there); no indication of licensing. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced by low resolution image from website, according to [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide#Cover] and [Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline] Jeanloujustine (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those guidelines for the use of non-free images do not apply here on Commons, where only free images (i.e. usable by anyone for any purpose, at no cost, under some conditions like attribution and possibly share-alike) are allowed. So the question is whether this cover can be uploaded under CC BY, and if it can, then whether that also applies to the high-res version. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- But [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide#Cover] specifically states: "You can usually find low-resolution images on the journal's website (or on the publisher's website) that can be uploaded under our non-free media use guidelines". The high-res image is useless and thus I have replaced it by the low-res version from the publisher's website. Jeanloujustine (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is that we are talking about two closely related but nonetheless different projects — the English Wikipedia operates under guidelines that frequently differ from those on Wikimedia Commons, with the latter allowing only freely licensed files, or files out of copyright. For details, see Commons:Licensing. So as long as you cannot put the file under a free license, it would be OK for you to upload it (in low-res) onto the English Wikipedia, but not here. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I will request a letter from the publisher and get an OTRS Jeanloujustine (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS received, looks good. Clarification asked on whether it covers the full resolution or the reduced one. Stay tuned. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS permission is all clear. I suggest closing it as keep. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. Merci! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I will request a letter from the publisher and get an OTRS Jeanloujustine (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Also the derivative File:Allende,Cámpora,Dorticós 1973 (cropped).jpg
This photo was taken in 1973, and became public domain in Argentina in 1998 (25 years afterwards). It was not in public domain on the URAA date, so it is not free in the United States Cambalachero (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep PD in country of origin. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing. The file must be PD in both the country of origin and the US. The URAA issue was discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA Cambalachero (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Not PD in US. Jujutacular (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD in country of origin. Yann (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Renominating. Per original nomination, this work was in copyright on the 1996 URAA date in Argentina, so its US copyright was restored until 2069. Yann's closure was improper and did not acknowledge the reason for deletion - works on Commons must be PD in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, and move to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
This user and this users sockpuppets uploaded an enormus number of copyvios to the project. For sockpuppets see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_37#Suspicious contributor, the accounts User:Reanimator86 and User:Dynastes86 are soley created for doing copyright violations. But also the main account Anaxibia is not free of this. Most of the uploads are copyright violation, in the following list I excluded one camera that possibly is the users own camera and I excluded illustrations - although the "own work" claim on most illustrations is untrue too. The uploader never realy cared for removing the copyright infringements from the project, only a very small number of files have been nominated for self-requested speedy deletion on October 18.
| List of files |
|---|
* File:Oeneis diluta.JPG
(Files created with the same camera as sockpuppeteer Anaxibia excluded, this are the last 3 uploades, uploaded when Anaxibia and sockpuppet Reanimator86 where blocked)
|
--Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, user always uses a collection of sockpuppets to upload copyvios and disrupt the project. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robert Lach (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope.
- File:Robert Jerzy Lach - zdjęcie z 2001 roku.jpg
- File:Robert Jerzy Lach, zdjęcie własne, IGPIM, 2011r.png
Martin H. (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Awadhesh Kumar Karn (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private picture of user, out of project scope.
- File:Awadhesh Kumar Karn.jpg
- File:Awadhesh Kumar Karn, Bliss Ayurveda Private Limited Export & M.I.S. Executive., present.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator, out of project scope. --cyrfaw (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Christopher Vose (talk · contribs)
[edit]I am the creator of these images and hereby request that they be deleted as they have been used without attribution on Wikipedia multiple times in direction violation of the permissions I listed.
- File:Sullivan Silva photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
- File:Atiba Harris photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
- File:Tiago Ulisses photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
- File:Jacob Lensky photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
- File:Dane Richards photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
- File:Anton Peterlin photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg
Christopher Vose (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The attribution is Wikicommons. Mr. Vose is under the assumption that we have to include his name in the caption below each image when it is used on Wikipedia. If the English football project is incorrect that it does not need to be present, please comment. I also recognize that Mr. Vose wishes to remove his images from the commons may go beyond how they are being used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Gorlitz is one of multiple people who used the above images without attributing them to the creator, Christopher Vise, as indicated in the permissions of each image. He admitted his wrong doing on Wikipedia's football project. To avoid any further misuse, I again request that they be removed entirely. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012
- When my understanding was that attribution had to be included on Wikipedia projects, beside the photos, I agreed that they should be present. Now that I have been informed that this is not necessary, I have no issue with using them without placing Mr. Vose's name next to them. Ultimately, the questions are twofold:
- Does attribution have to be provided when used on Wikipedia?
- Can the person who gave the images to Wikicommons remove them from the commons?
- I believe that they may be used on English Wikipedia based on this understanding, at least until they are removed from Wikicommons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Gorlitz, you are using my work against my expressed wishes. Is tht ethical or moral? Furthermore, you are using them against the stated permissions? On what basis are you suggesting that you can do that? The discussion that you previously created has since been removed, or moved to some hidden away place where I am unable to read it, or comment upon it. To anyone reading this who is capable, please do as I have asked and remove my work from this site so that Mr. Gorlitz can no longer misuse my work or harass me. He has created a great deal of stress upon me, insulted me on numerous occassions, and I wish to have no further communication wih him, but he follows me electronically everywhere I go, and deliberately misuses my work. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 12:23 PM PST
- I am not using your work against your expressed wishes. Your wishes are contradict the terms under which you released your images.
- I'm sorry if you feel insulted, it was unintentional if it happened on my part.
- I'm sorry for your stress. I am not following you. You happen to be working on pages that are on my watch list because I watch almost every article related to the Vancouver Whitecaps and some associated with other football clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- My work stipulates that it requires attribtion. You removed my attribution. I asked you not to use my work without attribution. You again used my work without attribution. I asked you not to use my work at all without attribution. You again used my work without attribution. This has been going around in circles for days now. I've asked that my work be removed so that you can no longer use it without attribution. You say that you will use it without attribution until it is removed. How is this not going against my expressed wishes?
- I have been consistent, while you have a changeable personality. You have said one thing, such as that it would be unethical to use my work against my wishes, and then you use it against my wishes, and now you say that you are not using it against my wishes. You say that you are not following me. You have again posted on my talk page. You're commenting here. Everywhere I go on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you pos after me wthin hours, sometimes minutes. I do not appreciate your tone, actions, and would like no further contact with you, but I am required to defend myself and my work until such time as someone can please, mercifully, remove my work, and let me go in peace. I want nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Mr. Gorlitz has created a highly antagonistic state or me on these sites, and it is causing me considerable stress. I don't like to be bullied, harassed, or to have my work misued.
- Mr. Gorlitz, please leave me alone. I say again, Mr. Gorlitz, please leave me alone.
- To anyone reading this, please remove my images as soon as possible. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 1:12 PM PST
- My understand has changed over time. When I removed your attribution, I felt it was self-serving and unnecessary. Then I changed to your position when I assumed that what you were saying was correct in terms of requiring your name to be presented below every instance of your image. I have since discovered that this interpretation was incorrect and so now believe that the attribution made on the image pages is sufficient. I am not hounding you, simply responding your comments. Your work is being used exactly as you requested. No bullying. No harassing. No misuse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You removed my attribution without reading the permission section. It was only after I pointed it out that you changed your mind for the first fo several times. What makes you currently believe that what you are doing is ethical, moral, and legal? In any event, I cretaed these images, and no longer wish them to be used. That it is my understanding that they are being used inappropriately is secondary to my desire to have my work removed. -- Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 1:52 PM
- I did remove your attribution without going to the commons to read your request since I have never seen this in my eight years of editing, and I found it unusual at the very least. What makes you think that your interpretation of how several editors have explained to you is incorrect and your interpretation of events correct? They are being used correctly. Your desire to remove them is based on your misunderstanding of the copyright that you originally released them under. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have not seen one person other than yourself write that it was correct to not give attribution when permission to use an image requires attribution. I am the creator of these images and I would like them removed. I want nothing more to do with you Mr. Gorlitz. I simply want my work to be removed from this sit.
- If anyone is capable, please remove my work from this site so that Mr. Gorlitz will have no reason to continue to harass me or misuse them. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 2:40 PM PST
- I'm sorry you missed them. PeeJay2K3 made two such statements, and you responded to the first: [6] [7]. Reasons were presented when the editor remove your attribution from the articles. Koncorde did as well [8]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did remove your attribution without going to the commons to read your request since I have never seen this in my eight years of editing, and I found it unusual at the very least. What makes you think that your interpretation of how several editors have explained to you is incorrect and your interpretation of events correct? They are being used correctly. Your desire to remove them is based on your misunderstanding of the copyright that you originally released them under. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. Gorlitz, you are using my work against my expressed wishes. Is tht ethical or moral? Furthermore, you are using them against the stated permissions? On what basis are you suggesting that you can do that? The discussion that you previously created has since been removed, or moved to some hidden away place where I am unable to read it, or comment upon it. To anyone reading this who is capable, please do as I have asked and remove my work from this site so that Mr. Gorlitz can no longer misuse my work or harass me. He has created a great deal of stress upon me, insulted me on numerous occassions, and I wish to have no further communication wih him, but he follows me electronically everywhere I go, and deliberately misuses my work. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 12:23 PM PST
- When my understanding was that attribution had to be included on Wikipedia projects, beside the photos, I agreed that they should be present. Now that I have been informed that this is not necessary, I have no issue with using them without placing Mr. Vose's name next to them. Ultimately, the questions are twofold:
- Mr. Gorlitz is one of multiple people who used the above images without attributing them to the creator, Christopher Vise, as indicated in the permissions of each image. He admitted his wrong doing on Wikipedia's football project. To avoid any further misuse, I again request that they be removed entirely. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012
- I Christopher Vose am the creator and would like for the images listed above to be removed from this site. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 2:51 PM PST
- Keep - The author irrevocably released these images when he uploaded them, and agreed that a hyperlink was sufficient attribution. There are no policy-based grounds for deletion because of sour grapes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. I am considering all options at this time, but I will again request that these images be removed. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:30 PM PST
- You disagree that there is "no policy-based grounds for deletion"? That's fine, please quote me the policy that allows images to be deleted simply because the author/uploader wants to take his ball and go home. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. I am considering all options at this time, but I will again request that these images be removed. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:30 PM PST
- Keep properly uploaded and licensed images in Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I again ask that it be removed to avoid any further complications. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:55 PM PST
- "I am considering all my options", "avoid any further complications". What, exactly, are you implying with these comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I again ask that it be removed to avoid any further complications. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:55 PM PST
- Keep, licensing clearly explained during the upload process. Even if he failed to understand it, he has his full name in the file name, a far better attribution to the individual photographer than text in an image caption where the image is used. --versageek (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I know I don't come here often, and when I do it's for something over at en.wiki, but there's no reason to delete these images. The user uploaded them without reading the clear text under the edit window, that's not our fault. He should have done his research before uploading if he was going to need attribution like this. Sorry, it's harsh but true. Gwickwire (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep unless this turns into another Xanderliptak case. The model for this could be the way the user David Shankbone labels his pictures, for example File:5.3.10GlennBeckByDavid-Shankbone.jpg. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the Xanderliptak Case, but a cursory search indicated that he was a user banned for some reason. Did Wikipedia and Wikimedia use his work against his wishes too? Doesn't seem like much an advert, please, come, contribute, we'll use your stuff, not credit you, and then ban you for it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 6:11 PM PST
- Xanderliptak uploaded a great number of heraldic images, then attempted to retroactively change the licensing on them to something that not compatible with the license he uploaded them under. In the process, he created a great deal of disruption both here and on English Wikipedia, and he was eventually banned on both projects because of it.
