Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/07/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Kept. "Explicit nudity" is not a valid justification for any action regarding this file. File is in use on many projects, no need to discuss. Pete F (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues - unreasonable intrusion into subject's privacy. No information on subject age or release. Privatemusings (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This has already been kept once. The image is taken on a public beach and the women are not even identifiable. The only guideline that supports deletion is Commons:Photographs of evil nudity#Moral Majority issues. Prolog (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)- Keep I'm not particularly convinced that this photo is an unreasonable intrusion considering as far as I am aware, it was taken on a public beach. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not recognisable and on a public beach anyway. Hohum (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Public beach. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The first DR was closed correctly. This image is in my view complaint with COM:PEOPLE.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_2013-06-29_16-49.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bundeskanzlerim_Angela_Merkel_im_Halk_TV_canli_zu_den_Protesten_in_der_Türkei_2013.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Kept. All causes are said. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Commons_talk:Nudity#Permission_of_subject I believe folk have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a public beach to the degree that their permission is desirable before publishing an image to wikimedia - this image has no consent of the subject, and I support deletion. Privatemusings (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No additional reason in respect with the previous round. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This has already gone through two deletion requests, the last only a few weeks ago. The community has clearly decided that it does comply with the rules in COM:PEOPLE. You have provided no new rationale other than to say that you disagree with the previous conclusions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason I gave last time around. Adambro (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Stop going on and on about this, Privatemusings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No reasons provided why this is more unacceptable now than it was a month or so ago. I'm going to close this as nothing new has been presented. It's on a beach, which is public enough for COM:PEOPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Taken in Barcelona, no evidence of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Andreas JN466 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I do hope you're nominating all the clothed Spaniards as well!!!! --Simonxag (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've nominated a few as I've come across them, but I imagine once people wrap their heads around the situation there will need to be a more organized effort to delete images in violation. I think starting with this type of image is probably sensible. They are more likely to be shared and more likely to cause embarrassment to the subject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed --Simonxag (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment If this interpretation is correct, ALL photos of potentially identifiable people taken in Spain MUST be deleted from Commons as quickly as possible (with the only exceptions being where specific permission of person visible has been proven). Clothing and "embarrassment" have zero to do with the subject. If this is the law, this is the law. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have now blurred the face of the only identifiable person in this photo, so there is now no identifiable issues in relation to this photo. We can delete the original photo after this discussion. russavia (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have gone ahead and blurred two more faces, although they are barely identifiable. I've also removed the other versions of the image from the history. There is now no reason for this image to be deleted. russavia (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep since the faces are blurred. Unlike almost all photos of people in Spain on Commons, this apparently is now legal. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Now not identifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've had a careful read of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain and I don't believe blurring the faces makes any difference. It's still a photo of those people and it needs explicit consent. I think the confusion comes from this being seen as a subsection of our policy on identifiable people, but if we're to obey Spanish law (and most other European countries') law as it's presented on the Commons, then even anonymized pictures that are of a person must go. Please read the policy and have a think about it, because these rules are going to apply to a lot of images. --Simonxag (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with Infrogmation (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept:. Issue resolved by Russavia. INeverCry 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept. File has been discussed twice with actual references to the law, Commons policy. This nomination has neither; "explicit nudity" is not a reason to take any action. For a file that is in use on many projects, this is mere disruption. -Pete F (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where's the deletion reason? --Denniss (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, invalid DR Denniss (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, invalid DR Denniss (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, invalid DR Denniss (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
71.238.91.178 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason stated Sreejith K (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
{{duplicate|File:Laillé église.jpg}} InitialLED (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
{ InitialLED (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a dupe Denniss (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This file has been added by me but I made a mistake. I created a second file, rather than added to the original image file that is File:Laillé église.jpg. Ce fichier a été ajouté par moi mais j'ai fais une erreur. J'ai créé un second fichier plutôt que d'ajouté l'image au fichier originale qui est File:Laillé église.jpg. InitialLED (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 00:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
change of plan An0n12980 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Attack image possibly (based on description). Otherwise out of scope. Bawolff (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
quality too bad, we have better kittens Isderion (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom russavia (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
File with a copyright, and no OTRS 78.238.225.248 06:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
File with a copyright, and no OTRS 78.238.225.248 06:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
File with a copyright, and no OTRS 78.238.225.248 06:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Buchcover von Ulrich Conrads, Programme und Manifeste zur Architektur des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bauwelt Fundamente Band 1, Berlin, Ullstein, 1964.JPG
[edit]
Recent photograph of a book cover dating from 1964 labeled as "own work"; new user probably lacking experience with copyright issues in Wikipedia. Sitacuisses (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you are right, I took the photo but I did'nt design the book cover. Sorry! --Goyah (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Improperly licensed: derivative work of CC-BY-SA images, yet licensed as CC-BY. Does not comply with SA license terms. —Mono 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I had noted that in the permissions field GNU was added despite being incompatible with CC-BY-SA. I suspect this and other licensing issue is just understanding/language and easily corrected. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't require deletion, just different license tags on the description page. darkweasel94 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did collage with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-SA). Problem finish? Ahmet Gürsakal 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, in the permissions field you added GNU. This should be removed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I did. Is it finish now? Ahmet Gürsakal 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. it should be. An admin will need to close the DR, but should not be a problem.Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- File:Konyaalti Beach Antalya.jpg (uploaded in 2011 by Bozaltan, no exif) is copyvio from http://www.tourexpi.com/de-tr/urlaubsbilder.html~picid=11 (Copyright 2005 - 2009 Tourexpi.com - Alle Rechte Vorbehalten, credits: " Christopher Kubaseck") = http://www.tourexpi.com/images/urlaubsbilder/0007/01.jpg (last modified: 2007, identical res). Uploaded there at 08.06.2007. See also circulation in internet before upload date in Commons... --> The source/license and author information of one image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-- Deleted. Whatever other issues, collage contained a copyright violation and therefore cannot be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This image was copied from http://web.archive.org/web/20110929192946/http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2991596510079105973qXooxF. I can't find any indication that the photographer has released the image into the public domain as claimed. Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
pointless low quality derivative of File:Kneeing nude on chair.jpg Jarekt (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete also copy of that file File:00-Kneeing nude on chair.JPG. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The modification is not pointless. It shos that by changing some features e.g. length of legs, better lighting, different file name and allocating the file to other categories you can increae the number of viewers considerably when compared to the original file. Gardenparty (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete If you enjoy practicing your photoshop skills on free licensed images, that's your business. But I can't seen any in scope reason for this particular alternative version to be on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment No deletion notice has been applied to File:00-Kneeing nude on chair.JPG; so this listing does not at writing apply to that file. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a commercial photograph from subject's twitter account [[1]] EBY3221 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. False license. Also seen in multiple other sites, in various different croppings and resolutions, predating upload to Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
According to google imagesearch this photo was available at Skyscrapercity at April 21 2010, hotlinked from http://wroclaw.hydral.com.pl/foto/324/324132.jpg to posting #1636 at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=180378&page=82. That website is not longer online (only archived at http://archive.is/wroclaw.hydral.com.pl), but I doubt own work. Martin H. (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
seems to be a photo of a projection screen? no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, apparent derivative work, no indication of in scope usefulness, orphan, uncat since Jan 2012. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; orphan uncat for more than a year. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No valid licence. Flickr source states "Vintage Hextall pics taken originally by my friend Audrey." MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: We have no evidence that Audrey would license this image freely. Delete per the COM:PRP. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I am the uploader to Commons, and only yesterday was able to contact the individual who uploaded the photos to Flickr to change the permissions status. If this image needs to be deleted right away, then so be it, but I will be in conversation to see if Audrey, wherever she may be, would be willing to e-mail OTRS. I Jethrobot (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the 2nd request to remove this file. This is a personal image. I am the image owner. 80.89.192.61 07:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in pl.wiktionary and therefore cannot be deleted in any other reason than copyright issues, but the license is OK. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed as kept. No record of previous attempt to "remove" on the file. Free licensed when uploaded and in use; no specific reason to delete offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the 2nd request to remove this file. This is a personal image. I am the image owner. 80.89.192.61 07:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- As this was sourced to Flickr, please send an email from your Flickr-account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) to confirm your authorship. By the way, why do you want to have this nice image deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Beautyful photo. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep unless some specific reason it should be deleted can be presented. Photo was free licensed when uploaded and is currently in use in Wikimedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to rather low image quality (technical). Category:Dachshund has more than enough images of good quality. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to rather low image quality (technical). -- Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The file is used on userpage in es.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to rather low image quality (technical). -- Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Did the photographer, David Prest, license this image freely? Mr. Bowbrick is the flickr account owner, not the copyright owner and he did not take this photo. It needs COM:OTRS permission from David Prest. Leoboudv (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to rather low image quality (technical). -- Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to rather low image quality (technical). -- Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat unlikely own work, considering that all uploads of this user so far were blatant copyvios. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. (the :es-userpage, where it is shown, is of an inactive user) -- Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted; badly blurred orphan snapshot of common house-cat with no indication of compensating importance. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted; blurred orphan file with no indication of compensating rarity or importance. Commons has more than 150 other images of this variety of cat. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- AgreeI am the one who uploaded this image. I was just testing how to upload a self-work image to wikicommon since it was such a complicated task. I'd prefer it being deleted. --Golden.2007 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to too low image quality (technical) to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, very blurry poor quality cat snapshot with no indication of compensating importance. Commons has more than 90 other photos of this variety of cat. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Most likely screenshotted from videos produced by http://www.accuweather.com ( © 2013 AccuWeather, Inc. All Rights Reserved.), like this actual one. Gunnex (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominating also File:Baglini philadelphia forecast.jpg with similiar copyright issue. Gunnex (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
