This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It seems the uploader took picture of this artwork printed somewhere, then thought this is their own work and uploaded it as CC-0. However I don't find any evidence that the original artwork is in CC-0, and it's not simple enough to be PD-ineligible. Liangent (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Zoupan, You are right, I am sorry I should have figured it out. It is weird that OTRS can be accessed by either "TicketNumber" confusingly called by {{PermissionOTRS}} "id" or by "ticketID" which is not used on Commons. Permissions using "ticketID" always provide the full URL through parameter "ticket". To my knowledge Serbian wikipedia is the only one using "ticketID". Commons needs to deal with templates being copied from great many sources and allows several input styles, but we never had a need for ticketID since no wikipedia (that transfers to Commons) was using it. Any file using it would end up in Category:Items with incorrect OTRS ticket ID which is almost empty. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I accidentally uploaded this screenshot. Already uploaded the correct version instead, and this version contains private meta-data (user name) and isn't being used anywhere. אנבה (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete per Stas. No point in arguing over, or even worrying about, the license status of an image that's not going to be useful. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I agree. Maybe we can ask Tiberioclaudio99 (talk·contribs) to upload correctly his own version (supposing it's his on work and he choose a correct licence)? But if I agree my own photograph isn't perfect, far from it, I see no reason to delete or overwrite it. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
used for vandalism petrohs (gracias) 03:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Closing admin: Please do not close this as 'delete' promptly when the seven days run out... attempts are being made to contact ANISOM, and it is somewhat likely they will change the license. Give it a few weeks. Thanks. Revent (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms. Therefore, we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
Public Domain Mark 1.0 is not the same as Public Domain or {{PD-author}}. If someone could please email the author(s) and please ask them to either license under a free license or specify that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law, as per {{PD-author}} (which the images are claiming they have, but which they haven't according to Public Domain Mark 1.0 of which they are tagged on Flickr).
Undoubtedly, some people will see the size of this DR and want to yell at Josve05a for it. It is based on the results of a RFC that has been open since April, however, and the situation seems fairly clear... that the mere statement, on Flickr, that a work is PD does not meet our requirements for a 'justification' of why it is PD. These files, essentially, fail 'PD-review' as a group... some might, individually, be fine upon inspection, but we should not be hosting several thousand files upon the mere 'assertion', without any justification, that they are PD. If they are not 'inherently' PD (as in the case of something like PD-USGov), and it is actually a case of them being CC-0, then that license must be explicitly stated by the Flickr account... without that, as it stands I don't think the PRP will let us keep these. This is a different situation from something like PD-USGov, where the 'US origin' lets us ignore the copyright status in other countries (and it's a common misconception that US Govt works are PD worldwide.... they are not). These are non-US works. Revent (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if I find a clear copyvio on Commons, instead of tagging them as copyvio, I should contact the author and request a relicense before notifying parties here on Commons (via DRs)? We can't keep them when there are issues with them. They need to go, both per the legal text and per PRP. We need to act on the licens the images are under now, not what they might become if we are lucky (and work hard). Josve05a (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the African Union Mission to Somalia posting their own photos to Flickr is a case of «clear copyvio» for you? Not a case of Flickr allowing misleading wording in their dropdown form items and people failing to notice? Well, my work in Commons is about promoting free knowledge, not about gotcha moments on those unfortunate people who forgot to read the small print. This matter needs fixing and fixing needs time! In this case, of photos by the African Union Mission to Somalia (and not funny selfies for the lulz by Gabe H. Coud), COM:AGF trumps COM:PRP. -- Tuválkin✉✇17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me aress those points in order mentioned.
No, not obvious copyvio, that was an exaple for which I reused your arguments to to its sillyness.
I'm not about gotcha moments (what is that even in this context?). But there is a legal problem here. The author has tagged them with one legal text, we can not change that.
If they read the fine print (~10 lines in total, all equal small) or not is not a matter of discussion, they have agreed to one legal tet, not some other, even though they may have similar names (compare PD with CC, similar names with different postfixes). Now they have chosen a tag "PD Mark 1.0" which is supposed to be used for things such as PD-arts, and not be used to release things to public domain, since that's not a thing, you can't. That's what the second row in {{PD-author}} is there for.
No, in the time between noticing this problem, we can't wait for the authers all to notice (and care) and relisense them, we must still abide to our reusers, and we should not rely on that we ‘might’ be able to get them to relicense the images, in any case we should not be disseminating them in the meantime.