Your categorization of the process here is, of course, totally incorrect. "Please come, contribute, share your work with the world under these licenses that you agree to, and attribution will be via a hyperlink to the image's page, which contains your name as author." That you, apparently, didn't bother to read any of the language that told you of this is, frankly, not our problem, it's yours. You should chalk it up as a learning experience and either continue to upload images knowing now exactly what that means, or go your own way. What's not going to happen is that we're going to change how it's done here because of your oversight. You need to get over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- During this dispute, I referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayelet_Zurer as precedent, where the image required atrtibution t be used. Attribution was given in the same page as the usage. It was one of several examples I have seen over the years, but saldly the only one I could remember by name. As a result of my use of that as precedent, attribution to Moti Kikayon was removed from the page that his work was used. I did my research. Unfortunately the examples I found were oversights, not precedents, or so it appears. Somehing ofa bait and switch. I find that my work can be displayed with in page attribution. I contribute. Then, suddenly attriution is no longer allowed in page. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 6:50 PM PST.
- Attribution on the image mentioned above removed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is our policy at en.wikipedia that attribution by hyperlink is sufficient. This means that having the image link to the page on Commons (here) with your information on it is sufficient. If you don't think so, then I'd suggest you go reread the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license, as it says we don't have to explicitly state your name if we hyperlink to the source (which does say your name). Gwickwire (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Attribution on the image mentioned above removed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- During this dispute, I referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayelet_Zurer as precedent, where the image required atrtibution t be used. Attribution was given in the same page as the usage. It was one of several examples I have seen over the years, but saldly the only one I could remember by name. As a result of my use of that as precedent, attribution to Moti Kikayon was removed from the page that his work was used. I did my research. Unfortunately the examples I found were oversights, not precedents, or so it appears. Somehing ofa bait and switch. I find that my work can be displayed with in page attribution. I contribute. Then, suddenly attriution is no longer allowed in page. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 6:50 PM PST.
- Xanderliptak uploaded a great number of heraldic images, then attempted to retroactively change the licensing on them to something that not compatible with the license he uploaded them under. In the process, he created a great deal of disruption both here and on English Wikipedia, and he was eventually banned on both projects because of it.
- I am not familiar with the Xanderliptak Case, but a cursory search indicated that he was a user banned for some reason. Did Wikipedia and Wikimedia use his work against his wishes too? Doesn't seem like much an advert, please, come, contribute, we'll use your stuff, not credit you, and then ban you for it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 6:11 PM PST
- Keep According to Commons:Licensing, "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." Mr. Vose does not have the right to reclaim ownership of his works, after he has released them, even if he feels he has not been sufficiently attributed. They cannot be used without proper attribution, and I do not know exactly the policy regarding this (though it has been asserted numerous times that a link to the page containing attribution is enough) but I don't think that is entirely relevant to this discussion, as Mr. Vose will need more justification to have his works deleted no matter what the proper method of attribution is. Rutebega (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked that my work be removed from this site. I have given numerous reasons. While several have said to keep, none have given a reason to keep files agains the wishes of the creator. It's six images, that were uploaded days ago, of former Vancouver Whitcaps FC players (Atiba Harris, Dane Richards) or trialists (Jacob Lensky, Sullivan Silva, Anton Peterlin) who are not current members of the club. The sixth (Tigao Ulisses) signed a contract, but never played a single competitive match for the club during his time there. I had planned to contribute images of current members, but obviousy that won't be happening now. Why do you want to create such aninomosity regarding photos that are out of date? - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 7:34 PM PST
- On the contrary, everyone who has said that images should be "kept" has done so on the basis of Commons policy, but none of your reasons have been policy-based. What you have said is that you don't want them here anymore, but what you fail to understand is that is not an acceptable reason to delete an image here. The "wishes of the creator" are irrelevant, considering that if we keep them, you're unlikely to upload any others, and if we delete them, you're unlikely to upload any others as well, so why, exactly, do you think you can twist our arms with the promise of more pictures? You had better face the facts, if you want to pursue a relationship with Commons to distribute your images, it's going to be on our terms and not yours. As I said above, if you're not interested, walk away and chalk it up to experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe I made any suggestion that more images would be forthcoming. Why would I give you more of my work if you're unwilling to give me the attribution I seek and listed under permissions while adding them to this site? It seems to me that you're quite content with the situation. You have my hard work. You're claiming you don't hav to follow the permissions I outlined while adding them to your site. I'm just looking for a resolution at this point that doesn't involve me any furter aggrivation. Which is why I would like them removed. Once the are off this site, we can go our seperate ways. It's the best solution for all, and the only fair one. If you have another solution where I don't suffer, I would be most pleased to hear it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 8:01 PM PST.
- Actually, what's going to happen is that we're going to keep the files you uploaded under an irrevocable license, and you're going to walk away, a little older and a little wiser. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe I made any suggestion that more images would be forthcoming. Why would I give you more of my work if you're unwilling to give me the attribution I seek and listed under permissions while adding them to this site? It seems to me that you're quite content with the situation. You have my hard work. You're claiming you don't hav to follow the permissions I outlined while adding them to your site. I'm just looking for a resolution at this point that doesn't involve me any furter aggrivation. Which is why I would like them removed. Once the are off this site, we can go our seperate ways. It's the best solution for all, and the only fair one. If you have another solution where I don't suffer, I would be most pleased to hear it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 8:01 PM PST.
- On the contrary, everyone who has said that images should be "kept" has done so on the basis of Commons policy, but none of your reasons have been policy-based. What you have said is that you don't want them here anymore, but what you fail to understand is that is not an acceptable reason to delete an image here. The "wishes of the creator" are irrelevant, considering that if we keep them, you're unlikely to upload any others, and if we delete them, you're unlikely to upload any others as well, so why, exactly, do you think you can twist our arms with the promise of more pictures? You had better face the facts, if you want to pursue a relationship with Commons to distribute your images, it's going to be on our terms and not yours. As I said above, if you're not interested, walk away and chalk it up to experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked that my work be removed from this site. I have given numerous reasons. While several have said to keep, none have given a reason to keep files agains the wishes of the creator. It's six images, that were uploaded days ago, of former Vancouver Whitcaps FC players (Atiba Harris, Dane Richards) or trialists (Jacob Lensky, Sullivan Silva, Anton Peterlin) who are not current members of the club. The sixth (Tigao Ulisses) signed a contract, but never played a single competitive match for the club during his time there. I had planned to contribute images of current members, but obviousy that won't be happening now. Why do you want to create such aninomosity regarding photos that are out of date? - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 7:34 PM PST
- actually, the photographer could always file a DMCA takedown, and get an office action. why not be polite to the photographer? are these being used in articles? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- They have been previously published in print and on flickr. Thank you Slowking4, for your advice, and kindness. Text cannot convey how much it means to me that there is someone out there who does not seem to delight in causing me anguish over this situation. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 8:53 PM PST.
- (Edit conflict) The intention is to use them in the articles of the subjects related to the images. However, the photographer claims that we are not following the license and has been edit warring over them. First to keep them in the article with his name in the caption, and more recently, to remove them because he "requested that this image be removed from Wikimedia Commons" and "please cease and decist from the possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical use of my work". The consensus of the football project appears to be to wait for the decision of this request and to either include them again if the decision is keep or leave them out if the decision is delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there is no way a DCMA takedown complaint would be valid, as the author irrevocably released the images under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license at the time of uploading. Hence, no copyright, hence no DCMA, hence no office actions. :) Gwickwire (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm afraid Slowking4 is mistaken, DCMA takedowns are for copyrighted images which have been used without the permission of the copyright holder. However in this instance, we have the copyright holder himself uploading the images under a license which is made quite clear on the upload page, so there's no question that their use is valid. There is, in fact, no loophole that the author/uploader can wriggle through in this instance. He has the choice of continuing this childish insistence that he still maintains control of the images, or we can behave like a man and realize that he fucked up, and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Xanderliptak filed a DMCA takedown for his own works, and the office had to obey it, even though they knew that it was fraudulent. If the images had been good-quality photos, like these, someone probably would have filed a counterclaim and put X. in court, where the fraud would have been laid bare. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to give the game away, but since you already did... :) I got into a significant argument with certain people here, over that fraud. They apparently decided it wasn't worth bothering with, and deleted the images... along with issuing a permanent ban against Xanderliptak. Xander was trying to use commons as a way of advertising his online business, and when he wasn't allowed to do that, he raised holy hell about it. Likewise, Vose is trying to use wikipedia to get his name visible in articles. The parallels so far between that case and this one are interesting, though I'd be surprised if it's the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, much more likely it's just two people with the same motivation. The world is full of such people, more interested in their own glorification than in providing material for people to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you and me are the same way, as we likewise use our real-life names here. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- i didn't say that a DMCA claim wouldn't be problematic, merely that if he wants to have the last word he can go there and get the adult supervision. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you and me are the same way, as we likewise use our real-life names here. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, much more likely it's just two people with the same motivation. The world is full of such people, more interested in their own glorification than in providing material for people to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to give the game away, but since you already did... :) I got into a significant argument with certain people here, over that fraud. They apparently decided it wasn't worth bothering with, and deleted the images... along with issuing a permanent ban against Xanderliptak. Xander was trying to use commons as a way of advertising his online business, and when he wasn't allowed to do that, he raised holy hell about it. Likewise, Vose is trying to use wikipedia to get his name visible in articles. The parallels so far between that case and this one are interesting, though I'd be surprised if it's the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Xanderliptak filed a DMCA takedown for his own works, and the office had to obey it, even though they knew that it was fraudulent. If the images had been good-quality photos, like these, someone probably would have filed a counterclaim and put X. in court, where the fraud would have been laid bare. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm afraid Slowking4 is mistaken, DCMA takedowns are for copyrighted images which have been used without the permission of the copyright holder. However in this instance, we have the copyright holder himself uploading the images under a license which is made quite clear on the upload page, so there's no question that their use is valid. There is, in fact, no loophole that the author/uploader can wriggle through in this instance. He has the choice of continuing this childish insistence that he still maintains control of the images, or we can behave like a man and realize that he fucked up, and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there is no way a DCMA takedown complaint would be valid, as the author irrevocably released the images under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license at the time of uploading. Hence, no copyright, hence no DCMA, hence no office actions. :) Gwickwire (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. They're uploaded with free licenses by the uploader, and they don't show anything copyrightable, so there can't be any copyright-related problems with them. They've been used in WMF mainspace project pages, so they pass COM:SCOPE; please read that page's "File in use in another Wikimedia project" section if you've not already. They're good quality, and no evidence is presented that better-quality images of the same subjects exist. I can't imagine any situation in which we would delete our best images of an in-scope topic with no copyright issues; such a situation might exist, but I don't know what it would be, and this definitely isn't it. A DMCA takedown request is what Xanderliptak did, and note that this would be a felony under US federal law if Christopher tried it. Such a request includes a statement under oath that the content isn't legally hosted here, and Christopher knows quite well that its presence on Commons is legal because he put it there himself. It wouldn't be good on practical grounds, either, because (1) you'd probably get blocked for making a legal case of it, since we follow something comparable to en:WP:NLT, and (2) someone could easily file a DMCA counterclaim that would end up putting you in court and having the perjury made clear. Nyttend (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll offer one other possibility. Even though Christopher Vose doesn't have a leg to stand on, I suggest that we could possible delete the images (they're only 6 soccer players, after all) and then permanently ban Vose from ever posting here again under any name. Vose would have to agree that he understood that his ban was personal and permanent, and then he could go his own way, to find out that there's no market whatsoever for his pictures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would look at the long term consequences. Is it better to cut a little slack on six photographs and gain a thousand, or better to be a prig and drive a potential contributor away? Apteva (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Apteva, please go away, your advice isn't worth a plugged nickel. Furthermore, your logic is flawed, Christopher Vose is -- quite obviously -- not in agreement with the terms applicable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons, so it's quite unlikely that we'll "gain a thousand" from him, whether or not we give him "slack". If this is an example of your understanding of logic, it's not surprising to me that you're currently in a heap of trouble on en.wiki, with your appeal to ArbCom on the verge of being declined, and discussion on ANI going against you. My suggestion is that you fuck off, and learn a thing or two before you come back --- that will serve this project much better than your current uninmformed bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think his logic is sound. Leave the images as they are, and you have a disgruntled contributor who holds a grudge against Wikimedia. Remove them, and over time the negativity will fade and I may consider re-uploading them and / or different images down the road. I make no promises, but time heals all wounds. As you said, I am a little wiser for this experience and know more about the process, what's involved, and what kind of credit I an expect. The only thing guaranteed is that if they are left permnently, against my wishes, then it will take longer for this incident to be forgotten, if ever. Remove them, and I have no further concern, nothing left to fester. - Christopher Vose, 15 January 2013, 12:25 AM PST.