no longer desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
no longer desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
breach of copyright http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/zh/celebrity/buzz/asia/%E3%80%8A%E6%A0%A1%E5%9B%ADsuperstar%E3%80%8B%E5%86%A0%E5%86%9B%E7%BD%97%E7%BE%8E%E4%BB%AA-%E7%9B%BC%E5%85%A8%E6%96%B9%E4%BD%8D%E5%8F%91%E5%B1%95?page=20 Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Rrburke (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
copyvio from film trailer; screenshot A5b (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Mistake. Please delete this picture. Rumilk Rumilk (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW, no FoP. Photo was taken inside a German buliding. sугсго 12:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE as it is mere text (as pdf) and likely also promotional. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE as it is mere text (as pdf) and likely also promotional. -- Planetheavenpr (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you simply repeat the above text? --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Distinctly spammy and of no obvious educational application. Copyright also unclear. Rrburke (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope McZusatz (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
some doubt about authorship by uploader, as a crop of the same image had been published here already in 2008. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
per watermark (C) Margaret Tomlinson. No evidence of a permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat questionable authorship due to watermark. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per watermark (C) Margaret Tomlinson. No evidence for a permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's original description ("introduction to mindfulness, compiled by Dean Amory, is for sale at amazon-com and lulu-com") this image has obviously been uploaded to promote book sale. In addition, the provenience of the elements of this photomontage is dubious. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's original description ("introduction to mindfulness, compiled by Dean Amory, is for sale at amazon-com and lulu-com") this image has obviously been uploaded to promote book sale. In addition, the provenience of the elements of this photomontage is dubious. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's original description ("introduction to mindfulness, compiled by Dean Amory, is for sale at amazon-com and lulu-com") this image has obviously been uploaded to promote book sale, i.e. out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's original description ("introduction to mindfulness, compiled by Dean Amory, is for sale at amazon-com and lulu-com") this image has obviously been uploaded to promote book sale. In addition, the provenience of the elements of this photomontage is dubious. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's original description ("introduction to mindfulness, compiled by Dean Amory, is for sale at amazon-com and lulu-com") this image has obviously been uploaded to promote book sale. In addition, the provenience of the elements of this photomontage is dubious. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be not own work, per http://www.prettywomenpictures.com/v/member-contributed/jaimelavie/Marlene/photomica-painted-enh.jpg.html. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be processed from a generic image, see http://www.prettywomenpictures.com/v/member-contributed/jaimelavie/Marlene/4a-2-mn40_001.jpg.html, thereby questionable authorship. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per uploader's own description, obviously uploaded with promotional intent; thereby out of COM:SCOPE.-- Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Pictured logo of football club is copyrighted in Poland. Club employees are sending emails to website owners that use this logo with information about copyright infringement: http://mojalegia.pl/trudne-sprawy-dla-piszacych-o-legii-warszawa-pozwolenie/ Oleola (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
copyright http://www.metronews.fr/sport/franck-tabanou-au-tfc-tout-le-monde-peut-marquer/mjii!VsxPPFYNXTiWQ/ Remy34 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
From Category:All media needing categories as of 2012: Might be out of COM:SCOPE/COM:PENIS due to being an out-of-focus, unused low-quality "home-porn" shot. Gunnex (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. - . HombreDHojalata.talk 15:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No reason is given, why the photo is copyright violation, but for me it seems an unused photo about non-notable person (no mention in en.wiki). Taivo (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused, blurry picture, possible a screenshot (and so not an own work of the uploader), like the other picture of the uplader. CennoxX (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality unused personal photo of no realistic educational application; out of scope Rrburke (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE due to extremely low technical quality, making the image unusable. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
unlikely own work as stated. During previous upload it wasn't... JuTa 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope, contains spamlink to broadcasting company site MoiraMoira (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
SVG version (from original PDF) is available instead of this BadJPEG Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Photo of a newspaper article, likely copyrighted. Source information is not sufficient to determine whether it might be public domain. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:PORN, just another private penis image. Yikrazuul (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sweet lolcat, but no source, no author, no license. Already in 2008 posted here, though hardly the source. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a book cover. Unclear age, might be PD, but it's not correctly tagged as under uploader's copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Photo of a book cover of uncertain age. May be PD due to age, but not correctly tagged PD-self. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Photo/scan of book cover; unclear age. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Scan/photo of book cover, unknown age. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost certainly not uploader's own work - Google Images finds several other possible sources but I can't identify an original source for the image. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Flickr user Viva Tamils is not the creator of some of his uploads on Flickr. This applies to this black and white photo for example. It appears that this is photographed from a newspaper or magazines at the day of upload - see flickr metadata. This file have been posted on flickr on July 9 2009, there is a different version on the web published in 2007. Checking the flickr users photostream I see one picture titled Mr. Sampthan (Leader of Tamil National Alliance -TNA) which is small and very likely taken from the web, I see a TV screenshot with a watermark GTV, and I see the black and white photos. I assume that the rest of the photos taken in Germany are likely self-created. See also Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Questionable_Flickr_image. Martin H. (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- p.s.: we have the photo Mr. Sampthan (Leader of Tamil National Alliance -TNA) on Commons: File:R Sampanthan.jpg. I delete it, its a clear copyright violation. The copyright holder is listed in REUTERS database Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R. Sampanthan speaks during a news conference in Colombo March 26, 2009. [...]. REUTERS/Buddhika Weerasinghe --Martin H. (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Uploader may be the author of the photograph, but he is not the authour of the copyright protected logo. The logo meets the treshold of originality and is therefor copyright protected. EvilFreD overleg 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark at bottom (looks like a thumbnail from a stockphoto) Gunnex (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright http://cabeceras.eldiariomontanes.es/el-mirador/mirador/537/la-trayectoria-de-julio-maruri.html#imagen7 Astillerense (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No inidication who subject is. Probably not useful for an educational purpose Bawolff (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks out of scope. Not used, and subject not identified in description (looks like a keyboard smash) Bawolff (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
personal picture, out of scope Isderion (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
_2013-06-29_16-49.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-06-29_16-49.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The fact the image is watermarked with a url suggests it is not really the uploader's own work Bawolff (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
_2013-06-29_16-49.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
_2013-06-29_16-49.jpg){kind=link}
This looks like a commercial promotion image. seems unlikely to be own work Bawolff (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
nod logo from command & conquer; probably copyrighted Isderion (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal image; out of scope Isderion (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal image; out of scope Isderion (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused book cover of low print distribution book, with free licence but placed in category 'non-free media'. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio DHN (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio or permission missing PierreSelim (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio DHN (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio or permission missing PierreSelim (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio DHN (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio or permission missing PierreSelim (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio DHN (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio or permission missing PierreSelim (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio DHN (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio or permission missing PierreSelim (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Confusion sur la personne, ce portrait ne représente pas Jean Quatremer ! Je le verserai à nouveau lorsque j’aurais identifié avec certitude ce journaliste. Merci de bien vouloir le supprimer en attendant Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request (few hours after upload) PierreSelim (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Compare nearly identical File:Craigcloudcult.jpg which is in use. This one seems to be superflous then. JuTa 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible screenshot from "2012 The Book Club - Dirty Jobs" - possible not "OWN" work of AlexTheTank A5b (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject image unlikely to be the photographer in posed photograph. If deleted, please salt the page name, too many uploads and deletions to this generic name. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Medea Statue in Batumi
[edit]The statue was unveiled on 6 July 2007 (see: en:Medea statue) and there is no Freedom of Panorama in Georgia, thus Commons can't host these files.
- File:Batumi (9).jpg
- File:Batumi,Medea-fleece2.jpg
- File:Medea (1).jpg
- File:Medea Statue In Batumi (corrected incline).jpg
- File:Medea statue in Batumi, Georgia.jpg
- File:Medea Statue In Batumi.jpg
- File:Statues in Batumi.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can keep at least this one. No details of the statue are discernible and the image itself is kind of panorama. --Kober (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - I am outraged at the scope of "Freedom of Panorama"-based deletions of Georgia-related photos. At best, the law in question is ambiguous as to whether it refers to private items displayed in public or publicly owned items. This statue, regardless of who authored it, was put in place at the expense of Georgian taxpayers and it sickens me that according to some fastidious commons users, they don't even have the right to take a picture and keep the rights that they would be usually afforded.