Comment Sorry for the late participation. My comment is more suitable at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. From https://creativecommons.org/about/pdm and https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ we can see PDM 1.0 is not intended to be used by authors. So tagging them with {{PD-Author}} is not correct. "The Public Domain Mark is recommended for works that are free of known copyright around the world. These will typically be very old works. It is not recommended for use with works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions if they also known to be restricted by copyright in others." So the use of this mark for new works is a misunderstanding by the Flickr users. The only thing we can do is to ask them to relicense license them in CC0 or any other compatible license here. Jee02:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused personal images. Commons is not Facebook. Uploader claims they are "own work", but appears in both images. They are not selfies, so he is not the copyright holder. Uploader has committed several acts of vandalism on WP:EN.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
Oppose This aspect of copyright law is clearly about works of art. If a bridge is primarily a work of art, why not a house, a car, or a tractor, which all have creative designers who care about their appearances? But with works of engineering, such as bridges, the design is driven almost entirely by the engineering options, and not by art. There is far less room for artistic creativity than with buildings and vehicles. So I would suggest that deletion requests like this ought to be driven only by copyright holders defending their copyrights, and not by a general approach which errs massively on the side of caution. Moonraker (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although the text renders correctly in my drawing application, it does not here. Please delete and I will try another method of creating this file. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Josve05a is correct, the 'release' under the Public Domain Mark is not a grant by the author of the specific 'license' described by PD-author. Such a grant must be explicitly stated. Revent (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Revent and Josve05a, you keep harping that this was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images since April and now, so sorry, lets delete the lot. Were the authors contacted and asked to reconsider their tagging in Flickr, suggested they change it to something we can use? No?, in seven months time? Why not? Why now these toxic DRs badgering(pun!) us to try and fix in seven days what you didn’t want to fix in seven months? -- Tuválkin✉✇16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Feel free to write up a letter to original photographers (not uploaders) asking if they wish for their pictures to be removed from Commons if you care, but it should be opt-in for deletion not opt-out. This business is absurd - going round mass-deleting images whose photographers have marked them as public domain is a totally unacceptable approach. I edit Wikipedia extensively and hadn't heard about this business until I logged in to upload some new photos today. Many of these photos may have been uploaded by people who have long departed the project - their contributions shouldn't be erased with a week's notice. Blythwood (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the licenses the {{Cc0}} to clear up this legal issue at Commons. The license cc0 is OK but cc-pd is NOT. This is a simple solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: If this is genuinely a problem, then we will need a form letter to write to individual authors asking them to relicence. Has such a letter been written yet to send out to each author? Blythwood (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, and neither is it done for FoP-cases or URAA-cases (unless someone activly does it individually) or in any case when we might have a possibilty to get a relicense. I just brought forth the problem. How we solve it is up to each and their own. Josve05a (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. (PD-author is NOT the same as PD Mark 1.0!) Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep: Hell, no. Flickr gives their users the choice to release their work as PD and by chosing it they believe they are making it the most free possible. Commons need to tap this obvious source of good-will: If more discussion and analysis is needed, then take you time; if that fails then it is necessary to caution Flickr users about legal issues and recomend them to change that faux PD to CC-by-SA or something. Deleting the photos obviously donated by users is premature and unnecessary, short-sighted, and counter-productive — it will alienate these photographers and send out the wrong message that Wikimedia Commons refuses PD works. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This PD Mark is not a license, nor can someone release something under it. Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms.