- Christopher Vose, you have clearly shown in every opinion you have expressed here that you have absolutely no concern for the Commons, and just want to get your own own way. You are, quite obviously, one completely selfish person, who has no consideration whatsoever for the greater good, and just wants what he wants. That's why I have two suggestions as to what should be done
- (1) Keep your photographs in our repository, because you uploaded them with an irrevocable license, and tell you to fuck off, or
- (2) Delete your photographs, because you're an asshole who's taken up more time than he's worth, and tell you to fuck off.
- As you may have perceived, the common ground here is that you should fuck off, because, frankly, you're not worth the time we're spending on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say the realistic options are these:
- The images are kept and used under the license, with no caption attribution, with or without the author's consent
- And... I can't think of anything else. Does anybody have a better option? We could ban Mr. Vose from the commons as BMK suggested, but I don't think it would accomplish much. The images can legally be used with only a link to the attribution, and there's no real reason not to use them since they're good. Oh, and we all know where this discussion is headed. Is there a snowball clause on commons? Rutebega (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say the realistic options are these:
- Christopher Vose, you have clearly shown in every opinion you have expressed here that you have absolutely no concern for the Commons, and just want to get your own own way. You are, quite obviously, one completely selfish person, who has no consideration whatsoever for the greater good, and just wants what he wants. That's why I have two suggestions as to what should be done
- I think his logic is sound. Leave the images as they are, and you have a disgruntled contributor who holds a grudge against Wikimedia. Remove them, and over time the negativity will fade and I may consider re-uploading them and / or different images down the road. I make no promises, but time heals all wounds. As you said, I am a little wiser for this experience and know more about the process, what's involved, and what kind of credit I an expect. The only thing guaranteed is that if they are left permnently, against my wishes, then it will take longer for this incident to be forgotten, if ever. Remove them, and I have no further concern, nothing left to fester. - Christopher Vose, 15 January 2013, 12:25 AM PST.
- Apteva, please go away, your advice isn't worth a plugged nickel. Furthermore, your logic is flawed, Christopher Vose is -- quite obviously -- not in agreement with the terms applicable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons, so it's quite unlikely that we'll "gain a thousand" from him, whether or not we give him "slack". If this is an example of your understanding of logic, it's not surprising to me that you're currently in a heap of trouble on en.wiki, with your appeal to ArbCom on the verge of being declined, and discussion on ANI going against you. My suggestion is that you fuck off, and learn a thing or two before you come back --- that will serve this project much better than your current uninmformed bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- ah yes what wonderful AGF: if you tell the world to fuck off, the world says the same to you. if you bite all the newbies, who will upload the football players, Shankbone alone? i spend a lot of time counseling expert editors who have been bitten, but i can't keep up with you all. how many pissed off photo uploaders are there? thousands? how many photos not in articles, which means the articles are worse off? more time than he's worth? i salute your omniscience. is it too much to ask to bend the rules to placate a newbie, and dispense with this wall of text drama fest? who is one in this case who has a history of edit warring? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about Slowking4? You want more photos, well so do I, but that's got nothing to do with this situation. The guy's already said he wants his photos deleted, he's already said he's not going to upload any more. AGF of what? That he's going to change his mind? Maybe we should prostrate ourselves at his feet and lick his toenails while we're at it, maybe them he'll honor us with more photographs of soccer players no one's ever heard of? Screw that, let him walk away and think three or four times the next time he uploads something. Maybe when he's a little more mature, and a little wiser, he might come back - I couldn't care one way or the other, and I can't see into the future any better than you can. What I can see is someone who wants to break his contract with us because he's pissed that we won't do things the way he wants. Start down that road and you put every single image here at risk of being pulled -- you don't want that, and neither do I. That's why we have to stick to the contractual terms. Vose uploaded those images here, and unless someone comes up with some policy-based reason why they should be deleted, they should stay here. I'm not interested in any of his other pictures, but I am interested in the integrity of this repository, which, by giving in to Vose, you would put at risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- what the hell i'm talking about is dropping the f-bomb, because you're irritated by a newbie. great, the slippery slope; policy trumps civility; "Maybe when he's a little more mature," maybe when you're a little more mature, we can have a civil discussion about your toxic attitude's harm upon the project. have you given any thought as to why there is an editor decline? why is it there is a spike of new editors during WLM, only when the screwed up upload process is streamlined, and photo subjects pre-screened. this history demonstrates the opportunity cost of the present toxic culture, as exemplified by your comments. if we want to cultivate new editors it will require civil interaction, til then the plateau (decline) will continue. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not "irritated by a newbie", I'm irritated by someone (anyone) attempting to use us to promote themselves and then digging in their heels and vaguely threatening legal action when they're told that they can't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree in part with what you say: civility is not an unreasonable expectation.
- However the only type of editor (content provider) that we will be losing if we don't enforce the copyright rules is more self-seeking editors. If we draw the line in the sand now, any other photographers who want to make a name for themselves may continue to do so elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Based on the number of photographs of footballers or soccer players that are uploaded, I don't think we'll be losing out by refusing contributions from this sort of editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- what the hell i'm talking about is dropping the f-bomb, because you're irritated by a newbie. great, the slippery slope; policy trumps civility; "Maybe when he's a little more mature," maybe when you're a little more mature, we can have a civil discussion about your toxic attitude's harm upon the project. have you given any thought as to why there is an editor decline? why is it there is a spike of new editors during WLM, only when the screwed up upload process is streamlined, and photo subjects pre-screened. this history demonstrates the opportunity cost of the present toxic culture, as exemplified by your comments. if we want to cultivate new editors it will require civil interaction, til then the plateau (decline) will continue. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about Slowking4? You want more photos, well so do I, but that's got nothing to do with this situation. The guy's already said he wants his photos deleted, he's already said he's not going to upload any more. AGF of what? That he's going to change his mind? Maybe we should prostrate ourselves at his feet and lick his toenails while we're at it, maybe them he'll honor us with more photographs of soccer players no one's ever heard of? Screw that, let him walk away and think three or four times the next time he uploads something. Maybe when he's a little more mature, and a little wiser, he might come back - I couldn't care one way or the other, and I can't see into the future any better than you can. What I can see is someone who wants to break his contract with us because he's pissed that we won't do things the way he wants. Start down that road and you put every single image here at risk of being pulled -- you don't want that, and neither do I. That's why we have to stick to the contractual terms. Vose uploaded those images here, and unless someone comes up with some policy-based reason why they should be deleted, they should stay here. I'm not interested in any of his other pictures, but I am interested in the integrity of this repository, which, by giving in to Vose, you would put at risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor..." comes right out of the CC licensing statement. WP may want to alter its image use and attribution practices in this regard.204.128.192.34 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read Gwickwire's comment: the license says we don't have to explicitly state your name if we hyperlink to a source that attributes you properly. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the anon wants it clarified to avoid this sort of discussion in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting a little murky. On the face of it, the IP would seem to have a point. I'd like to see some citations that clearly state the facts of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- No need, see the bottom of the edit window. Our terms of attribution say that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." So therefore, that supercedes their preference, as they've irrevocably agreed that a hyperlink blah blah is sufficient. Gwickwire (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- And when does someone who is thinking of uploading an image see the bottom of the edit window? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. Do you read the software licensing agreement before you click "I agree", or the one on the box before you open it? No one does, but they are both valid contracts which you are subject to, whether you like it or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- How does that verbiage override this? That's the thingie the OP quoted from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, it doesn't "override it, it simply specifies the required attribution in this manner:
MrPhotographer wants to get his photos out there, so he uploads them to Flickr. Flickr doesn't impose any licensing requirements, so when he chooses to license it using CC-BY-SA, he can specify exactly what attribution must be used if his photo is to be reproduced.
Now, along comes CameraMan, who wants to upload his photos on Wikimedia Commons. When he does so, he's agreeing to the contractual language spelled out on the upload page, and that requires that the attribution be made in the manner prescribed there: that a hyperlink to the image's page is sufficient. He doesn't have to agree to this, of course, he's got the option of not uploading here if he doesn't, but once he's uploaded it, he's agreed to it. He cannot afterward change that requirement to something more restrictive, because that's not what he agreed to. (I'm sure you remember that from the X case.)
In other words, the SA-BY-CC license says that users of the image have to attribute it the way the author says, and Commons says "If you want to put it here, you have to agree that the way you say is this way." That's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- That still sounds contradictory. Do you know if it's been "legally tested"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any contradiction at all. CC says to potential users that they have to follow the attribution provided by the author, we say, to the author, if you want to put it here, you're specifying this method of attribution. The twain never meet.
I have no idea if this particular set-up has ever been legally tested, but I believe the concept of box opening licensing has, and this is just a type of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." It doesn't say, "You only have to attribute the work the way commons says to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Again, two different things. The CC license says to the user "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", while Commons says to the author or licensor "If you wanna put it here, than the manner specified must be X". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- But you're not attributing in the manner specified by the author - you're attributing in the manner specified by the restraints commons puts on the author. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in a way that's correct, but not exactly so. The upload license forces the author to agree that X method of attribution is what he specifies. His option if he doesn't want to use X method is not to upload it here, it's really that simple - the author should upload it elsewhere, where that attribution is not required. It's a specific license, and the act of uploading is the agreement to the license. It may not seem fair that we force the author to agree to our terms, but - as you've said yourself many times over on en.wiki about "freedom of speech" - this is a private website and no one has the right to upload to Commons. Those who don't want accept the requirements here can upload elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think the mist is clearing a bit. In any case, it's clear from the upload process that you're donating to commons, hence losing nearly all control over it. The uploader's failure to read it are his problem, not ours. Here's the thing: If you upload something and then decide you don't like the picture, or whatever, you can get it deleted on request, provided it's not in use. Unfortunately for the uploader in this case, it was put into articles, which complicated the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was put into articles initially at the insistence of the uploader. I removed it because I didn't like the text attribution in the captions. The uploader restored them. I, and another editor then removed them. After debate on the football project talk page about it, two people explained that the license does not allow for it. One of those editors then restored the images without attribution, which started a second edit war and ultimately this request for deletion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It's a lot like the Xanderlip case. He's trying to use commons and wikipedia to promote himself, which is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was put into articles initially at the insistence of the uploader. I removed it because I didn't like the text attribution in the captions. The uploader restored them. I, and another editor then removed them. After debate on the football project talk page about it, two people explained that the license does not allow for it. One of those editors then restored the images without attribution, which started a second edit war and ultimately this request for deletion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think the mist is clearing a bit. In any case, it's clear from the upload process that you're donating to commons, hence losing nearly all control over it. The uploader's failure to read it are his problem, not ours. Here's the thing: If you upload something and then decide you don't like the picture, or whatever, you can get it deleted on request, provided it's not in use. Unfortunately for the uploader in this case, it was put into articles, which complicated the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in a way that's correct, but not exactly so. The upload license forces the author to agree that X method of attribution is what he specifies. His option if he doesn't want to use X method is not to upload it here, it's really that simple - the author should upload it elsewhere, where that attribution is not required. It's a specific license, and the act of uploading is the agreement to the license. It may not seem fair that we force the author to agree to our terms, but - as you've said yourself many times over on en.wiki about "freedom of speech" - this is a private website and no one has the right to upload to Commons. Those who don't want accept the requirements here can upload elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- But you're not attributing in the manner specified by the author - you're attributing in the manner specified by the restraints commons puts on the author. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Again, two different things. The CC license says to the user "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", while Commons says to the author or licensor "If you wanna put it here, than the manner specified must be X". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." It doesn't say, "You only have to attribute the work the way commons says to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any contradiction at all. CC says to potential users that they have to follow the attribution provided by the author, we say, to the author, if you want to put it here, you're specifying this method of attribution. The twain never meet.