- We don't even know whether this publicly funded project is still held in copyright by the author (which is one requirement in this law) because we don't know what the terms of the project were. The burden of proof to find these terms rests with people who are so eager to delete other people's work.--Permaveli (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment No, per the precautionary principle the burden of proof is on the people, who want an image to be kept. If there is a "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." You just made another argument, why the copyright of these images is uncertain. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The only significant doubt that exists in this case is regarding your assumption that the state would pay millions to erect a statue at the expense of its taxpayers and don't even give them the right to take its pictures and use them as they wish. What gives you the right to make such assumptions? --Permaveli (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't assume anything. If the copyright status of the statue is unclear, than it have to be assumed, that it's copyrighted (highly likely by the artist, who created it). Also the taxpayers can take pictures of it, they just can't use it for commercial purposed per Commons:FOP#Georgia. If you think the statue isn't protected by copyright, than you have to prove that. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you do, you just assumed that the work is copyrighted because you think you are a legal scholar capable of interpreting copyright laws from an obscure place like Georgia, and all that based on your doubts and feelings. I have a significant doubt that the author was just taking a picture of the sky and the statue just happened to be there, is that enough of a reason?--Permaveli (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of making ad hominem arguments you should concentrate on proving that original is not copyrighted (which I highly doubt). If you (or nobody else) can't do that, than the image will be deleted as a derivative work. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you do, you just assumed that the work is copyrighted because you think you are a legal scholar capable of interpreting copyright laws from an obscure place like Georgia, and all that based on your doubts and feelings. I have a significant doubt that the author was just taking a picture of the sky and the statue just happened to be there, is that enough of a reason?--Permaveli (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't assume anything. If the copyright status of the statue is unclear, than it have to be assumed, that it's copyrighted (highly likely by the artist, who created it). Also the taxpayers can take pictures of it, they just can't use it for commercial purposed per Commons:FOP#Georgia. If you think the statue isn't protected by copyright, than you have to prove that. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The only significant doubt that exists in this case is regarding your assumption that the state would pay millions to erect a statue at the expense of its taxpayers and don't even give them the right to take its pictures and use them as they wish. What gives you the right to make such assumptions? --Permaveli (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment No, per the precautionary principle the burden of proof is on the people, who want an image to be kept. If there is a "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." You just made another argument, why the copyright of these images is uncertain. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unless evidence is forthcoming that the statue is not under copyright, rather than just Permaveli vaguely claiming it may not be under copyright. (I am open to keeping the one as per Kober, unless anyone strongly objects.) J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: With no positive proof that the statue is not under copyright protection, these images clearly violate our policies. No if's, and's or but's. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Strongest Oppose User:Armbrust can you explain if you are so neutral why do you want to delete only these images and not other thousand of such images from coutries with the same copyright low? I have found some sculpture images from France and Italy (it:[2] [3] [4], fr:[5] [6] [7]) and I stongly believe there are many such images, but as you can see none of them is nominated for deletion, so is it policy of wikimedia or just your personal purpose ? --g. balaxaZeႫ 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment That's clearly an en:WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If you think these images are not free, than feel free to nominate them for deletion. Also in case of File:Dalou Jean Leclaire Epinettes 17e détail.jpg the original statue is in the public domain, as its creator, Jules Dalou died in 1902. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can't understand why all copyrightophils are there in wikipedia, You must understand that in this world there are things with no copyright. Real copyrighter of this statue is Aeëtes (:D) father of medea (at that time already have been patriarchy) and the sculptor of this statue is plagiarist becasue he/she derivatived Aeëtes work. Will You agree to this Nonsense? I think You'll not. This sculpture has no copyrighter, it belongs to all citizen of Georgia.--g. balaxaZeႫ 07:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's nonsense, the copyright-holder of the statue is the sculptor. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly there is no FOP, and no reliable source to state the statue isn't copyrighted, so default position is that it is, so it must be deleted. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMG_5320_-_Milano_-_Monumento_a_Carlo_Porta_-_Foto_giovanni_Dall%27Orto_-_17-Febr-2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Carlo_Borromeo_Monza.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeanne_Arc.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_Jose_de_San_Martin.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dalou_Jean_Leclaire_Epinettes_17e_d%C3%A9tail.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted. No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The last one, File:Statues in Batumi.jpg, kept as De minimis. Geagea (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Geagea (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dean Amory (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" Commons:Project Scope#Examples. Many also appear to include derivatives of what are likely copyrighted works.
- File:Magic power of mental images.jpg
- File:He ain't heavy.jpg
- File:War.jpg
- File:Woman's mind.jpg
- File:Watchingu.jpg
- File:Venus idolatery.jpg
- File:Burning love.jpg
- File:Mine - possessive love.jpg
- File:Publi ad.jpg
- File:First love.jpg
- File:Man's mind.jpg
- File:Lifecycle - cycle of life.jpg
- File:Krsna Krisna.jpg
- File:Innocence or avoidance.jpg
- File:Ignoring Poverty.jpg
- File:Escaparate.jpg
- File:Espana es una fiesta.jpg
- File:Elementary Flirting and Dating.jpg
- File:Duality.jpg
- File:DREAMER - BIG.jpg
- File:Drowning Party.jpg
- File:DREAMER - BIG-2.jpg
- File:Desert dream.jpg
- File:Big sister is watching you.jpg
- File:Tamara meditation mindfulmindfulness.jpg
- File:Tamara mindful mindfulness meditation.jpg
- File:Tamara mindful meditation mindfulness.jpg
- File:Shiva meditation mindfulness.jpg
- File:Shiva - meditation - mindfulness.jpg
- File:Marleen, Dagboek van mijn Apenjaren, verkrijgbaar bij lulu-com.png
- File:Marleen, Dagboek van mijn Apenjaren, lulu-com - amazon-com.jpg
Rrburke (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Totosandino11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promo images
INeverCry 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Valeperto46 (talk · contribs)
[edit]no notability
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
File:1906-03-31 Continental Caoutchouc- und Gutta-Percha Compagnie Hannover Rotterdam Rechnung Wwe Th. v. Hooff Roermond Vordruck Edler u. Krische I.306 50.000 E + K Ausschnitt.jpg
[edit]
This postcard is surely not published under a free Creative Commons license. Likey this postcard is still copyrighted 188.104.99.77 16:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep published in 1906, and if it's a postcard, most likely anonymously - that makes it PD. darkweasel94 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a postcard, it's an invoice form. --Sitacuisses (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Most likely anonymously is absolutely insufficient. We need a clear and valid copyright statement. By the way, it is not a post card. High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
File:1906-03-31 Continental Caoutchouc- und Gutta-Percha Compagnie Hannover Rotterdam Rechnung Wwe Th. v. Hooff Roermond Vordruck Edler u. Krische I.306 50.000 E + K kpl.jpg
[edit]
This postcard is surely not published under a free Creative Commons license. Likey this image is still copyrighted 188.104.99.77 16:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep published in 1906, and if it's a postcard, most likely anonymously - that makes it PD. darkweasel94 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a postcard, it's an invoice form. --Sitacuisses (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Most likely anonymously is absolutely insufficient. We need a clear and valid copyright statement. By the way, it is not a post card. High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
File:57e8g Lalesim Ceylan, Tanz- und Sportpädagogin aus der Nordstadt von Hannover, informiert sich mittels Wikipedia über die Mahnwache am Klagesmarkt und die Proteste in der Türkei.jpg
[edit]
The image is largely a derivative work of a copyrighted image from the internet 188.104.99.77 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The used image is File:03a4d Mahnwache Gemeinschaft Atatürk Hannover Bund Türkischer Jugendlicher TGB Klagesmarkt.jpg, which has the same author and license. --Didym (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This image is a DW of the free image File:03a4d Mahnwache Gemeinschaft Atatürk Hannover Bund Türkischer Jugendlicher TGB Klagesmarkt.jpg High Contrast (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
File:59i6l Mahnwache am Klagesmarkt in Hannover, Tageszeitung Aydınlık (gazete), Bundeskanzlerim Angela Merkel im Halk TV canli zu den Protesten in der Türkei 2013.jpg
[edit],_Bundeskanzlerim_Angela_Merkel_im_Halk_TV_canli_zu_den_Protesten_in_der_T%C3%BCrkei_2013.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Bundeskanzlerim_Angela_Merkel_im_Halk_TV_canli_zu_den_Protesten_in_der_T%C3%BCrkei_2013.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image contains largely a TV screenshot of a copyrighted programme. This is a illegal reproduction 188.104.99.77 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:DW High Contrast (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that image is the original work of the uploader, which means that its copyright status is incorrect. Most game developers don't allow their logos and such to be remixed under CC. Andrewman327 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
PORQUE TENGO MENORES DE EDAD EN MI CASA 75.93.158.253 12:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: While I understand you wish to protect the children, we do not self-censor as our remit is for adults as well as children. Perhaps you should install some internet filtering software. Aunque comprendo que desea proteger a los niños, no lo hacemos autocensurarse ya que nuestra misión es para adultos como para niños. Tal vez deberías instalar algún software de filtrado de Internet. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
porque tengo menores de edad que protejer 75.93.158.253 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If you have sons that are minors is your responsabilbity to stop said sons of watching somethings that you dont want them to watch, as it is not others people work and responsability to do your work as a parent. Si tiene hijos menores de edad es su responsabilidad asegurarse de que ellos no ve lo que usted no quiere que ellos no puedan ver. No es otra tarea de otras personas es hacer su trabajo de educador. File kepted yesterday for the same reasons. Tm (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed as kept per above -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