Plus, we can not assume an authors intentions nor relicense files to our reusers, without expressly stated license agreements of such things, which there are none. I agree, it says public domain, but it is the actual legal texts that has precedence, not the letterhead. We can guess what an author wants all day, but in the end we will comit fraud and relicense images without explicit permission from the owners. Josve05a (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional arguments will get me nowhere?! What?! Is this me wanting something that you don’t? No, we all want this and thousands of other images to be kept. I, for one, am ready to work for it, and contacted this photo’s author in Flickr. What did you do, besides playing Devil’s advocate and lobbying for deletion of thousands of photos whose authors want shared to the world? (Yes, some might be iffy — but that’s applied to any license, and we do have mechanisms to deal with license misuse.) -- Tuválkin✉✇15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this was a license misuse, claiming to be under one legal text, while being under another. THis is a way to handle such a missuse. Of course I stand for free infomration and knowledge in all shapes and formes. But I'm also thinking legaly here. We need to err on PRP and delete the files until a file may have been relicensed on Flickr. Josve05a (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that I will let Common's Admins and Bureaucrats decide this copyright issue. I propose one solution which appears reasonable. CC-zero appears quite similar to PD Mark 1.0 Thank You and Goodnight. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"appears" and "similar"...? It's a legal agreement we're delaing with, you can't just say "CC_By-ND appears quite similar to CC-By". You can not license something under terms not explicitly stated by the authors. Josve05a (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Waste of time, legalese speaking in a corner leads 7 months later to this? What was made meanwhile by sid persons? Nothing, but they want others to do the same thing in 7 days. Close this and similar DR, discuss the subject in an open and public forum (not in someones backyard) and reach a conclusion. Tm (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This rationaleis a violation of PRP. (Nobody has complained) And no, consensus has nothing to do with this, it is the legal aspects we need to look at. (scope discussions etc. need consensus, this does not.It is a violation) Josve05a (talk)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?
The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to markothers’ works that are in the public domain.
Comment: It seems pretty clear to me that if a government body, from a city government that is normally very willing to put its materials out there for reuse (see the tons of images we have from the Seattle City Archives), says these materials are PD, they either know exactly what they are talking about or intend the mark as a release. If there is really any doubt (as against someone just being systematic about dicscussing every instance of this license tag), I'd suggest contacting the relevant Flickr account, which is clearly that of the Council itself, and asking for clarification via COM:OTRS.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep and speedy close. No new issues raised, similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem. Several on this topic have been reopened and reclosed. Blythwood (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kshama Sawant picketing at Space Needle.jpg just got deleted with no message on my talk page. I have no idea what the problem was. Flickrbot said the license was fine at the time I copied it over. Not that I get to see the file history now that it's been nuked. But now the source is gone from Flicker so it gets deleted? I don't know what happened but I don't think it's supposed to work this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted The Creative Commons web site is very clear that the PDM mark is only a label, intended to be used only with very old works, to say that it is the user's opinion that the work is free of copyright everywhere. It does not create a license and may be changed at any time. If the Flickr site intended to make this image CC-0, at the very best, they made a serious mistake by picking a label that should be used only for very old works. I am unwilling to guess what the user's intentions actually were. Seeing that mistake, can we trust that the copyright actually belongs to the Seattle City Council?
The best course of action here will be for someone interested in this image to ask the Seattle City Council Flickr user to use a proper CC license instead of PDM. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Per Previous DR. Neither "own work" nor "textlogo" - above the TOO in my opinion. The emblem was designed by Adidas in 2011 and used in a limited-edition jersey to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the club. - sources: link 1, link 2, link 3. Fma12 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete on their site [2] there is a link to the flickr account [3], their web site is published under a NC license as per almost of their other photo on flickr (ex:[4]) there is a big chance that the PD mark is a misunderstanding. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Probably not own work. It said in the source "google.com", so it is highly possible these files are copyright violation. Images from WWE are mostly not published under a free license. See Commons:Licensing.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
German stamps especially those which were printed since 1995 aren't automatically in the public domain. The pictures, montages or edited photos shown on these stamps are all works of Corinna Rogger who is still alive, look for example here. So all these files are copyrighted and can not be hosted here for longer.