- That still sounds contradictory. Do you know if it's been "legally tested"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs, it doesn't "override it, it simply specifies the required attribution in this manner:
- How does that verbiage override this? That's the thingie the OP quoted from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. Do you read the software licensing agreement before you click "I agree", or the one on the box before you open it? No one does, but they are both valid contracts which you are subject to, whether you like it or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- And when does someone who is thinking of uploading an image see the bottom of the edit window? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- No need, see the bottom of the edit window. Our terms of attribution say that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." So therefore, that supercedes their preference, as they've irrevocably agreed that a hyperlink blah blah is sufficient. Gwickwire (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting a little murky. On the face of it, the IP would seem to have a point. I'd like to see some citations that clearly state the facts of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the anon wants it clarified to avoid this sort of discussion in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, I'm dismayed to see User:Beyond My Ken has not been blocked for his disgraceful comments. Regardless of the issues at hand, his contributions here have been beyond the pale, and need to stop immediately for the sake of their intended target, plus anyone else who might be reading and get the wrong impression that this is how we want to treat image contributors at Commons. Second, Christopher, you're just going to have to suck it up I'm afraid as regards these few images. As much as it's sorely needed, Commons still cannot really decide how to handle the conflict between the irrevocable license and uploaders making genuine mistakes (as you've no doubt gathered by now). Just walk away - it's for the best. Anything else, especially vague threats of legal action, will only get you blocked. But whatever anyone has said to you in here, do not be under any misapprehensions - Commons welcomes images from anyone whether they do it purely magnanimously or want something out of it via credit. Commons is only interested in whether your images are yours to give, and are within project scope. So, I hope you stay and contribute more under the terms outlined and ignore any completely inaccurate attempts to portray Commons to you as something it isn't, understanding of course that attribution via the image description page here is the only thing Commons/Wikipedia policy and the CC-BY license demands. I think you might be surprised at just how many people do click through to the image description page to see the source, and therefore will find any information you choose to provide. At a minimum I'd say create your userpage and add details of any website or blog you want them to go to. As someone said before, posting your name in plain text on a Wikipedia caption as a form of attribution isn't going to do you much good in that regard, certainly not compared to what you can achieve via click-through, and certainly no more than using your name in the filename. Ultra7 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- there are a lot of old school photographers, who expect that attribution will be the same as print attribution in a caption under the photo. why not accomodate them? why edit war to remove their names from the caption? why bite newbies? you of course understand that hoping people stay after this tl;dr drama fest is a waste of breath. it is not reasonable to expect that outsiders will read and understand all the policy. they see "a database of 15,000,000 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." they don't understand the "go away you're bothering me" culture. blocking for incivility, LOL. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just remember that lots of books don't attribute under the photos; it's quite common for books to do all the attribution in an appendix, which is definitely comparable to what we do here. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- When you click "Upload file", there's a large blurb about "Contributing" to commons. You're giving your picture to commons with almost no strings attached. There's nothing ambiguous or "newbie-biting" about that, unless they don't speak English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- do really expect people to read a wall of text? how much different is this from prosecuting people for violating terms of service for downloading too many documents? too close for my comfort. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- At the very least, I expect them to read the big bold letters that tell them they are Donating their materials to commons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't expect it, but I'm not a professional photographer or even a wannabe pro. I agree that the copy used in displaying the license on existing images is misleading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You know, it's only really of concern to people who see Commons as just another website to exploit in promoting themselves. The vast majority of people who upload here are doing it because they want to improve the repository or just for the hell of it, and aren't concerned about the legal niceties. I've had a couple of my images used on websites, and it's fun to see your name when they attribute it, and disappointing when they don't, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference, any more than when I see my prose from en.wiki show up uncredited somewhere. In fact, it rather tickles me - I know I did that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- do really expect people to read a wall of text? how much different is this from prosecuting people for violating terms of service for downloading too many documents? too close for my comfort. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- there are a lot of old school photographers, who expect that attribution will be the same as print attribution in a caption under the photo. why not accomodate them? why edit war to remove their names from the caption? why bite newbies? you of course understand that hoping people stay after this tl;dr drama fest is a waste of breath. it is not reasonable to expect that outsiders will read and understand all the policy. they see "a database of 15,000,000 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." they don't understand the "go away you're bothering me" culture. blocking for incivility, LOL. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment2. Here's a suggestion, can everyone who doesn't really know what they're talking about regarding the ideology of Commons, just stop posting? The damage is likely already done, but whether you like it or not, Commons doesn't care one bit why anyone uploads images here - if you're not looking for credit or to advertise your skills, then good for you, but if you are, then whether you like it or not, the CC license framework and Commons can oblige through attribution, and we will welcome your images regardless. There are a lot of professional contributors here actually - hopefuly none of them ever read pages like this and get the wrong idea. This user made a simple error in what manner of attribution is acceptable, which is quite easy to make. The way he has been treated for that, is entirely unnacceptable. I think he's been insulted, smeared and degraded enough already, so will you lot just let this page close and go do something else. Ultra7 (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, some admin
please just close this nomination as "keep," it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of going any other way...but the rampant incivility here is not doing anyone, or the project, any good. It's unfortunate the photographer didn't pay close attention to the terms of use upon uploading, but it's also understandable -- no need to go calling people names. -Pete F (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of people have spoken much of it contradictatory, and often ending in swearing, or some other derogatory comment aimed at my person. All I’m asking is that my work be used under the terms I have set out, or not used at all (and preferably removed to avoid misuse). - Christopher Vose, 20 January 2013, 3:38 PM PST.
- And what you've been told, repeatedly, by numerous people, is that there is no policy-based reason to allow you to break the contract you agreed to when you uploaded the images. Why isn't that getting through to you? 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Christopher, it seems that some of my colleagues here are more intent on yelling at you than giving you useful information, which is regrettable. The point of contention here lies in the language you agreed to when you uploaded the files: "I,…, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license." That's the language in the upload form. It doesn't specify what "attribution" means, leaving open the possibility of differing interpretations. From the point of view of the Wikimedia community, we have been assured by legal counsel that the "attribution" requirement of the license is covered, if the photo links to the page here on "commons" that lists the file's creator. For instance, this page: File:Sullivan Silva photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg. I understand that your expectation was that your name would be listed on the same page as the photo itself, in the caption. That is a completely reasonable expectation, and matches common practice in numerous other publications. However, it's not how things are done on Wikipedia -- there are very few photos that carry attribution in that manner. The link to the page here on Commons has for many years been widely accepted as the proper means of providing attribution. Though I'm not a lawyer, I am pretty sure that you don't have legal recourse here; the principle of attribution-by-link is something that has been carefully considered by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. That's not to say that our software is good enough; it's unfortunate that you could get this far in the process without ever having been presented with a link that explains what is meant by "attribution" in the Wikimedia sphere. In my view, that should be corrected, to reduce the chances of having another situation like this. -Pete F (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well said Pete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, not well said at all, and, in fact, a totally misinterpretation of the rules, policies and licenses here -- please go back to Wiki-elementary school, 'cause you just failed your final exam. The more you encourage the misconceptions of Christopher Vose, the worse it is for Wikipedia, so I suggest you take a refresher course to learn what, exactly is going on here, and keep your mouth shut in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems strange to me that that an undefined term, which cannot be defined by the uploader during the upload, can be retroactively defined by other contributors after said upload. - Christopher Vose, 21 January 2013, 12:38 PM PST
- No terms are undefined, please don't be mislead by the comments of the uninformed, everything is quite clear. If the peanut gallery would shut up, the facts are this:
When you uploaded the photos, you released them under a specific license which enabled them to be used with an attribution to you via a hyperlink.
That's it. Period You can't undo the license, and you can't require that the photos be deleted. You're up shit creek without a paddle, and you don't have a single legal right to stand on, which I'm sure some legal eagle has told you already. If people who don't have the slightest fucking idea of what they're talking about would stop commenting here, this Deletion Request could be closed as a matter of course, and you could go about your way - and you would be quit of us and we would be quit of you. You won't get what you want, but the Rolling Stones did warn you about that, didn't they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No terms are undefined, please don't be mislead by the comments of the uninformed, everything is quite clear. If the peanut gallery would shut up, the facts are this:
- It seems strange to me that that an undefined term, which cannot be defined by the uploader during the upload, can be retroactively defined by other contributors after said upload. - Christopher Vose, 21 January 2013, 12:38 PM PST
- Actually, not well said at all, and, in fact, a totally misinterpretation of the rules, policies and licenses here -- please go back to Wiki-elementary school, 'cause you just failed your final exam. The more you encourage the misconceptions of Christopher Vose, the worse it is for Wikipedia, so I suggest you take a refresher course to learn what, exactly is going on here, and keep your mouth shut in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well said Pete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Christopher, it seems that some of my colleagues here are more intent on yelling at you than giving you useful information, which is regrettable. The point of contention here lies in the language you agreed to when you uploaded the files: "I,…, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license." That's the language in the upload form. It doesn't specify what "attribution" means, leaving open the possibility of differing interpretations. From the point of view of the Wikimedia community, we have been assured by legal counsel that the "attribution" requirement of the license is covered, if the photo links to the page here on "commons" that lists the file's creator. For instance, this page: File:Sullivan Silva photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg. I understand that your expectation was that your name would be listed on the same page as the photo itself, in the caption. That is a completely reasonable expectation, and matches common practice in numerous other publications. However, it's not how things are done on Wikipedia -- there are very few photos that carry attribution in that manner. The link to the page here on Commons has for many years been widely accepted as the proper means of providing attribution. Though I'm not a lawyer, I am pretty sure that you don't have legal recourse here; the principle of attribution-by-link is something that has been carefully considered by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. That's not to say that our software is good enough; it's unfortunate that you could get this far in the process without ever having been presented with a link that explains what is meant by "attribution" in the Wikimedia sphere. In my view, that should be corrected, to reduce the chances of having another situation like this. -Pete F (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- And what you've been told, repeatedly, by numerous people, is that there is no policy-based reason to allow you to break the contract you agreed to when you uploaded the images. Why isn't that getting through to you? 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of people have spoken much of it contradictatory, and often ending in swearing, or some other derogatory comment aimed at my person. All I’m asking is that my work be used under the terms I have set out, or not used at all (and preferably removed to avoid misuse). - Christopher Vose, 20 January 2013, 3:38 PM PST.