photo is derivative of copyrighted sculpture. not in SIRIS, presumably after 1994, living sculptor born 1936 [8]; [9] }} Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Obvious KEEP The sculpture was commissioned and owned by the U.S. government in the form of the US General Services Administration (GSA) [10] [11] The photograph was commissioned by the GSA [12]. The GSA describes the collection of these photos as "Copyright-free". [13] The photographer donated the photo to the Library of Congress, which writes "(Highsmith's) generosity in dedicating the rights to the American people for copyright free access also makes this Archive a very special visual resource." (my bolding)
- Since two agencies of the US government describe the photo as copyright free (as well as owning the sculpture and the photo), I don't see any point in putting the judgement of one of our editors (however esteemed) above theirs. Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody close this? Smallbones (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept per Smallbones, LOC & GSA descriptions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Private photo? Out of scope. Yikrazuul (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- Keri Windsor has a wikipedia article, so pictures of her are in scope. The description says the picture was made on the set of a movie shoot -- so it is not a "private photo". Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept per Geo Swan. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Who is the author of this file? 91.65.158.54 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess you can say I am, in part. The photo is a cropped version of the larger image freely available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Milchm%C3%A4dchen_von_Pawel_Petrowitsch_Sokolow.jpg. Since there was merit in conserving that larger image with background details, I left it as it was without modifying. For the purposes of the article it illustrates, however, it was better to create this separate image. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Things seem to have moved on since I uploaded this version two years ago, the larger original of which seems not to be there now. However, the same photo as here seems to be on English Wikipedia, ascribed to Frank Schubert as his own work. I'm baffled but maybe you have some electronic means of checking the history. Since there is an author ascription to the en:wp image, would it be better to substitute that in the fable article? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of File:Milchmädchen von Pawel Petrowitsch Sokolow.jpg with no attribution to author or link to source information; violation of license & copyright. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Mistake, please delete the new version of the picture. Bitte neue Bildversion löschen, habe das andere Bild irrtümlich überschrieben!. Chris06 (Diskussion) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Chris06 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- "File closed", everything ok now. Chris06 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed Mistaken upload over existing file; has been reverted and fixed. Upload mistake deleted; existing file kept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Canoe1967 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The photographer is in the original image and also claiming copyright? Probably taken with a cell phone but the EXIF is a similar model of camera to mine. The resolution and quality are far too low for this camera.|source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/omgitztrey/4648935679/ INeverCry 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Photograph is publicly available under the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic license. Other sites using the cropped image: [14][15][16]. ComfyKem (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is Commons:Flickr washing. He may have made an honest mistake thinking he owned the copyright because he owned the cell phone that took the picture. Who ever clicks the button is the copyright holder unless there is a signed contract. I made an image that can help in cases like this here: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png See the image taken of him with the same camera EXIF: http://www.flickr.com/photos/omgitztrey/4650552449/in/set-72157622402461800 You can use http://regex.info/exif.cgi to match the data. This
cell phoneimage isn't the same camera or quality of image. Sample images of the Canon 400.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is Commons:Flickr washing. He may have made an honest mistake thinking he owned the copyright because he owned the cell phone that took the picture. Who ever clicks the button is the copyright holder unless there is a signed contract. I made an image that can help in cases like this here: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png See the image taken of him with the same camera EXIF: http://www.flickr.com/photos/omgitztrey/4650552449/in/set-72157622402461800 You can use http://regex.info/exif.cgi to match the data. This
- It's indeed somewhat strange that a professional photographer would do such a thing, adding unrelated EXIF-data. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- He may not have wanted his cell phone exif in the image for various reasons but at the same time didn't want to upload an image without exif. His Canon may have been the only exif he had handy that others may not question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless it's highly unprofessional, less the copyright-aspect than providing wrong technical data. --Túrelio (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Same camera, same event. See how the last image doesn't look the same for lighting and color tones?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, couldn't be more evident. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- As this is our only image of this senator, I searched at Flickr, but found only this one, which doesn't look very reliable either. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That one looks like a copyvio of this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Same camera, same event. See how the last image doesn't look the same for lighting and color tones?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless it's highly unprofessional, less the copyright-aspect than providing wrong technical data. --Túrelio (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- He may not have wanted his cell phone exif in the image for various reasons but at the same time didn't want to upload an image without exif. His Canon may have been the only exif he had handy that others may not question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's indeed somewhat strange that a professional photographer would do such a thing, adding unrelated EXIF-data. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the camera metadata is correct. The exposure numbers (f/2.8, 1/125s, ISO 1600) are about right for the lighting conditions, and the sensor noise is closer to what you'd get from a large-sensor camera at ISO 1600 than from a cell phone at ISO 1600. --Carnildo (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. If no one else wishes it deleted then I will withdraw my delete vote. It is the only image we have here of her and we should have more faith in photographers. If their is an issue in the future a rights holder can email WMF or open another DR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed as Kept per above; deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:I Jethrobot
[edit]User:I Jethrobot has uploaded these photos:
File:Davis Theatre Chicago.jpeg (no freedom of panorama in USA, architect en:Walter W. Ahlschlager)File:DavisLincolnSouth.jpg (no freedom of panorama in USA, architect Walter W. Ahlschlager)- File:Hextall OnIce.jpg (licence check failed)
- File:Hextall InGoal.jpg (licence check failed) Taivo (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Panorama_freedom#United_States states that buildings do have freedom of panorama in the U.S., so I don't understand this claim. As for the license check, only one of these files truly fails (Hextall_InGoal.jpg) because the photo apparently was taken by someone else besides the uploader, so its license is invalid. The other (Hextall_OnIce.jpg) is, however, valid. I Jethrobot (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete File:Hextall InGoal.jpg since the photographer Audrey did not license this photo copyright free. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Licence has changed on flickr, I think. --McZusatz (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
All Kept. The 2 flickr images failed review because uploader put wrong link; link fixed, images under free licenses at flickr, tagged for fresh review. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Since there is no sofware named "Graphiz" (it is a wrong spelled "Graphviz") and there are no links to this template, I think this is useless and can be deleted. (Also the /doc subpage should be deleted) Pyfisch (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No need for a vote, obviously a mistake of mine, I must have forgotten to ask for deletion TomT0m (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The uploader stated in August 2007: "These images are not mine, they're used with permission".[17] There is no evidence that the given permission allows reproduction of the image to anyone and under which license. Unless the copyright holder sends a valid permission to the OTRS, we can't keep it. Eleassar (t/p) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Which part of this you don't understand?
Vsa vsebina iz prlekija-on.net, ki bi jo želel objaviti tukaj in je tvoje delo, mora biti na razpolago za uporabo vsakomur za kakršen koli namen. Vsebine z dovoljenjem samo za Vikipedijo ne moremo sprejeti. Če si se odločil, da daš vsebino pod za VP ustrezno licenco, to napiši tudi tam (na prlekija-on.net), saj trenutno piše »vse pravice pridržane«. Za gradivo, ki ni tvoje delo, potrebujemo izrecno dovoljenje avtorja, da dovoljuje uporabo vsakomur za kakršen koli namen. Sicer ga ne smemo objaviti, saj bi kršili AP. --Eleassar pogovor 12:31, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Potem pa se slike odstranijo ali kako? Iz portala Prlekija-on.net pa je dovoljeno kopiranje vsega, če se navede vir. Dejanr 12:52, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Najboljše je, če se to navede na spletni strani. --Domen 12:54, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Saj piše v Pravilih uporabe. Dejanr 12:56, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Aha, torej, mi imamo izrecno dovoljenje avtorja? --Domen 13:14, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Da. Dejanr 13:24, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST) Super. Mogoče bo Eleassar še kaj pripomnil, drugače pa mislim, da je vse urejeno, da se slike lahko uporabljajo na Wikipediji. Hvala. --Domen 13:30, 21. avgust 2007 (CEST)
We are allowed to use it according to the Terms of Use of the webpage. --Miha (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader who was at the time presumed to be the owner of the web page, has clearly stated that these images are not his. There is no evidence that he would have permission of the copyright holder to publish them under the cited license. The cited page http://www.prlekija-on.net states here that only non-commercial reusage is allowed. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- According to the same user: "je dovoljeno kopiranje vsega, če se navede vir" (everything can be copied if the source is cited). Even though the licence might have changed since then, once an image is provided under a free licence, it reamains free no matter what. --Miha (talk) 17:34, 3 July 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 08:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File under copyright and not in PD. See File talk:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).png for more info. Trackratte (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- Keep Per Government of Canada: "Crown copyright lasts from the date of publication of a work plus 50 years thereafter...The Arms of Canada, the Government of Canada signature, and the Canada wordmark are exclusive trademarks of the Government of Canada." This rendition is out of copyright, but retains trademark protection. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have repeatedly requested Trackratte to read COM:COA and the related principles but he refuses. He has an extremely crude understanding of copyright assuming it is absolute when we know it is never such. This is a historical coat of arms and out of copyright. The Crown in Canadai does not use perpetual copyright, our laws do in fact expire. Fry1989 eh? 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned in above talk page and as per Copyright Act, section 12; Copyright Act, section 29.21; Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; Government of Canada Publications; Berne Convention, section 7 (6) and (8); COM:CB; COM:TO; and COM:DR.