- Comment3. Christopher, please just ignore beyond My Ken's continued posts. He appears to be under the misapprehension that he speaks for everyone on Commons, but rest assured, he does not. His opinions, along with the nastiness that are seemingly an obligatory accompaniment of them, are entirely his own. I doubt I am alone in thinking that I would rather lose a hundred people like him from Commons, than one uploader like you, assuming you were able to accept that what Pete F has said is the sad truth - Commons may not be clear enough in explaining it, but the licensing situation is as he described. Ultra7 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may not like the way BMK is saying it, but factually he's correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, the disgusting way he has expressed himself here is totally unacceptable. If BMK is remotely pleased at the prospect of having treated Christopher this way just because he thinks he's right (which on many points, he's not), such that Christopher just walks way mightily pissed off with the site and never uploads again, then he doesn't have the best interests of Commons or Wikipedia at heart at all. And if you defend BMK for that, then you don't either. As far as I'm concerned now, whether it was his original goal or not, Christopher should now stick around and upload even more images, using the various accepted forms of self-promotion that do exist on Commons, as justifiable payback for the totally unjustified treatment he's received from BMK. While BMK might not like that, there's nothing he can do about it except throw out more abuse, but at least we get more images and Wikipedia biographies will suck a little less. Ultra7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may not like the way BMK is saying it, but factually he's correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ken, if you could see me, I don't actually open my mouth when I type, so telling me to keep my mouth shut is a misplaced metaphore. Based on the comments made by others, I'm not the one who should be keeping silent. If you can't accept the fact that there may be a flaw in the license agreement presented during uploading, perhaps you should investigate it further without commenting here. Several editors have agreed that there may be an issue with it and so they may just be right. I'm sorry you can't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The flaw is not really with the license agreement, it's with an uploader who wants to abuse wikipedia for the purpose of advertising his work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well that's a bizarre definition of abuse. Attribution through a credit line is the way its done on vast quantities of web based CC-licensed media re-use. And using images of subjects in biography infoboxes is also completely normal practice on Wikipedia, so you've got no cause to call that abuse either. Wikipedia's method of leaving attribution to the Commons url and thus the description page is certainly not standard, and I believe it's done this way for editorial/technical/aesthetic reasons rather than anything to do with free content ethics. The only purpose of a credit line is to tell people who made/owns the media, which is funnily enough also the whole point of all the attribution methods we do allow here. Christopher made a mistake on the precise method of attribution we do allow, but smearing of him for that as a self-promoter/advertiser is totally out of order. For the sake of repetition, whether anyone here likes it or not, Commons doesn't give a damn why anyone uploads images, as long as they're in scope and the licensing conditions have been followed. Rather than discouraging advertising or self-promotion, Commons allows credits in filenames, as well as facilitating navigation from file pages to user pages and galleries which can contain all sorts of info/links. These are just as (if not more) effective as advertising than a plain text credit line. They are however quite distinct from the forms we don't allow, such as NC licensing. Thus, if Wikipedia/Commons was as remotely interested in preventing people from using the sites to advertise/promote their photography skills, they would do more than just that, and would instead just restrict file descriptions to the minimum legal requirement - plain text author name plus licence, or worse, accept {PD} licensing only. Commons doesn't do that because Commons/CC licensing is about more than just magnanimous donation. The basic fact is, we allow attribution, whatever the potential benefits to uploaders. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know this site and is not acting in its best interests, whether they express these views to new users politely, or in the way BMK has. Ultra7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The complainant's complaint is without merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Which doesn't change the fact that your claims about their motives or about the supposed ethical preferences of Commons, are also without merit. And if we get no more images from Christopher even if he now understands why he's wrong, or if anyone else reading this page gets the wrong idea about Commons and chooses not to upload their images, then it's also a pretty pointless and self-defeating point to make in the grand scheme of things. Ultra7 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bugs -- (hi, by the way) -- Christopher's edit contribution history suggests that his first edits to Commons were the upload of his own files, and that he used the Upload Wizard. If you go through the account creation process, and then the Upload Wizard's steps, at what point do you see text indicating what is meant by "attribution" on Commons? On the pages displayed -- or even on a link on the pages displayed? I've looked closely just now, and I don't see it.
- I've worked on the Upload Wizard, the account creation process, and the terms of use (as WMF staff and, in the last case, as an independent adviser). And I have to say, I'm a bit dismayed to find that this information is not prominently visible in any of these documents/processes. It seems to me that we've maybe overlooked something -- if not from a legal standpoint, at least from a "being fair to new contributors" standpoint.
- If we are not clearly indicating the way in which "attribution" means something different here than many contributors would assume, I think Christopher's position is a reasonable one, entitling him to be treated with respect. Actually, even if he did miss something that was there, the level of disrespect he has been subjected to on this page is rather appalling. (That's not directed at you.) -Pete F (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- (I meant to mention: the one and only place I have seen this text is above the "save" button in the text edit interface. Not the image upload interface, the text edit interface -- which (a) Christopher may or may not have ever used, prior to uploading an image; and (b) refers pretty explicitly to "your contribution," I think best understood as the specific action being taken at that moment.)
- (Also, those interested in this topic may be interested in this 2009 survey about attribution models, conducted by WMF. It's also about text contributions, though. foundation:File:Attribution Survey Results.pdf) -Pete F (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- There have been uploads going on for like 10 years. Why is this suddenly an issue? Attribution occurs on the picture's page. It doesn't belong in articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Probably because the situation is more complex than your one-line summary suggests. Commons media hosted on CC-BY licenses can be re-used by anyone simply through a credit line - it's only Wikipedia re-use that doesn't allow credit lines (and only because they have the technical ability to re-produce the Commons description page). It's pretty obvious Commons and Wikipedia still don'y really explain this anomaly to new uploaders very well, so that's why it's still an issue after 10 years. Turning a blind eye to BMK type harrassment of the new users who still come up against this as an issue, instead of actually addressing it each time it comes up, of course also doesn't help. Ultra7 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The complainant's questions have been answered, and this should be closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Probably because the situation is more complex than your one-line summary suggests. Commons media hosted on CC-BY licenses can be re-used by anyone simply through a credit line - it's only Wikipedia re-use that doesn't allow credit lines (and only because they have the technical ability to re-produce the Commons description page). It's pretty obvious Commons and Wikipedia still don'y really explain this anomaly to new uploaders very well, so that's why it's still an issue after 10 years. Turning a blind eye to BMK type harrassment of the new users who still come up against this as an issue, instead of actually addressing it each time it comes up, of course also doesn't help. Ultra7 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The complainant's complaint is without merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well that's a bizarre definition of abuse. Attribution through a credit line is the way its done on vast quantities of web based CC-licensed media re-use. And using images of subjects in biography infoboxes is also completely normal practice on Wikipedia, so you've got no cause to call that abuse either. Wikipedia's method of leaving attribution to the Commons url and thus the description page is certainly not standard, and I believe it's done this way for editorial/technical/aesthetic reasons rather than anything to do with free content ethics. The only purpose of a credit line is to tell people who made/owns the media, which is funnily enough also the whole point of all the attribution methods we do allow here. Christopher made a mistake on the precise method of attribution we do allow, but smearing of him for that as a self-promoter/advertiser is totally out of order. For the sake of repetition, whether anyone here likes it or not, Commons doesn't give a damn why anyone uploads images, as long as they're in scope and the licensing conditions have been followed. Rather than discouraging advertising or self-promotion, Commons allows credits in filenames, as well as facilitating navigation from file pages to user pages and galleries which can contain all sorts of info/links. These are just as (if not more) effective as advertising than a plain text credit line. They are however quite distinct from the forms we don't allow, such as NC licensing. Thus, if Wikipedia/Commons was as remotely interested in preventing people from using the sites to advertise/promote their photography skills, they would do more than just that, and would instead just restrict file descriptions to the minimum legal requirement - plain text author name plus licence, or worse, accept {PD} licensing only. Commons doesn't do that because Commons/CC licensing is about more than just magnanimous donation. The basic fact is, we allow attribution, whatever the potential benefits to uploaders. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know this site and is not acting in its best interests, whether they express these views to new users politely, or in the way BMK has. Ultra7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The flaw is not really with the license agreement, it's with an uploader who wants to abuse wikipedia for the purpose of advertising his work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ken, if you could see me, I don't actually open my mouth when I type, so telling me to keep my mouth shut is a misplaced metaphore. Based on the comments made by others, I'm not the one who should be keeping silent. If you can't accept the fact that there may be a flaw in the license agreement presented during uploading, perhaps you should investigate it further without commenting here. Several editors have agreed that there may be an issue with it and so they may just be right. I'm sorry you can't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Gwickwire, the section of the terms of use you just quoted clearly states "When you contribute text…"
- I've struck my support of a "keep" closure above; based on what I have seen reviewing the text available to the photographer at the time of his uploads, I think the appropriate outcomes are:
- Delete the files, since it is unreasonable to assume the photographer would know how attribution would be handled based on the information we presented to him; and
- Consider improvements to our UI for uploads -- whether that is in the Upload Wizard, the Terms of Use, or somewhere else -- so that future uploaders are given clear information about how their uploads will be used. -Pete F (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- (to Gwickwire, but drafted before I saw the above from Pete, so posting anyway) I have a few points if you're going to start invoking the terms of use. Firstly, your statement "which are a part of what is collectively referred to your 'contributions'" isn't in the terms. Second, the section you quoted says "When you contribute text", not images. Thirdly, "d. Non-text media" actually directs people to read the policy page Commons:Licensing for info about "re-use and re-distribution". Fourthly, Commons:Licensing simply endorses CC-BY and says nothing about the "added condition that a hyperlink is sufficient.". So, with all that all in mind, this hypothetical new user who has both read our terms and is familiar with the standard CC-BY attribution of a credit line with their name plus this url, will in fact never find any statement to the effect that Wikipedia does not use credit lines when re-using the images they uploaded to Commons under the terms of the CC-BY license and the WMF's own terms of use. Ultra7 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to delete the images, then you need to also indef-block their uploader, as was done with the Xanderliptak case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Considering that the purpose of a block is to prevent harm to the wiki, not to punish, I have a hard time seeing what purpose a block could serve in this instance. -Pete F (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I believe that this contributor is now well aware of our licensing terms, so would not make any future uploads in ignorance. (Although we should still make those terms clearer for the benefit of all users.) Given the way the contributor has been treated in this discussion (and the related discussion on the English Wikipedia), I'd be surprised if they wanted to contribute further. For us to close the door on the possibility by blocking them would simply be sour grapes on our part. Bovlb (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment 4. This discussion has gone on for two long. Our job is to welcome newcomers and to provide a central location for files that can be used in all of Wikimedia. It is common for newbies to have false assumptions. It is unusual to name a file with the photographers name, but is a good way of assuring attribution. It is not unexpected that someone might think that their name needs to be included in a picture caption, and as that is not commonly done on Wikimedia projects, equally unsurprising that was rejected. That the photographer would be surprised and upset is not unexpected. Live and learn. A suggestion was made about the form of attribution that might be acceptable for this photographer. I suggest that the focus be to as amicably as possible close this thread and all of us move on. Most of us click accept on terms of agreement without reading them, simply because there is no alternative to get to the next screen, and a do over is often the best resort. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept. TLDR summary: Images are in use and licensed under an irrevocably free license.
- The images are of medium size, but of good quality. Some of them are the only image we have of the depicted person. Many of them are used in articles. All of them depict notable persons (even though they might not currently be playing for the soccer club they were playing for at the time the photograph was taken). All these facts let the images fall into our project scope, so an out-of-scope deletion is out of the question.
- The images are licensed under the CC-by-sa 3.0 license. This license has been given out by the sole copyright holder. The license cleary specifies, that attribution must be reasonable to the medium or means (CC-by-sa 3.0, Section 4 (a)). The author has also never specified anywhere during the upload process that he requires attribution in the image caption. Thus, the license grant seems to be valid and Wikimedia projects' use of CC-by-sa licensed images seems to be in accordance with the license text.
- Since the license grant is valid, the author cannot withdraw the license (CC-by-sa 3.0, Section 7 (b)). The fact that he seems to have had misconceptions about the license interpretation on Wikimedia projects is very unfortunate, but is not on its own a sufficient reason to delete the images.
- The user uploaded the images using the upload wizard, which is our recommended method of upload. While there might be room for improvement in regards to wording, we must regard the licenses given using the upload wizard as valid. If there should really be a serious wording issue in the upload wizard, which might invalidate licenses given while using the wizard, that should be discussed somewhere else and the outcome of this deletion discussion must be adjusted accordingly.
- The user seems to strongly dislike the licensing policy of this project. Furthermore, he has been seriously insulted by several contributors on this page. Despite his comments, that he might upload images if this deletion request is granted, I think it unlikely that he will ever upload anything to Wikimedia Commons again. It is thus counter-productive to delete the images, as it is unlikely that we will get more and better replacements from the user in the forseeable future.
Since Christopher Vose's conduct has been mainly unproblematic during this discussion, I see no reason to block him. I do, however, advise that legal threats against users or projects will not be tolerated and are a block reason on Wikimedia projects.