- Have you read the sources provided? They directly contradict everything you just said. And no one has yet to offer one source about the Arms and Crown copyright. You repeatedly insult me and tell me to re-read COA, where your statements from other discussions are no where to be found within it. In fact, CON:COA even states that ""CoA definitions indeed claim copyright" (although rare).
- In regards to your statement that "The Crown in Canadai (sic) does not use perpetual copyright". Where's your source for that? All I see is personal opinion
- Here are my sources though: From The Invisible Crown by David E. Smith
- "Although the Crown prerogative copyright has been cited in many judicial opinions, it has not been judicially tested, so its nature and extent are not certain. It is known, however, that this exclusive right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection", and essay from copyright expert David Vaver, "The government should no longer assert, through the royal prerogative, perpetual copyright", "The right is conveniently said to be perpetual (so it would cover statutes long ago repealed) and not to lapse through non-use or non-assertion", and perpetual copyright is used in Crown contracting in Canada as you can see here.
- And finally, from the sources which I have provided but seem to have been simply ignored: COM:DR: "If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle", and "Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept".
Trackratte (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Stop trying to wiki-policy this thing because you know that you don't have the support for it to be deleted. It is out of copyright and is here to stay. Stop wasting our time and go learn copyright properly. PD-Canada is clear, Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. If you disagree, go start a discussion on changing the license, but until then the license applies and this will stay. Fry1989 eh? 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The w:Berne Convention doesn't allow perpetual copyright. I think because of w:Rule of the shorter term. Since this png probably wasn't was created in Canada then I doubt any local 'perpetual' law would apply in the USA where it is hosted. Re-use in Canada may be a problem but a trademark template should cover that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, as "works from a country that goes beyond the minimum requirements of a treaty may already have entered the public domain in foreign countries with shorter copyright term while still being copyrighted at home", although still ambiguous if this is the case or not in the US vis a vis Canadian copyright beyond 50 years. Worst case, it would be copyrighted in Canada only I suppose. Trackratte (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it was created in a country where the elements are public domain and hosted in a country where the elements are public domain then the only 'copyight' is on the creation of this svg. Canada may protect it there on 'trademark' or the similar insignia one but they can't hold copyright on a new work that they didn't create from public domain elements. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, as "works from a country that goes beyond the minimum requirements of a treaty may already have entered the public domain in foreign countries with shorter copyright term while still being copyrighted at home", although still ambiguous if this is the case or not in the US vis a vis Canadian copyright beyond 50 years. Worst case, it would be copyrighted in Canada only I suppose. Trackratte (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Email response from Copyright@PWGSC.GC.CA (Government of Canada Crown Copyright and Licencing Office)
- "from: Droitdauteur - Copyright <droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca>
- date: 4 July 2013 17:37
- subject: RE: 201307020820: Comments to Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Good morning,
- The Library and Archives Canada link you have provided states that copyright for a watercolour 1921 work of art depicting the Arms has expired.
- The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T105-eng.asp . The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T110-eng.asp.
- Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain.
- We realize that unauthorized use occurs, especially on the Web, and Wikipedia entries are not always accurate. Government departments address unauthorized use when issues are brought to their attention, but the best defenders of the official symbols of the Government of Canada are often members of the public who react to unauthorized use and request that entities remove them from their sites.
- We hope this information is helpful.
- Droit d'auteur de la Couronne et octroi de licences | Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Direction générale des services intégrés (DGSI) / Integrated Services Branch (ISB)
- Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada / Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Ottawa, Ontario
- K1A 0S5
- droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
- Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-6886
- Télécopieur | Facsimile 613-998-1450
- Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada"
- I think that that is a clear enough official response.
- Trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not clear at all, it's a complete misunderstanding of the law. Canadian copyright is explicitly clear that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. This version of the Canadian coat of arms is 56 years old. All the rules and policies are in favour of this image staying on Commons, and stay it will. The historical renditions of the Canadian coat of arms are out of copyright according to the law, it doesn't matter what some idiot in the Public Works department thinks. They have no proof contrary to the law of the land.
- 12. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. [S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 60(1)]
- That is the law, nobody can contradict it without proof that dispensation from the law has been invoked. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what it says which is why I quoted the entire thing, I'm not blind. The problem is you have no proof that that the Crown has exercised any privilege to permanently control all and any renditions of the Canadian coat of arms. Having privileges and exercising them are two different things and if this image is going to be deleted you need solid proof that it has been done, not the claim of someone that isn't backed up by fact. Commons policy states this image is PD. Canadian copyright law states this image is PD. The Boerne Convention states this image is PD. The Canadian Government in it's national archives says that the historical coats of arms are PD. Everything says this is PD except you and some idiot in the Public Works department who provided no proof of their claims. You don't want this image to be here, because you're trying to hunt down every little detail and reasoning you can find to make it go, but the law and Commons policy is clear. Fry1989 eh? 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that two sources from the Treasury Board Secretariat (official secondary sources), the Canadian Crown Copyright Office (official secondary source), Professor Vaver, copyright lawyer and professor at Oxford (expert academic secondary source), Publications Canada (official secondary source), the Copyright Act (legal primary source), the Interpretations Act (legal primary source), and other supporting sources, do not override your interpretations of a single primary source? So when the Crown Copyright Office issues the statement that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain", in specific regards to the question of the Arms on Wikipedia, you conclude that this means that the Canadian Arms are in the public domain? I've tried to understand your rationale, I really have, but I can't, terribly sorry. I've looked for reliable expert and official sources supporting your opinion, but I haven't been able to find any. After politely asking you over and over to help me with this by providing the sources supporting your opinion, you have steadfastly refused, and have instead resorted to swearing and name calling. I don't see the issue here. The sources state that this material is under copyright, copyrighted material isn't allowed on Commons, it seems simple enough to me. Wikipedia will not lose content, and the material won't be lost but simply transferred under proper fair-use to the Wikis that want to use them, and the user will have the proper information for licencing. Win-win. Trackratte (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm saying that Canadian copyright law says this is PD. The Boerne Convention says this is PD. Commons policy says this is PD. The Canadian Government itself says this is PD on their national archives website. Until you give proof that the Crown has exercised a privilege (not just that is possesses such privilege) of extremely restrictive and extensive copyright in contradiction of multiple laws and it's own public statements, this image is to be assumed PD by the Commons Community. As for my language, I'll speak how I wish so get over it. And I don't recall calling anyone names, yet. I sure am thinking them though at this point having to deal with someone so intent on ignoring the laws we know in favour of hunting down everything he can to get this deleted.
- The simple fact is that possessing a privilege and exercising one are two different things. With the lack of any proof that such privilege has been exercised, Canadian Copyright Law and the Boerne Convention on Copyright reign supreme, and we must assume this as Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything you just stated is your own interpretation and original research. The Canadian copyright law does not say that the Arms are in the public domain, it doesn't make any mention of the Arms at all. The Berne convention does not "say this is PD", but actually doesn't mention the Arms at all either (in fact the Crown Copyright Office specifically states that the copyright of the Arms is protected by the Berne and Paris Conventions). The "Canadian Government itself says" that the Arms are under copyright (see above sources). The email response says that the copyright on the 1921 watercolour has expired, not on the Arms themselves.
- You say that I've looked for sources as if it's a bad thing. Researching both sides of an issue (through a simple Google search), then asking the relevant official authorities for explicit clarification (which they gave), and then sharing everything so that people can form their conclusions based on the widest array of official and expert sources sounds like basic due diligence to me. Yet you disparage it. It seems that you would much rather no sources be presented since your opinion is the only thing that matters to you here. I started this by stumbling on something that said the Arms were copyrighted while looking for something else on the web. I then looked for a reliable source that stated that the Arms are public domain so I could back up the PD licence. Finding all reliable secondary sources to say the contrary, I transferred the images to the English Wikipedia and put these up for deletion subject to their violating copyright, based on official and expert secondary sources (I'd be perfectly happy if reliable secondary sources said that the Arms are PD). But, according to WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources", and not on editor's interpretations of primary sources. Furthermore, your personal interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Berne Convention are not "directly and explicitly supported by the source" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) as they makes no mention of the Arms and whether or not they are in the public domain. However, what we do have are official secondary sources which counter your unsourced opinion. One of which states that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain". We can ignore the primary source justification of prerogative copyright, the secondary sources are explicit in that the Arms are currently under copyright, and there are no reliable secondary sources to the contrary. Trackratte (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly are looking at this from a Wikipedia mentality. Commons has no concept of "original research", nor do we require secondary sources. In fact, our licenses are the very basis of the opposite; we seek the law, interpret it and use it for our files. Don't waste anybody's time here with claims of OR or the need of secondary sources because that language means nothing here.