I am overall appalled by the tone of this discussion and even more by the fact, that nobody took any counter-measures. Some users' behaviour might at least have warranted a civility warning on their talk page, if not even a timeout block. I apologize to Christopher Vose that I and my fellow administrators have failed to keep the discussion civil. Please, when you are insulted in a way like this or when you are whitnessing such insults, report the discussion to the administrator's noticeboard.
Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've been in communication with the WMF legal department about the issues raised in this discussion, and it sounds like some steps will be taken to improve the interface. -Pete F (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Building-side.JPG
[edit]Wrong Image Used --19 MNA 69 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kala
- Comment It's hard to know what you mean by "wrong image used" in this and the related nominations. -Pete F (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by MBisanz Morning ☼ (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
MIPACT-interior.JPG
[edit]Wrong Image Used --19 MNA 69 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kala
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Impact launch.jpg
[edit]Wrong Images Used --19 MNA 69 (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kala
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Олег Целков.jpeg
- File:Сергей Сутулов-Катеринич.jpeg
- File:Поэт Элла Крылова.jpg
- File:Ella krylova.JPG
- File:Георгий Яропольский.jpg
- File:Евгения Семеновна Риц.jpg
- File:Евгения Риц.JPG
- File:Марина Кудимова.jpg
- File:Мурадин Ольмезов.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files missing EXIF, recent upload on Commons and available on several external websites (http://soyuzpisateley.ru/for-autors.html and others), unlikely own photograph by the uploader.
A.Savin 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bridges in Maribor
[edit]Modern bridges, built after 1945. Nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Dráva Bridge in Maribor.jpg
- File:Dvoetažni most.jpg
- File:Koroški most in študentski kampus.jpg
- File:Maribor nova ponto.jpg
- File:SLO-Maribor03.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 14:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Eliseu Meifrèn
[edit]Eliseu Meifrèn was a Catalan, hence Spanish, painter who died in 1940. As Spain has life+80 as copyright term, works of his are likely not in PD in country of origin.
- File:Cadaques de nit.jpg
- File:Campanar cartoxa Valldemosa.jpg
- File:El Port de Barcelona-Eliseu Meifrèn.jpg
- File:Eliseo Meifren y Roig Jardin con Flores.jpg
- File:Glaspalast München 1889 063.jpg
- File:Mar y puerto.jpg
- File:Marina Meifrèn.JPG
- File:Marina, Eliseu Meifrèn i Roig, Museu de Belles Arts de València.JPG
- File:Pisatge a contrallum.jpg
- File:Port Doqué, Cadaques.jpg
- File:Vista de Barcelona desde Tibidabo.jpg
Lymantria (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Silly Spanish law that isn't applicable in the rest of the world. --FA2010 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Many countries have unusual copyright laws -- Spain is by no means alone, nor is it the longest copyright term among major countries. We honor them all. If you think we should not obey them because they are silly, perhaps you should not be working here, notwithstanding your 85,000+ contributions to Commons.
- To avoid confusion, please note that the Spanish law changed to 70 years pma for creators who died after December 6, 1987, but the change was not retroactive -- 80 years pma is correct in this case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately, and copy the files to Wikilivres. Spanish law isn't particularly worse than British law, which says that no unpublished paintings enter the public domain before 1 January 2040, even if the paintings are several centuries old. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can File:Glaspalast München 1889 063.jpg be kept? It's from a German book. If it was first published in Germany, then we use the German copyright term instead of the Spanish one. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- But in the German book it was a derivative work of a painting in Spain, isn't it? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, unless the German book was the original publication. It is always very hard to verify whether a painting has been published or not, and this makes everything more difficult. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- But in the German book it was a derivative work of a painting in Spain, isn't it? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per consensus. INeverCry 22:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Eliseu Meifrèn
[edit]80 years pma rules in Spain. Meifrèn died in 1940. Undelete in 2020
- File:061 Vinseum, marina d'Eliseu Meifrèn.JPG
- File:132 El Marne, d'Eliseu Meifrèn.jpg
- File:A Village in Galicia Spain by Eliseo Meifren.jpg
- File:Bosque y río. Carboncillo sobre papel..jpg
- File:Carro y pueblo. Óleo sobre tabla. Eliseo Meifrén y Roig..jpg
- File:El Marne by Eliseu Meifren040.jpg
- File:El Marne, 'Eliseo Meifrén y Roig. MNAC.jpg
- File:Eliseo meifren.jpg
- File:Eliseo meifren2.jpg
- File:Eliseo Meifrén. Paisaje nocturno.jpg
- File:Exposicion Circulo Artistico 1902.jpg
- File:Marina by Meifren002.jpg
- File:Marina de Cadaqués (Cúmulos), Eliseo Meifrén Roig.jpg
- File:Mariscadoras by Meifren 003.jpg
- File:Meifren, Eliseu - Patio del pintor -ost MMBAV -fRF01.jpg
- File:Meifren, Eliseu - Patio del pintor -ost MMBAV -fRF02.jpg
- File:Noche en Cadaques by Eliseo Meifren 0003.jpg
- File:Nocturno (Colección Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza).jpg
- File:Paisaje de Mallorca. Eliseo Meifrén y Roig.jpg
- File:Plaza de París, por Eliseo Meifrén.jpg
- File:Port Lligat, Cadaqués. Eliseo Meifrén.jpg
- File:Silencio - Eliseo Meifrén Roig.jpg
- File:Venecia. Óleo sobre tela. Eliseo Meifrén y Roig..jpg
Discasto talk 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe not 2020, but 2021 (usually counts from beginning of next year).--Anatoliy (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahonc: Spain apparently is a special case. Strakhov (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Strakhov and Ahonc: However, as the categories "Undelete in xxxx" seem to refer to years, it's safer to undelete them in 2021, isn't it? --Discasto talk 18:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahonc: Spain apparently is a special case. Strakhov (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of company with questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --moogsi(blah) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robert California (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios, unlikely to be own work.
Jespinos (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete both. File:James Spader.jpg is a promo shot from Boston Legal --moogsi(blah) 16:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akiro Jiro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Header image sege.gif
- File:El fino coming soon sony.jpg
- File:Dj SEGE ES.jpg
- File:Dj SEGE.jpg
- File:World Landed Rec.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope.
- File:Coloqui internacional arquitectura sutentable NHAC.jpg
- File:Taller cubiertas sin cimbras NHAC.jpg
- File:Ciclo Conferencias 2009 NHAC.jpg
Ralgistalk 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
Hola Ralgis, ya en diciembre previendo esto, envié a OTHERS la carta en el formato previsto al efecto, donde el propietario de los carteles autoriza su uso bajo licencia de libre uso. Si es necesario la reenvío a la dirección que me diga. Saludos --Axxis10 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Photographs in higher resolution can be found on http://flagsofpeace.com/. Not sure what license they released them under but it's unlikely uploader's own work.
- File:Bandera de la paz -Costa Rica - Ibo Bonilla- 2.jpg
- File:Bandera de la Paz -Station Den Haag Central.jpg
- File:Banderas de la Paz - Museum Cafe 2.jpg
- File:Banderas de la Paz en Breda 7.jpg
- File:Banderas de la Paz en Breda 5.jpg
- File:Banderas de la Paz en Breda 3.jpg
- File:Banderas de la Paz en Breda 1.jpg
- File:Bandera de la paz -Costa Rica - Ibo Bonilla.jpg
- File:Bandera de la Paz de Costa Rica en Amsterdam.jpg
- File:Bandera de la Paz de Costa Rica.jpg
TFerenczy (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Machine translated message from the uploader (original's on my talk page):
- I see that you requested the deletion of several images of "Flags of Peace" for doubt with their licenses. This is an international collaborative project where all the participants donated their work and released the licenses for use. In fact the photographs in the exhibition in Holland, I took them from Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/flagsofpeace/) and edited them to give them more clarity. While in Costa Rica, the author gave me a copy of the flag of that country, which I photographed to upload it. I thank you in advance for your understanding and collaboration in order to comply with what is convenient.--TFerenczy (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not the uploader's own work, OTRS-permission from the copyright holders are needed. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Scentswordance (talk · contribs)
[edit]Mostly the images show source codes of uncertain copyright statuses.
- File:Barcode127.JPG
- File:Barcode126.JPG
- File:Barcode125.JPG
- File:Barcode124.JPG
- File:Barcode123.JPG
- File:Barcode122.JPG
- File:Barcode121.JPG
- File:Barcode120.JPG
- File:Barcode119.JPG
- File:Barcode118.JPG
- File:Barcode117.JPG
- File:Barcode116.JPG
- File:Barcode115.JPG
- File:BARCODE114.JPG
- File:BARCODE113.JPG
- File:BARCODE112.JPG
- File:BARCODE111.JPG
- File:BARCODE110.JPG
- File:BARCODE99.JPG
- File:BARCODE88.JPG
- File:Barcode77.JPG
- File:Barcode66.JPG
- File:Barcode55.JPG
- File:Barcode44.JPG
- File:Barcode33.JPG
- File:Barcode22.JPG
- File:Barcode11.JPG
- File:ATP2DBarcodeCounterforNORDIC2.JPG
- File:ATP2DBarcodeCounterforNORDIC.JPG
- File:JJTAG.JPG
- File:Bagong kaalaman para sa lahat.pdf
Jespinos (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ronyronyrony (talk · contribs)
[edit]Some images have distinct watermarks, uploader has history of copyvios.
- File:Памятник свинье в гРомны.jpg
- File:Площадь Ленкома прометэи.jpg
- File:Историческое здание Ромен, ныне ресторан.jpg
- File:Святодуховский собор города Ромны.jpg
- File:Святодуховский собор в Ромнах.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченку Ромны.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Belgium lacks Freedom of Panorama, therefore all depicted buildings must be free. The building at the left appears to be modern, certainly still copyrighted under Belgium's 70 years pma law, and so constitutes a copyright violation. cmadler (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I requested that the uploader provide information to verify that all buildings were PD, but he refused. I also attempted to crop out the copyvio modern building, but the uploader reverted. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- This is the kind of agressive behavior that we certainly do not need in Commons. Previously to this nomination, cmadler uploaded a cropped version of the image on top of the previous one (which was recently promoted to VI) without informing the original uploader (me). Also, please see here, where I "refused" to verify that all buildings were PD. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Even if the buildings at left are copyrighted, they are a minimal part of the image, whose subject is the Great Market Place. There are several other examples of this kind of de minimis use -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the inclusion of the building at far left is truly de minimis, then a crop to remove it should not be a problem. On the other hand, to nearly quote "de minimis", "if the
posterbuilding forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include theposterbuilding, there is likely to be copyright infringement". Given that this image is a panorama of multiple frames that were digitally merged, it certainly seems likely that the composition/framing was deliberate (and again, if not deliberate -- if the building is truly incidental -- why not just crop it out?). cmadler (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC) - The above logic is twisted, as applying blindly this kind of argument would automatically exclude all works in which the oopyrighted parts are identifiable! The subject of this picture is the Great Market Place, not any of its buildings in particular. Removing part of the image would ruin its purpose, exactly the same way as removing the Louvre Pyramid from this picture. Because the subject of the pictures (the place in one case and the court in the other) include those constructions as part of its space! This is very similar to consider a picture of a group of people on the street as a copyvio because Steven Tyler (who did not authorize the shot) is among them! Ironically, your cropped version would possibly be more problematic because the Great Place is hardly recognizable and some architect involved in the rebuilding may still be alive.
-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the inclusion of the building at far left is truly de minimis, then a crop to remove it should not be a problem. On the other hand, to nearly quote "de minimis", "if the
- Keep clear example of de minimis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donarreiskoffer (talk • contribs) 16. Januar 2013, 11:46 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC))
- Keep de minimis imho. BrightRaven (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a low-res version should be subsitituted as this is a copyrighted sculpture from 1980 despite the fact that the photo has been released. Blanchette (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The labels and arrow direction are scientifically and completely opposite as others previously mentioned CND VET (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Source is dead, new website does not have any listed T&Cs, and I wonder if the dice may be eligible for copyright themselves. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Licensing of this image seems to be based on Template_talk:Arjan --moogsi(blah) 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jonund (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A view of ARA Libertad and planes over it Ezarateesteban 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- CommentImage is blurry, you see only the masts of the ship and the planes are distant.
Derivative work of File:Flag of Veneto.png which appears to be non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As I stated at the corresponding DR: File:Flag of Veneto.png appears to be copied (and converted from GIF to PNG) from http://flagspot.net/flags/it-ven.html which predates (to at least 2005) the 2006 upload to enwiki.
- Keep - The latest revisions of this image are not properly "derivative works", they only took inspiration from the source image. --79.10.62.2 02:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Delete only the previous revisions. --Angelus(talk) 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely Keep - PNG version must be deleted --Pottercomuneo (talk) 18.39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question So I can see the obvious consensus here, but could someone please explain how this is not a derivative work of the original, since it doesn't seem to fall under the category of COM:COA? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Listed at Corbis as copyrighted and from 1953. We hope (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Corbis, founded in 1989, is a provider of stock photography and only has copyrights to a few hundred of the claimed 100 million in its inventory. They add a boilerplate copyright notice to all their photos regardless of their copyright. See copyfraud for explanation. For some photographers, they manage the rights as an agency, but still do not have any copyright ownership, hence they state "rights managed." In fact, the uploaded image shows more detail than the Corbis image, which would make sense since the auctioned photo was a true original, not a Corbis reprint.
- Per film still, " publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted and were intended to remain free for publications to use wherever possible." In any case, there is no photo of him renewed per a search during the required time period, 1980-1982. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per WikiWatcher. It would be good to capture this argument concisely in a template, and apply it to images like this, to avoid having to discuss this multiple times. -Pete F (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Photo is not from film's owner and is dated 1970. Film is under copyright. We hope (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- copyright to MGM/Venice Productions 15 June 1965 LP30828
Type of Work: Motion Picture Registration Number / Date: RE0000630513 / 1993-06-17 Renewal registration for: LP0000030828 / 1965-06-15 Title: Sandpiper. By Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. & Venice Productions, Inc. Copyright Claimant: Turner Entertainment Company (PWH)
- dated 13 February 1970 has a CBS tag as the network aired the film.
Other stills issued by its owner, MGM, have 1965 MGM copyright notices on them:
We hope (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You bring up two points. The first one is the same as for the Peter Sellers photo, that the movie itself was copyrighted. But as responded to there, movie copyrights are irrelevant for still photos. This is not a frame shot.
- The other point, that since MGM had notices on many other images from their stills, this one should be treated the same. I could agree, except that the photo is an original publicity photo, with border, marked on the back, and has no notice. The other photos clearly had notices. If this photo is treated alone, it would be PD. By implying that it's part of some group, it may not be. In any case, I can give you examples of movie stills from particular movies, some of which had a notice and some did not. Many films, as pointed out in film still, used multiple photographers and sometimes created hundreds of different photos.
- I'll also point out for the record something you may or may not know, that even with a noticed photo, the photo owner had only five years to file a legitimate registration and pay the fees, or else they automatically lost the legal presumption that they owned a copyright. The burden falls on the photo owner to prove they still had any copyright. And even if a court accepts their copyright after five years, they can only get actual damages, not statutory damages. In other words, the liability or risk for using old noticed photos that were never legally registered is zilch. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down version og File:Aerial view of Waikiki Beach and Honolulu, Hawaii, Highsmith.tif. Froztbyte (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- you have an out of consensus view of what "duplicate- For files that are exactly the same or scaled down" is. (i.e. if your going to delete every jpg that is the same as the tif, you have a couple hundred thousand images to delete.) Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Slowking, question. I don't see any reason to delete this but I am curious: what is the benefit of hosting a JPG in addition to the TIFF? I realize this is commonly done, but I"ve never understood why. -Pete F (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- funny you should ask that. my impression (i don't believe it's codified) is that the largest resolution from the scanner is the tiff, which is a reference copy (more is better); the working copy jpg actually appears in thumbnails, has plate edge numbers cropped, and uploads faster in the article. (best resolution at the screen is better). so different resolutions for different purposes. (i would say a 20 fold size difference seems like a different file.) dominic is the expert, i'm just following him. that being said, i understand the necessity of cleaning up the mess of multiple copies of the same image, since the broken upload process dosen't always catch duplicate files, for example
. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if there is cropping etc. of course it makes sense. But when it's identical -- it seems the MediaWiki software is perfectly happy to serve up a JPG of whatever size on the fly (example - look at the filename). While it's possible that that places a significant load on the servers' processors, I kind of doubt it -- and it seems that the extra human labor of uploading, naming, thinking about, categorizing, maintaining multiple files is an actual cost. So I do wonder about it being the general practice, even in cases where there is no cropping involved. You're right though, Dominic would definitely be the guy to ask -- I'll point him this way and see if he can weigh in. -Pete F (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- not for this one, but tiffs over 50 Mb don't show as a thumnail (for example [9]); i have had some lag loading wikimedia pages with lots of images. wonder if its a consideration for mobile (i.e. not server, but pipe limitations). Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah -- yeah, that makes sense. Maybe it'd be good to write up a page of best practices capturing some of these things all in one place…but not now, it's Friday night! :) Happy weekend, -Pete F (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- yes, i agree, some guidelines, rationale would be welcome. the technical limitations may change. i see max file size is increasing allowing bigger tiffs. (was 100 Mb) it would memorialize for future deletion discussion. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:TIFF#TIFF "TIFF generally serves as a lossless format, similar to PNG, but with much less compression." "JPEG is appropriate for “photographs”; JPEG uses "lossy compression", sacrificing precision for smaller file size." Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah -- yeah, that makes sense. Maybe it'd be good to write up a page of best practices capturing some of these things all in one place…but not now, it's Friday night! :) Happy weekend, -Pete F (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- not for this one, but tiffs over 50 Mb don't show as a thumnail (for example [9]); i have had some lag loading wikimedia pages with lots of images. wonder if its a consideration for mobile (i.e. not server, but pipe limitations). Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, if there is cropping etc. of course it makes sense. But when it's identical -- it seems the MediaWiki software is perfectly happy to serve up a JPG of whatever size on the fly (example - look at the filename). While it's possible that that places a significant load on the servers' processors, I kind of doubt it -- and it seems that the extra human labor of uploading, naming, thinking about, categorizing, maintaining multiple files is an actual cost. So I do wonder about it being the general practice, even in cases where there is no cropping involved. You're right though, Dominic would definitely be the guy to ask -- I'll point him this way and see if he can weigh in. -Pete F (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- funny you should ask that. my impression (i don't believe it's codified) is that the largest resolution from the scanner is the tiff, which is a reference copy (more is better); the working copy jpg actually appears in thumbnails, has plate edge numbers cropped, and uploads faster in the article. (best resolution at the screen is better). so different resolutions for different purposes. (i would say a 20 fold size difference seems like a different file.) dominic is the expert, i'm just following him. that being said, i understand the necessity of cleaning up the mess of multiple copies of the same image, since the broken upload process dosen't always catch duplicate files, for example
- Slowking, question. I don't see any reason to delete this but I am curious: what is the benefit of hosting a JPG in addition to the TIFF? I realize this is commonly done, but I"ve never understood why. -Pete F (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
![27 File:Esta foto donde se muestra al musico en el Establecimiento Joanico, formo parte del disco "Noches" presentado en Australia..JPG](#File:Esta_foto_donde_se_muestra_al_musico_en_el_Establecimiento_Joanico,_formo_parte_del_disco_"Noches"_presentado_en_Australia..JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped+edited_version.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_of_November_2012.jpg){kind=link}
_2013_cover_1000pix.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped%2Bedited_version.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cropped%2Bedited_version.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_cropped+edited_version.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped+edited_version.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_of_November_2012.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_of_November_2012.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_cover_of_November_2012.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_of_November_2012.jpg){kind=link}
_2013_cover_1000pix.jpg){kind=link}
_2013_cover_1000pix.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2013_cover_1000pix.jpg){kind=link}
_2013_cover_1000pix.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_male.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_nitens.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_138mm.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_barbatus.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_20.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_279_%D0%BC%D0%BC.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_inquisitor.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_investigator.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_weiblich.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_m%C3%A4nnlich.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_marmorata.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_lopatini_Morawitz,_1886.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_quadripunctata.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_schrenckii_verso.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_schrenckii.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Eliseo_Meifr%C3%A9n_Roig.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
tw~~60_3.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: No consensus to delete FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This picture should be considered to be a photographic work. Thus, this picture is not in public domain. Also, the photographer (Lennart Nilsson) is not tributed. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Corrected. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that this is a photographic work as opposed to a photographic image? The legal definition is not very clear. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- This a Swedish picture that has been published and distributed on an LP album cover. Thus it fills the criteria for a photographic image published before 1969. Origin is clearly stated with a link to The Royal Library in Stockholm. //--Bulver (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is not where or how the photos have been published, but whether any creative efforts were needed by the photographer. A photo from a surveillance camera requires no creative efforts, so that is a simple photo (PD in Sweden if taken before 1969). If a photo is exhibited at an art gallery because the photographer takes exceptionally good photos, then it is a complex photo (copyright term life+70 years). It is thought that the majority of all photos are "simple", but the exact definition is not clear. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to a TV programme about the photographer, this arranged picture required a substantial amount of work, for example advanced light arrangements with many spotlights and a number of retakes. (I think four bottles of champange were used until the right picture was taken.) If this picture is not a photographic work, no picture is that.Stigfinnare (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Stigfinnare. Pictures on album covers should be regarded as photographic works. / Elinnea (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to a TV programme about the photographer, this arranged picture required a substantial amount of work, for example advanced light arrangements with many spotlights and a number of retakes. (I think four bottles of champange were used until the right picture was taken.) If this picture is not a photographic work, no picture is that.Stigfinnare (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is not where or how the photos have been published, but whether any creative efforts were needed by the photographer. A photo from a surveillance camera requires no creative efforts, so that is a simple photo (PD in Sweden if taken before 1969). If a photo is exhibited at an art gallery because the photographer takes exceptionally good photos, then it is a complex photo (copyright term life+70 years). It is thought that the majority of all photos are "simple", but the exact definition is not clear. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- This a Swedish picture that has been published and distributed on an LP album cover. Thus it fills the criteria for a photographic image published before 1969. Origin is clearly stated with a link to The Royal Library in Stockholm. //--Bulver (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
At Corbis with copyright notice. We hope (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
" CORBIS bought the pre-1991 UPI images that were physically housed in UPI's archives in New York City. "In an attempt to determine if UPI registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office.We hope (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above facts are a repeat of the same ones you used on other UPI images, and which unbelievably got me blocked. However, if anything, they would indicate the very opposite of your presumption, and indicate that this one like the others are most likely PD. Two simple reasons, just based on your pasted facts: 1) This photo is from 1968, so the 1923-1963 details are irrelevant here; 2) the details about UPI photos from after 1963 are identical for any photos by anyone in the U.S., as this merely restates existing copyright law. When I once asked you why these facts are different for UPI than anyone else, you avoided responding. So I'll try again:
- Unless you can point out exactly why this mere restatement of existing copyright law is somehow different for UPI, your pasted info. adds nothing. And the fact that Corbis, (Bill Gates's company founded in 1989) bought the physical photos in the UPI collection, also adds nothing, since neither UPI nor Corbis filed more than a tiny percent of copyrights to their images, a fact which you posted. See my similar comments on another photo you tagged for the same reason, including the basic explanation about widespread "copyfraud," which you ignore.