- More important, you're now trying to trick us with words, saying "it doesn't mention the coat of arms, so it doesn't apply". The Berne Convention and Canadian copyright law do not need to explicitly mention the coat of arms at all. The Berne Convention forbids perpetual copyright, that would apply to all copyrights held by the Canadian Government as it makes no exception by name for certain works. As the Convention is an international treaty ratified by the Canadian Government, it has become part of Canadian federal law. Canada's own copyright law also states that all held Crown Copyrights expire after 50 without exception by specific name for certain works, which means it automatically includes the coat of arms which are an act of Crown Copyright. Unless the Crown has taken explicit action to extend the copyright on the Arms (in violation of the Berne Convention and currently an unsourced assumption on your part), it has fallen out of copyright.
- The facts are clear:
- The Boerne Convention states this image is Public Domain
- The Canadian Government states this image is Public Domain in the national archives (in direct conflict with your email)
- Canadian Copyright Law states this image is in the Public Domain (unless there is absolute proof that the Crown has exercised license to extend copyright beyond it's normal age limitation, having a right and using it are two different things)
- Those are the relevant laws and facts we have and until you have solid proof otherwise, this image is to be assumed Public Domain by the Commons Community. And as for your mention on what your email says, your email is completely unreliable for various reasons. First is it's in contradiction with the laws and facts relating to the matter. Second is you claim the email says that the watercolour is no longer copyrighted. Well that is a "depiction" of the coat of arms, is it not? You're claiming the Canadian Government has copyrighted all and every rendition or depiction of the coat of arms, but your email contradicts that claim. If you want to use Wikipedia standards for sources, your email would be rendered completely unreliable. There is no actual source to the contrary of any of the facts or laws regarding this issue. The current Canadian coat of arms of 1994 is clearly copyrighted, but the historical versions of 1923 and 1957, as well as any derivatives of such are not copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming anything, just quoting the relevant reliable and qualified sources and not simply making interpretations on things I'm not qualified to handle. Are you claiming to be a lawyer specialising in Canadian Crown Copyright? Even if you were, reliable secondary sources on an issue is appropriate proof, self-stated claims are not. And your 'clear facts' are once again your interpretations of how they should apply to this case, for of course those primary sources themselves make no mention of it. Trackratte (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte, if you don't think that Canadian copyright law, in it's full text regarding Crown copyrights, is an explicitly clear source on what the law is and that I'm just "interpreting it" my way for my own benefit, I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. This DR should be closed immediately. You're not willing to understand the law, you're not willing to accept well-understood practices regarding copyrights, and you are manipulating words, omissions and inclusions to suggest something which the facts simply do not support. Canadian copyright law states the coat of arms is PD inasmuch that it makes to explicit exceptions in the text for any certain works. It doesn't have to mention the coat of arms by name, the fact it makes no exception means it automatically includes the coat of arms. You have zero proof that the Crown has violated both Canadian copyright law and the Berne Convention to hold a perpetual copyright on all historical renditions of the coat of arms, it is purely your assumption but it's not backed by the facts. Fry1989 eh? 16:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming anything, just quoting the relevant reliable and qualified sources and not simply making interpretations on things I'm not qualified to handle. Are you claiming to be a lawyer specialising in Canadian Crown Copyright? Even if you were, reliable secondary sources on an issue is appropriate proof, self-stated claims are not. And your 'clear facts' are once again your interpretations of how they should apply to this case, for of course those primary sources themselves make no mention of it. Trackratte (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us are copyright lawyers. This DR seems to keep repeating the same points from both sides. Why not just wait it out and let the closing admin decide and if there is an issue then WMF copyright lawyers may need to weigh in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing copyrightable here according to the law. Trackratte has completely failed to prove otherwise but repeats bellicose interpretations to support his theory, so it is needed to repeat what the known laws and facts are so that an admin who pays attention doesn't make a mistake. Fry1989 eh? 16:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking a straw man.
No, your interpretation of statutory copyright law is not an explicitly clear source, it's not a source at all. Canadian court rulings and interpretations are. The relevant authorities' official statements are. Academic essays by expert Canadian copyright lawyers are. (And in that order). From the Canadian Crown Copyright Office: The Arms are protected under the "Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization...The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works...Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain." The Canadian Crown Copyright Office is the determinative source for Canadian Crown Copyright.
So:
- "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain" --> Arms are not PD
- "The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization." --> Use protected under Copyright Act
- "The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention" --> Use protected according to Berne and Paris Conventions
- COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." "Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed."
- COM:DW "Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons, or they will be deleted."
- Com:DR "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept", "If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted".
- You've already expressed your opinions, and I have passed on the relevant sources, and the official response from the Crown Copyright Office with specific regards to this matter here on Wikipedia. As Canoe stated, I think all there is left is to wait for a closing admin / WMF copyright lawyers. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- No, I've expressed facts, you have expressed opinions. Images under copyright don't get "released", once they have passed the legal age by law they automatically fall out of copyright, the copyright expires. The Government has already said that the watercolour is PD, which is in direct conflict with the claim "no renditions of the arms have been released". The watercolour IS a rendition of the coat of arms, so your email contradicts itself, let alone the law. COM:DW means nothing, a derivative work of something that is not in copyright is free by it's own nature. COM:L, that's right we need licenses which state something is PD, AND WE HAVE IT. Canadian copyright law says that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years and it makes no exceptions. The Berne Convention is a part of Canadian law as well since it as ratified by the Canadian Government, and it forbids perpetual copyright. Everything says this is PD, the only thing you have to the contrary is the assumption that the Crown has exercised a right in contradiction of the Berne Convention, and a self-contradictory email that has no sources for it's claims either. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- For the closing admin, here are the facts we actually know.
- Canadian copyright law states that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years. It makes no specific exceptions for any works by name. Without a deliberate exception for the coat of arms, it is to be assumed that they are included.
- The Berne Convention bans perpetual copyright. That convention was ratified by the Canadian Government and is therefore part of Canadian law. The convention makes no exceptions for certain works by name, which means it would apply to all Canadian copyrights. It is therefore a violation of the convention for the Canadian Government to claim a perpetual copyright on the coat of arms.
- The Canadian Government states that a watercolour painting of the coat of arms is PD. That is in direct conflict with Trackratte's email claiming "no renditions have been released".
- Trackratte's email also states that watercolour is PD, so it directly contradicts itself. The email is therefore unreliable.
- Trackratte has not provided any proof that the Canadian Government has taken reservation and extended it's copyright over all renditions of the Canadian coat of arms past and present. Without any proof that the Canadian Government has done so, it is to be assumed that Canadian copyright law reigns supreme, which means that while the current 1994 coat of arms on Wikipedia is indeed copyrighted, the 1923 and 1957 coats of arms as well as their derivatives, are PD by law.
- There has been zero proof that the historical coats of arms are copyrighted, and Canadian law states otherwise. All Trackratte has provided is assumptions, twisting of words, and an unreliable email. There is zero reasoning to delete this file for those reasons. Fry1989 eh? 19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence that this file is non-free. In fact, most written/textual evidence below points to it being free. FASTILY 08:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File under copyright and not PD. See File talk:Coat of Arms of Canada (1923).jpg for more info. Trackratte (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep It's from 1921. Library and Archives Canada confirm that the copyright is expired on a virtually identical file. DrKiernan (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have repeatedly requested Trackratte to read COM:COA and the related principles but he refuses. He has an extremely crude understanding of copyright assuming it is absolute when we know it is never such. This is a historical coat of arms and out of copyright. The Crown in Canadai does not use perpetual copyright, our laws do in fact expire. Fry1989 eh? 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - need nominator to get more familiar with the process.Moxy (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Moxy was good enough to provide us with a source from the LAC Archives which contradicts TBS in that the there is no copyright for the 1921 depiction. We should get an official response from PC which will settle the contradictions which can be archived. Trackratte (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's the same source I provided 24 hours ago [18], before you nominated the file. The fact that you missed it just shows that you are nominating these files without actually examining the facts or the arguments of your opposers. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't have it watchlisted and didn't realise you had put that in there in between my checking it and nominating it, my absolute apologies. Why didn't you reference it in any of the coversations when I repeatedly requested contrary sources? I stated from the outset that I disagreed with this material being removed from the Commons, was looking for contradicting sources, but in the absence of a contrary official source there was no evidence suggesting otherwise. Unless you did and I simply missed it? In any event, there are still two contradicting official sources, so I'm awaiting for the official response so we can "put the nail in the coffin" and put it behind us. Trackratte (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the Archives stated their image is PD or not, Canadian law explicitly means this image is out of copyright, it's over 50 years old. You try and claim all these sources about Canadian copyright which you don't understand and confuse with trademarks, but you ignore the strongest source of all, Canadian copyright law itself. Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. Fry1989 eh? 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't have it watchlisted and didn't realise you had put that in there in between my checking it and nominating it, my absolute apologies. Why didn't you reference it in any of the coversations when I repeatedly requested contrary sources? I stated from the outset that I disagreed with this material being removed from the Commons, was looking for contradicting sources, but in the absence of a contrary official source there was no evidence suggesting otherwise. Unless you did and I simply missed it? In any event, there are still two contradicting official sources, so I'm awaiting for the official response so we can "put the nail in the coffin" and put it behind us. Trackratte (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Canada_(1923).jpg&diff=99229796&oldid=99218716){kind=link}
Following commentary taken from other Arms of Canada deletion requests
- Comment Email response from Copyright@PWGSC.GC.CA (Government of Canada Crown Copyright and Licencing Office)
- "from: Droitdauteur - Copyright <droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca>
- date: 4 July 2013 17:37
- subject: RE: 201307020820: Comments to Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Good morning,
- The Library and Archives Canada link you have provided states that copyright for a watercolour 1921 work of art depicting the Arms has expired.