- Simply cutting and pasting text without explaining why those copied facts relate to this photo, should not be considered any kind of rationale. As stated repeatedly, I go by the precautionary principle: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Your rationales imply that any remote possibility, no matter how extremely remote, would be enough to tag an image. If my going by the "precautionary principle is wrong, you should explain why. Otherwise, your pasted text simply supports the fact that this image is also most likely PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum re: UPI and Corbis: Per Library of Congress: ". . . any copyright held by UPI to the pre-1991 UPI images that were physically housed in UPI's archives in New York City would now be owned by CORBIS if that copyright is still current. . . . Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- This one is from 1968, so no renewal was needed. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- True, but a copyright notice was needed. The first upload, showing borders and the back of photo has none. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment At the Corbis page, I see a table with various information about the photo. At one place, it says "© Bettmann/CORBIS". However, this table was obviously written on a computer and not necessarily included with the image itself. Also, companies sometimes claim copyright protection for images which are not protected by copyright. Besides, this image is protected by copyright in some parts of the world. For example, photos from the United States are protected in Canada for at least 50 years since creation, so the image is not in the public domain in Canada, and for whatever reason, the copyright notice might be intended for people in Canada, Colombia, Germany or any other country which does not apply the rule of the shorter term on US works.
- The copyright notice at corbisimages.com doesn't tell whether the image was distributed with a copyright notice or not, which is the important thing for determining its copyright status. The image on Commons is obviously cropped, but the old revision looks complete. I don't see any copyright notice on the old revision, but I'm not too much into odd US copyright rules, so I might have overlooked something. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no information about the copyright status in the United States. Unless published before 1923, this image isn't allowed on Commons until 95 years after publication. I can't find any date of publication anywhere. Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Belgian painter Haeghebaert was a painter of scenes of life of everyday. In this painting he depicted a scene of a rural village (Lissewege), clearly from before 1914. After World War I even in these villages modernity set in quickly and scenes like these would no longer be possible. There is no date of publication, because, as far as I know, there exists no monography about this painter. His works are all in private possession, until recently when of a few of his works came into auction. And those are again in private possession. This means that the public cannot view his works, unless this photo (and the next one) are allowed in the Commons. It is my sincere opinion that both paintings date from before 1923. JoJan (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 20:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no information about the copyright status in the United States. Unless published before 1923, this image isn't allowed on Commons until 95 years after publication. I can't find any date of publication anywhere. Stefan4 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- See my reply on the previous deletion request here above about the same painter. JoJan (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above poster is referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur Haegebaert; Lissewege.JPG. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The file is marked as public domain based on the artist's death plus 70 years. However, the artist is indicated as uncredited and therefore is unknown. The file is categorised as originating in the 1920s. It is unreasonable to assume that an unknown artist active in the 1920s died before 1943. Peter cohen (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Comment. The file was scanned in from a reprint of a book called Safe Counsel, or Practical Eugenics, a public domain book from 1928 by B. G. Jefferis and J. L. Nichols. Reprint was from "Intext Press", which reissues public domain books, and the reprint is ISBN 0-88444-010-9. Google Book search reveals newer reprints from Kessinger and the like. I believed based on this that the image was safely public domain when I uploaded it. No artist credit is given. File:The two paths (f).png is from the same source. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Proper template should be {{PD-US-not renewed}} {{PD-old-auto|1955}}. There is at least one copy of the 38th Edition with the legend "Copyrighted 1926 by J. L. Nichols" and "More Than One Million Copies Sold; Printed in U.S.A." The Preface to the 38th Edition says "Safe Counsel was originally published in the year 1893 as the first sincere attempt to explain the essential facts of sex life in their relationship to human happiness [...] In presenting this latest edition I offer an entirely new book, with new type, new illustrations, and many added features." So it appears that these are "new illustrations", probably first published in 1926 and in the United States.
- For the United States: Since this is a book, one would expect any renewal to show up in Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database. This book does not appear when searched for in that database. Any U.S. pre-1963 first publication whose copyright was not renewed (even if properly registered in the first place) is in the public domain in the United States. This by itself (U.S. being both Commons' home and the work's country of origin) allows the work to stay on Commons.
- Outside the U.S. (just in case anyone cares): This is a newer edition of a book that had previously been published as Searchlights on Health: the Science of Eugenics, copyrighted by J.L. Nichols & Co., Naperville, Illinois, and is available as Wikisource:Searchlights on Health. Presumably this is Nichols, J. L. (James Lawrence) b. 1890 — that is, James Lawrence Nichols II (1890–1955), the mayor of Naperville and owner of the J.L. Nichols publishing company: see James Lawrence Nichols, II at Find A Grave. No author is given separate credit for the illustrations, though a B. G. Jeffris, M.D. is also one of the primary authors; I didn't bother tracking Jefferis down, but copyright on the title page is solely by Nichols, who died in 1955. Though not required for Commons, this work is also out of copyright in any country in which the term is 57 years p.m.a. or shorter (as of 2013), or which applies the rule of the shorter term, unless one could show that the illustrations were likely works of an unknown author rather than of Nichols. --Closeapple (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Comment. I have amended the licensing tags on both files per your suggestion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: with revised license per Closeapple. Good detective work! DragonflyDC (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Some of the depicted elements does not seem to be released under the given lisence (CC-BY-SA), because the text seems to be part of a software manual of a commercial software package (which is what the description says). It should be copyrighted by Sharp Corporation. To be clear, my concern is about the copyright status of the text; the handwritten artwork and signature seem to be ok. whym (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks,I am currently in the query〔1〕.Update versions of this files.
- https://twitter.com/qptn/status/291191012448157697 --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Update versions and duplicate of the files,because File Upload wizard's buggy-> I Add to Speedy delete tags.
- Thank you and god bless you and all wikipedians!--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I want to confirm one
I want to confirm one. Terms and conditions and are the "CC-BY-SA" under the conditions of the Creative Commons reuse permission. In addition, the date of 20 January 2013, was to contact the Twitter account of sharp, no you do not have a clear answer.
So, the next thing you want to perform a time-limited response. We queried in such statements "shall be deemed to have been allowed to use copyrighted material in the appropriate secondary if No Answer."
That remark, but you sure you want to accept the right of use in the OTRS ticket system?
Answer here in this statement will wait until 2013/01/31, we run the query after the date '02 January 2013. If, even if there is no reply here, I also 2013/01/3123 for inheritance: History will be until after 59:59 (UTC), are hoping to remove the grace.
If a person can have altered to make a cash income for the illegal sale, that an execution of a criminal violation of the license, we noted that there is no me.
私は一つ確認をします。
クリエイティブコモンズの再利用許可条件では"CC-BY-SA"を許諾条件としています。
また、2013年01月20日現在、シャープのツイッターアカウントに問い合わせましたが、明確な返事が無いありません。
では、次は期限付きの返答を行うことにしたいです。「無回答なら該当二次著作物に於ける利用を許可された物と看做す」ような発言で問い合わせます。
その発言は、OTRSチケットシステムで利用の権利を確定しますがよろしいでしょうか？
この発言のここでの回答は2013/01/31まで待機し、2013年02月01日以降にその問い合わせを実行します。もし、ここでの返答が無い場合においても、履歴継承のためにも私は2013/01/3123:59:59(UTC)以降まで、削除の猶予をするように願いでることにいたします。
- I have law rights in meet the reach on we responsibility this file only.
- We will clearly made that impossible case to we make a wikimedia local law rights.
- If, you in order to utilize for the purpose of illegal conduct or similar, cash income, and advertising donation for selling illegal, crime, and files this, even if there are people who tamper with this content, is a performer (he / she / company / goverment) is the criminal violation of the license to you and other tampered up after.Not we have.
もし、不正な販売の為の現金収入を行うまたは類似行為その他の犯罪等不正な目的で利用するために改竄する人がいても、その実行者がライセンス違反の犯罪者であって、私では無い事を明記いたします。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I appreciate your efforts to obtain permission, I think the kind of inquiry you describe is not very sensible. 「無回答なら該当二次著作物に於ける利用を許可された物と看做す」 - "If you will give no answer to us, we will regard it as a permission to allow publishing derivative works [under the license currently given at the file page on Commons]" (my translation) - will not give the kind of explicit license we would like to obtain. Since there is no obligation for them to answer in a timely manner, they have a right at least to postpone answering for any length of time regardless of a period a re-user wishes. I also note that we can always undelete it once the license is verified through OTRS, evern after being deleted. --whym (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment 許諾をえようとしてくださるのはありがたいのですが、「無回答なら該当二次著作物に於ける利用を許可された物と看做す」というような文言でえられたことにしてしまうのは好ましくないと思います。コモンズでは明示的なライセンスが必要です。再利用者がいかにすみやかな返事を希望していようと、Sharp側にはなんの義務も発生せず、すきなだけ返事をおくれさせる権利があるはずです。念のためもうしあげておきますが、削除されたあとでも、COM:OTRSをとおしてライセンスが検証されれば復帰することはいつでも可能ですので、そのような方策もご検討ください。 --whym (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a problem is certainly.I'll may be so send email to the sharp corp.We send Permission The OTRS ticket system Consideration of the contract documents legally.I have valid truth Because that those are good thing,I'll do so.Please comment to you make good working this files is.
Hear the opinions of everyone, so it seems that there is a guideline and must not act arbitrarily is such an important decision.
- 「無回答なら該当二次著作物に於ける利用を許可された物と看做す」
これは確かに問題が有ると思われますね。OTRSチケットシステムの法的に有効な契約文書の検討をした方が良いと思われますので、そのようにいたしましょう。
- Consent form should be submitted to the wording of the Sharp Corporation
- では、シャープ株式会社に提出すべき、雛形テンプレートの検討をはじめます。
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 御中
私は、作品 [ MMLOrigin.jpg ] の作者、かつ・または、排他的な著作権の独占的な所有者(?)です。
自由な利用許諾（ライセンス）、 CC-BY-SA の下で、当該作品が公開されることを、私は了承します。
当該利用許諾の条項および関連法規に則うかぎりにおいて、この作品の商用利用や必要に応じた改変を、全ての人に許諾することを、私は了承します。
私は、当該作品の著作権と、当該利用許諾に従った氏名表示権は私が保持し続けることを、了承します。他者が当該作品に加えた改変の権利は私に帰属しません。
自由な利用許諾は著作権に関してのみであり、中傷や人格権の侵害、商標の制限等の目的で当該作品を用いる者に対して、行動を起こす権利は、私が依然として保持することを、私は了承します。
私がこの承諾を撤回できないことを、私は了承します。当該作品のウィキメディア・プロジェクトでの保持は、永久であることもあれば、保持されなくなることもあることを、私は了承します。
[ 2013年02月28日 基建吉 ]
- このテンプレートの文面に関し、問題となる点はどこか、と申しますとモチーフ引用元のMZ-80 BASIC MANUALの【jpg翻訳イメージ】がシャープ株式会社の著作物である点だと思われます。
- しかし、それはかつて電器屋の店頭で誰でも閲覧可能であった事で特に問題が有るとは考えません。それが私の創作動機です。
- この雛形では明示的な許可を得る事は厳しいと思われます。ケースが特殊であるため、私一人で決めずに同意形成を行いたいと思います。コメントをよろしくお願いいたします。また、著作権侵害と看做され犯罪行為であった場合の削除も証拠隠滅と看做されるので削除には注意が必要です。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- シャープ様から、具体的な返答がきましたのでご連絡差し上げます。
シャープお客様相談センター <mailadmin-w@sharp.co.jp> 2013年3月4日 17:28 To: "awamimomo@gmail.com" <awamimomo@gmail.com>
- 弊社としましてはお答えできる内容はございません。
- だそうです。テンプレートの検討が急がれます。--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:フリーでないコンテントの使用基準をみると、すくなくとも一記事以上に利用しなければならないので、[non-free_use Wikipedia files]の適用案件ではなかろうか？--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comments
- Please write a comment to the bottom of this.
Keep. Doesn't appear to be a copyright violation, although COM:SCOPE is questionable here -FASTILY (TALK) 08:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