- The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T105-eng.asp . The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Please see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T110-eng.asp.
- Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain.
- We realize that unauthorized use occurs, especially on the Web, and Wikipedia entries are not always accurate. Government departments address unauthorized use when issues are brought to their attention, but the best defenders of the official symbols of the Government of Canada are often members of the public who react to unauthorized use and request that entities remove them from their sites.
- We hope this information is helpful.
- Droit d'auteur de la Couronne et octroi de licences | Crown Copyright and Licensing
- Direction générale des services intégrés (DGSI) / Integrated Services Branch (ISB)
- Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada / Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Ottawa, Ontario
- K1A 0S5
- droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
- Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-6886
- Télécopieur | Facsimile 613-998-1450
- Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada"
- I think that that is a clear enough official response.
- Trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It's not clear at all, it's a complete misunderstanding of the law. Canadian copyright is explicitly clear that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. This version of the Canadian coat of arms is 56 years old. All the rules and policies are in favour of this image staying on Commons, and stay it will. The historical renditions of the Canadian coat of arms are out of copyright according to the law, it doesn't matter what some idiot in the Public Works department thinks. They have no proof contrary to the law of the land.
- 12. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. [S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 60(1)]
- That is the law, nobody can contradict it without proof that dispensation from the law has been invoked. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what it says which is why I quoted the entire thing, I'm not blind. The problem is you have no proof that that the Crown has exercised any privilege to permanently control all and any renditions of the Canadian coat of arms. Having privileges and exercising them are two different things and if this image is going to be deleted you need solid proof that it has been done, not the claim of someone that isn't backed up by fact. Commons policy states this image is PD. Canadian copyright law states this image is PD. The Boerne Convention states this image is PD. The Canadian Government in it's national archives says that the historical coats of arms are PD. Everything says this is PD except you and some idiot in the Public Works department who provided no proof of their claims. You don't want this image to be here, because you're trying to hunt down every little detail and reasoning you can find to make it go, but the law and Commons policy is clear. Fry1989 eh? 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the copyright law to which you refer states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years only "Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown". The law has no effect and cannot legislate against the 'rights and privileges of the Crown', and as the Arms are the personal Arms of the Canadian Sovereign, they fall under right and privilege. The official sources, including an email response from the Crown Copyright office, addressed specifically to this situation on Wikipedia, explicitly states that all depictions of the Arms are currently under Copyright protection. Wikipedia policy states that if there is any doubt, administrators should err on the side of caution and remove the files in question. I don't see any doubt here. Although, as I said at the outset, I would like to see the Arms stay as that was my goal in the beginning. It was only through the overwhelming weight of evidence that I had no choice but to conclude that 'all depictions of the Arms' are under Crown Copyright, and according to Commons policy the Arms cannot remain on the Commons, but only on Wikis under fair-use. I would seriously welcome contrary evidence, but to date all that we have against all of these official and expert sources is your opinion and synthesis based from your interpretation of a primary source. Trackratte (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that two sources from the Treasury Board Secretariat (official secondary sources), the Canadian Crown Copyright Office (official secondary source), Professor Vaver, copyright lawyer and professor at Oxford (expert academic secondary source), Publications Canada (official secondary source), the Copyright Act (legal primary source), the Interpretations Act (legal primary source), and other supporting sources, do not override your interpretations of a single primary source? So when the Crown Copyright Office issues the statement that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain", in specific regards to the question of the Arms on Wikipedia, you conclude that this means that the Canadian Arms are in the public domain? I've tried to understand your rationale, I really have, but I can't, terribly sorry. I've looked for reliable expert and official sources supporting your opinion, but I haven't been able to find any. After politely asking you over and over to help me with this by providing the sources supporting your opinion, you have steadfastly refused, and have instead resorted to swearing and name calling. I don't see the issue here. The sources state that this material is under copyright, copyrighted material isn't allowed on Commons, it seems simple enough to me. Wikipedia will not lose content, and the material won't be lost but simply transferred under proper fair-use to the Wikis that want to use them, and the user will have the proper information for licencing. Win-win. Trackratte (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm saying that Canadian copyright law says this is PD. The Boerne Convention says this is PD. Commons policy says this is PD. The Canadian Government itself says this is PD on their national archives website. Until you give proof that the Crown has exercised a privilege (not just that is possesses such privilege) of extremely restrictive and extensive copyright in contradiction of multiple laws and it's own public statements, this image is to be assumed PD by the Commons Community. As for my language, I'll speak how I wish so get over it. And I don't recall calling anyone names, yet. I sure am thinking them though at this point having to deal with someone so intent on ignoring the laws we know in favour of hunting down everything he can to get this deleted.
- The simple fact is that possessing a privilege and exercising one are two different things. With the lack of any proof that such privilege has been exercised, Canadian Copyright Law and the Boerne Convention on Copyright reign supreme, and we must assume this as Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything you just stated is your own interpretation and original research. The Canadian copyright law does not say that the Arms are in the public domain, it doesn't make any mention of the Arms at all. The Berne convention does not "say this is PD", but actually doesn't mention the Arms at all either (in fact the Crown Copyright Office specifically states that the copyright of the Arms is protected by the Berne and Paris Conventions). The "Canadian Government itself says" that the Arms are under copyright (see above sources). The email response says that the copyright on the 1921 watercolour has expired, not on the Arms themselves.
- You say that I've looked for sources as if it's a bad thing. Researching both sides of an issue (through a simple Google search), then asking the relevant official authorities for explicit clarification (which they gave), and then sharing everything so that people can form their conclusions based on the widest array of official and expert sources sounds like basic due diligence to me. Yet you disparage it. It seems that you would much rather no sources be presented since your opinion is the only thing that matters to you here. I started this by stumbling on something that said the Arms were copyrighted while looking for something else on the web. I then looked for a reliable source that stated that the Arms are public domain so I could back up the PD licence. Finding all reliable secondary sources to say the contrary, I transferred the images to the English Wikipedia and put these up for deletion subject to their violating copyright, based on official and expert secondary sources (I'd be perfectly happy if reliable secondary sources said that the Arms are PD). But, according to WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources", and not on editor's interpretations of primary sources. Furthermore, your personal interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Berne Convention are not "directly and explicitly supported by the source" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) as they makes no mention of the Arms and whether or not they are in the public domain. However, what we do have are official secondary sources which counter your unsourced opinion. One of which states that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain". We can ignore the primary source justification of prerogative copyright, the secondary sources are explicit in that the Arms are currently under copyright, and there are no reliable secondary sources to the contrary. Trackratte (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Above commentary taken from other Arms of Canada deletion requests
- You clearly are looking at this from a Wikipedia mentality. Commons has no concept of "original research", nor do we require secondary sources. In fact, our licenses are the very basis of the opposite; we seek the law, interpret it and use it for our files. Don't waste anybody's time here with claims of OR or the need of secondary sources because that language means nothing here.
- More important, you're now trying to trick us with words, saying "it doesn't mention the coat of arms, so it doesn't apply". The Berne Convention and Canadian copyright law do not need to explicitly mention the coat of arms at all. The Berne Convention forbids perpetual copyright, that would apply to all copyrights held by the Canadian Government as it makes no exception by name for certain works. As the Convention is an international treaty ratified by the Canadian Government, it has become part of Canadian federal law. Canada's own copyright law also states that all held Crown Copyrights expire after 50 without exception by specific name for certain works, which means it automatically includes the coat of arms which are an act of Crown Copyright. Unless the Crown has taken explicit action to extend the copyright on the Arms (in violation of the Berne Convention and currently an unsourced assumption on your part), it has fallen out of copyright.
- The facts are clear:
- The Boerne Convention states this image is Public Domain
- The Canadian Government states this image is Public Domain in the national archives (in direct conflict with your email)
- Canadian Copyright Law states this image is in the Public Domain (unless there is absolute proof that the Crown has exercised license to extend copyright beyond it's normal age limitation, having a right and using it are two different things)
- Those are the relevant laws and facts we have and until you have solid proof otherwise, this image is to be assumed Public Domain by the Commons Community. And as for your mention on what your email says, your email is completely unreliable for various reasons. First is it's in contradiction with the laws and facts relating to the matter. Second is you claim the email says that the watercolour is no longer copyrighted. Well that is a "depiction" of the coat of arms, is it not? You're claiming the Canadian Government has copyrighted all and every rendition or depiction of the coat of arms, but your email contradicts that claim. If you want to use Wikipedia standards for sources, your email would be rendered completely unreliable. There is no actual source to the contrary of any of the facts or laws regarding this issue. The current Canadian coat of arms of 1994 is clearly copyrighted, but the historical versions of 1923 and 1957, as well as any derivatives of such are not copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm not claiming anything, just quoting the relevant reliable and qualified sources and not simply making interpretations on things I'm not qualified to handle. Are you claiming to be a lawyer specialising in Canadian Crown Copyright? Even if you were, reliable secondary sources on an issue is appropriate proof, self-stated claims are not. And your 'clear facts' are once again your interpretations of how they should apply to this case, for of course those primary sources themselves make no mention of it. Trackratte (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us are copyright lawyers. This DR seems to keep repeating the same points from both sides. Why not just wait it out and let the closing admin decide and if there is an issue then WMF copyright lawyers may need to weigh in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Trackratte, if you don't think that Canadian copyright law, in it's full text regarding Crown copyrights, is an explicitly clear source on what the law is and that I'm just "interpreting it" my way for my own benefit, I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. This DR should be closed immediately. You're not willing to understand the law, you're not willing to accept well-understood practices regarding copyrights, and you are manipulating words, omissions and inclusions to suggest something which the facts simply do not support. Canadian copyright law states the coat of arms is PD inasmuch that it makes to explicit exceptions in the text for any certain works. It doesn't have to mention the coat of arms by name, the fact it makes no exception means it automatically includes the coat of arms. You have zero proof that the Crown has violated both Canadian copyright law and the Berne Convention to hold a perpetual copyright on all historical renditions of the coat of arms, it is purely your assumption but it's not backed by the facts. Fry1989 eh? 16:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking a straw man.
No, your interpretation of statutory copyright law is not an explicitly clear source, it's not a source at all. Canadian court rulings and interpretations are. The relevant authorities' official statements are. Academic essays by expert Canadian copyright lawyers are. (And in that order). From the Canadian Crown Copyright Office: The Arms are protected under the "Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization...The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works...Legal protection for the Arms of Canada has not expired and no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain." The Canadian Crown Copyright Office is the determinative source for Canadian Crown Copyright.
So:
- "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain" --> Arms are not PD
- "The Arms of Canada is protected under the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act and cannot be used or reproduced without authorization." --> Use protected under Copyright Act
- "The Arms is also protected under a number of international agreements including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 6ter) and the Berne Convention" --> Use protected according to Berne and Paris Conventions
- COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." "Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed."
- COM:DW "Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons, or they will be deleted."
- Com:DR "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept", "If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted".
- You've already expressed your opinions, and I have passed on the relevant sources, and the official response from the Crown Copyright Office with specific regards to this matter here on Wikipedia. As Canoe stated, I think all there is left is to wait for a closing admin / WMF copyright lawyers. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- No, I've expressed facts, you have expressed opinions. Images under copyright don't get "released", once they have passed the legal age by law they automatically fall out of copyright, the copyright expires. The Government has already said that the watercolour is PD, which is in direct conflict with the claim "no renditions of the arms have been released". The watercolour IS a rendition of the coat of arms, so your email contradicts itself, let alone the law. COM:DW means nothing, a derivative work of something that is not in copyright is free by it's own nature. COM:L, that's right we need licenses which state something is PD, AND WE HAVE IT. Canadian copyright law says that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years and it makes no exceptions. The Berne Convention is a part of Canadian law as well since it as ratified by the Canadian Government, and it forbids perpetual copyright. Everything says this is PD, the only thing you have to the contrary is the assumption that the Crown has exercised a right in contradiction of the Berne Convention, and a self-contradictory email that has no sources for it's claims either. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- For the closing admin, here are the facts we actually know.
- Canadian copyright law states that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years. It makes no specific exceptions for any works by name. Without a deliberate exception for the coat of arms, it is to be assumed that they are included.
- The Berne Convention bans perpetual copyright. That convention was ratified by the Canadian Government and is therefore part of Canadian law. The convention makes no exceptions for certain works by name, which means it would apply to all Canadian copyrights. It is therefore a violation of the convention for the Canadian Government to claim a perpetual copyright on the coat of arms.
- The Canadian Government states that a watercolour painting of the coat of arms is PD. That is in direct conflict with Trackratte's email claiming "no renditions have been released".
- Trackratte's email also states that watercolour is PD, so it directly contradicts itself. The email is therefore unreliable.
- Trackratte has not provided any proof that the Canadian Government has taken reservation and extended it's copyright over all renditions of the Canadian coat of arms past and present. Without any proof that the Canadian Government has done so, it is to be assumed that Canadian copyright law reigns supreme, which means that while the current 1994 coat of arms on Wikipedia is indeed copyrighted, the 1923 and 1957 coats of arms as well as their derivatives, are PD by law.
- There has been zero proof that the historical coats of arms are copyrighted, and Canadian law states otherwise. All Trackratte has provided is assumptions, twisting of words, and an unreliable email. There is zero reasoning to delete this file for those reasons. Fry1989 eh? 19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also there is a lack of facts from the w:Rule of the shorter term. Canada signed it and cannot create a local law that violates an international one: "...the same work may thus be copyrighted for different times in different countries (since, per lex loci protectionis, the copyright rules of each country apply within its jurisdiction..." Canada may be able to protect usage in Canada but not hosting USA servers. The COA template covers that with: "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everything says this is PD. There is no proof to the contrary, and everyone except Trackratte seems to agree and understand this. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- See also: w:Lex loci protectionis. "Consequently, the law of the country where the intellectual property was created or registered is not applied."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Keep as Fry said, it's old 174.95.44.225 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence that this file is non-free. In fact, most written/textual evidence below points to it being free. FASTILY 08:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:STADTKULTUR HANNOVER des Lichtbildhauers Franz Betz, am ehemaligen Standort der Büste von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz im Haus der Wirtschaftsförderung von Stadt und Region Hannover.jpg
[edit]
A permission by the creator is neede because this image a derivative work. It is not displayed at a public place. German FOP law does not apply for indoors 188.104.99.77 16:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a personal allowedness by e-mail of the artist to me to upload his work onto Wikimedia Commons. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then send this permission to COM:OTRS. Then, it will be kept if the permission is sufficient. --High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
File:STADTKULTUR HANNOVER des Lichtbildhauers Franz Betz, ca. 80x80x80 vor dem Treppenaufgang im Haus der Wirtschaftsförderung von Stadt und Region Hannover.jpg
[edit]
A permission by the creator is neede because this image a derivative work. It is not displayed at a public place. German FOP law does not apply for indoors 188.104.99.77 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a personal allowedness by e-mail of the artist to me to upload his work onto Wikimedia Commons. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then send this permission to COM:OTRS. Then, it will be kept if the permission is sufficient. --High Contrast (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Image appears to be a professional photo Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment COM:OTRS permission would be good. Also, please look Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Kike Sarasola.jpg. The uploader says, that the reason for this request is not good. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have e-mailed the user, and I have marked the file for {{OTRS pending}}. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: being resolved at OTRS FASTILY 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I just restored a license, which the uploader removed shortly after upload. But the statement Own work: all rights reserved. on the description page is not fitting to Commons:Licensing. JuTa 20:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The same applies to File:DSC03878a.JPG. --JuTa 20:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment "All rights reserved" is AFAIK a wording without legal significance; notably it is also used in some liberal free software licenses such as all BSD licenses. It's only due to Creative Commons's "some rights reserved" that some people believe that "all rights reserved" means "no license given". darkweasel94 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: inconsistent source info FASTILY 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not free. Too complicated to be ineligible for copyright as "simple geometric shapes and/or text". Eastmain (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Too complicated to be ineligible for cop..? where ? oscar mayer in a square and no more.--EEIM (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- PD according to US TOO, basic shapes and text. Keep Fry1989 eh? 03:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd text FASTILY 08:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Zneužití mých autorských práv, na výtvoru tohoto obrázku, nebyl jsem informován o úpravách, bylo prušena licence autorských práv tímto uživatelem! Frisky007 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep I used Google Translate to understand this reason, and if anything here was actually created by you (which I doubt), it's not copyrightable. The sign in the triangle itself comes from an Austrian law (PD), and adding a text to it is ineligible. darkweasel94 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Ineligible. Fry1989 eh? 23:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd ineligible FASTILY 08:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
1965 work by Franc Pokovec.[19] Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 09:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pokovec did not design the church. The 1944 photo (burned) and 1947 photo (belfry temporarily capped) show that the current structure is also the original church. Pokovec probably redesigned the destroyed interior of the church, and may have helped restore the roof, but the walls, belfry, and portico are original. Doremo (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Some more info is available here: the upper part of the belfry was restored after old photographs; the plan was made by J. Pokovec. The question is how many creative choices have been made by him. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think this can be regarded as a derivative of a PD work, unless there's evidence of non-de minimis modern creative elements. — Yerpo Eh? 17:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Slovenia. It's also unclear how much of the church redesign was by Pokovec FASTILY 08:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promo images of non-notable band (no wiki articles)
- File:Grey & grumpy018.jpg
- File:Grey & grumpy009.jpg
- File:Grey & grumpy023.jpg
- File:Grey & grumpy030.jpg
INeverCry 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in scope IMO, can be useful to illustrate concert in general. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 08:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)