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The page is no longer used because the image was replaced by a more suitable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk Florence (talk • contribs) 2015-11-14T22:01:39 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Este libro no tiene licencia libre, es propiedad de la editorial Santillana como se puede ver en la portada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortisa (talk • contribs) 2015-11-20T21:07:52 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All lack EXIF data. Many of the original uploads at el.wikipedia have watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS www.inbulb.com, where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer. --C messier (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unclear copyright status - no details, that the uploader is author, apart from username. Besides, unused and out of scope. Same for other user's uploadsPibwl (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The poster in the middle belongs to Mughal-e-Azam, a 1960 film, for which copyright expires in India in 2020. Blanking it out would not be effective because it is in the center, so the photo should be deleted. FredWalsh (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(1) Missing direct link to specific image, (2) Photo was likely not taken by the subject and authorship is otherwise unexplained, (3) No indication that the author licensed the photo under a free license czar07:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image contains drawings of three politicians doing "see no hear, hear no evil, speak no evil" thing held by protesters. Frankly, the drawings are beyond realistic enough to surpass threshold of originality. I added "FoP-Germany" but then reverted the addition; it does not apply to temporarily located artwork. I don't know why it's tagged as "some rights reserved" in Flickr, but the drawings do not belong in Commons. (The user should change settings to "all rights reserved") George Ho (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The file is tagged as "some rights reserved" in Flickr, because it was uploaded with appropriate CC-BY-SA licence, see file page. Frankly, George Ho hasn't given any intelligible reason for deletion here. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: While the photograph may be properly licensed on Flickr, I doubt very much that the photographer has free licenses for each of the three images of the politicians which appear in the photo. The photo is a derivative work of all three and keepingit here would require license from the creators of the three images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The "Freiheit statt Angst" poster is copyrightable. It has a man's frowning eyes with dark shadows on top half. The bottom half has lots of info, including 30 August 2014 as date of Berlin event. Amount of copies of the poster is five on the wall or hanging. Again, the poster is copyrightable. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'm the author of this image. Even though this is a photographic reproduction of original two-dimensional work of art i think it is unfair publishing it in full resolution. It took me a lot of work and consistent efforts to get to photograph that painting: research about the painting, research about the people to contact, ask for permissions that were not easy to obtain, staying in Rome for a few days to carry out the job, postproduction, etc. For that reason i think that the fact that now the file is available for everyone to be downloaded in full resolution is an issue of unfair competition and i ask for the removal.
Furthermore i haven't given anybody the file in full resolution so it must have been somehow "captured" from my website (http://www.pixeloose.it/famiglia-parisi.html) as it is displayed as a stitched image made of many small partial pictures (the full image is not even on my web server). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixeloose (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a beautiful capture of a PD painter, so this file falls under {{PD-Art}} as many others on here. The file is available for everyone to be downloaded in full resolution from pixeloose.it aswell, just with some extra effort. --Sporti (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: It is a beautiful photo of an interesting painting -- thank you for photographing it. However, it is well settled here that a photograph of a PD work is PD, so your photograph, while well executed, did not exhibit the creativity required for copyright and Commons is under no obligation to remove it. If you did not want it used widely, you should not have published it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
MuyDaniel continues uploading images of uncertain copyright status without having clarified the copyright issues of the images listed here. Jespinos (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, if the photos are publicly in web, then this does not mean, that you can upload these photos into Commons. At first is possible, that Argentinosjuniors has special permission for publishing the photos in its site. Commons needs also OTRS-permission. At second is possible, that Argentinosjuniors violates photographer's copyright, Commons must not repeat that mistake. I'll look MuyDaniel's other uploads and delete them, if needed. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Bollywood Hungama does not own the rights to the poster next to Alia. This image cannot be hosted here unless the copyright parts are removed. FredWalsh (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now as I've cropped the image to remove the excess non-free component. The closing admin can just delete the older version from the history. —SpacemanSpiff15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Auth copyright given by the painter/creator of this artwork? Probably copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 2015-11-17T10:13:05 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Auth copyright given by the painter/creator of this artwork? Probably copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 2015-11-17T10:11:58 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' and imho rather commercial advertisements as file not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?
The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to markothers’ works that are in the public domain.
Keep - similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem. It might be nice if someone put a message on the photograph as a comment stating that it's being used here though. Blythwood (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?
The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to markothers’ works that are in the public domain.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Josve05a: The images have been released into public domain by the flickr user who uploaded them and whom I also assume to be the author. Of course we cannot be 100% sure, but we can never be when using flickr images, can we? The photos look rather amateurish and—as far as I can see—have not been published elsewhere, so I have no reason to doubt that the flickr uploader is identic with the author. It is also tagged by the uploader (i.e. presumably the author) as "cc0", "no rights reserved", "copyme", "free to use" and so on. I fail to understand the problem. --RJFF (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RJFF. When the source so obviously states that the work is "CC-0", "no copyright", "no rights reserved", "public domain", "free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", it's hard to see how someone could seriously say that this file is missing a permission from the source to use freely. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment: I suggest the license be changed to {{Cc0}} from {{Cc-pd}} which is now deprecated.
@Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unclear copyright status. Transferred from eswiki via local logs (might be "Archivo:NOBhinchada.jpg", uploaded by es:User:Fede5 on 21.02.2005, as indicated also here) the photo is a cropped version (watermarks removed) from http://www.fotolog.com/fun_art/9556548/ (here in a version from 04.2005). Note that the local user removed the watermark "www.pasionrojinegra.com" but from the watermark "Click para ingresar..." [Click here to enter] remained some pixel rest. For http://www.pasionrojinegra.com/ a wayback to 1999 is available from where the file was most likely grabbed & screenshotted. Permission needed.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The selected photos were copied from various Flickr accounts, and have no statement about the models' consent to have photos taken in an apparently private context broadly published. See COM:IDENT. Please note many of the Flickr versions have been deleted, and/or the Flickr user accounts closed. -
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Them all, and all this files are all in scope. This is a sloppy DR. No research, different authors, different situations, and yet this DR was open with what purpose, other than marking for deletion the contributions of one user? If you think that some files have problems mark them individually to DR, instead of this strange mix. Tm (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange nomination. Especially for a bureaucrat. Thes quality images are regularly used (in and out wiki projects). For example, I regularly use images from the Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology in the Wikinews. Good photos with humor can brighten and simplify the understanding of any text. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inappropriate mass nomination. Some of the pictures, such as File:Resting.jpg and File:Pin.jpg, are in use, and many are clearly in scope. It is possible that some of the pictures should be deleted, but it would be more appropriately to discuss those pictures individually instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: No consensus to delete them as out of scope. Deleted the files mentioned by Josve. And please don't make statements like "Especially for a bureaucrat". Not helpfull. Natuur12 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"FoP-Japan", which I addedreplaced, says that the freedom of panorama does not apply to artistic works. This image shows a wrestler's handprint with Japanese writing at the left of the hand and the bottom. The left says "Kitanoumi" (北の湖). The bottom says "Yokozuna ruler" (横綱在位) and "Shōwa 49~60" (1975~86). An anonymous work goes to public domain after fifty years of first public display, but right now it's still copyrighted in Japan and the US. FOP would not apply to the copyrightable handprint. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took this photograph. This handprint (or more accurately handmold) is displayed on a public monument outdoors not far from the Rygoku Kokugikan where most sumo tournaments are held. I believe that photographs of public works are acceptable to upload to wikicommons for use. There are thousands of monument / public works photographs on wikipedia so I don't see why this one should be any different. FourTildes (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may look like a "carving" but it is simply a very well done hand print, a very common practice in sumo, it is not a work of art. It is a handprint produced for public exposure, just as the handprints outside the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood are displayed.
I don't know why I can't link to other wiki articles here, but the article I tagged "handprints" above links to the "List of TCL Chinese Theatre handprint ceremonies" article which shows handprints of movie stars through the years, and these photographs are still up on wikicommons. Though I agree it is a handprint of high quality, I have seen others that were not as well done as this that look even more similar to the handprints outside the Chinese theatre. Yes, it is saved on my hard drive.FourTildes (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Certainly it is creative enough to have a copyright and we could argue if it is just an autograph or an artwork or something else but that doesn't change the fact that there is only FOP for buildings (architecture). Not for artworks and neither for autographs. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Buenas, propongo que en vez de eliminarse, se recupere la imagen de 2011, que fue realizada a partir de esta petición [7] y cuya autora sería Andreateletrabajo. --Robot8A (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The picture I've taken with my cellphone (yes, very low resolution I know, but I was walking when I saw him and had no time for much more) is the first one. The other picture I've got no idea where it comes from. Now if you have doubts about I've taken it with my cellphone... I can´t help you. I assume it should be metadata or something to prove it (remember, it was 2011, this is Third World and we are always late with tecnology... ) More than that... I can´t help you. If you don´t believe me... I'm sorry. Only thing I have is my reputation and my list of uploaded files to show I'm reliable. Nothing else. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, there is no doubt in my mind. There was people running around him, asking for pictures or autographs, even if I'm not sure the name. It was an special event that day, and I've taken several pictures of many people. Some of them are in Commons and already in use (actually, those of Morena, Gregorio Pérez or De los Santos are only pictures of these footballers), but there are lots that I couldn't upload because I'm not sure about the names. A football fan told me he was R. Paz; but I'm 100% sure he is a former player of C.A. Peñarol. Perhaps create a category as "Unkown people linked to C.A. Peñarol?--Ganímedes (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thx for your comment. Well, I leave it to the admin to decide about the future of this file. What we have is (from my point of view): Delete actual version (copyvio) and Abstain for the first version by Andreateletrabajo. In all cases (if kept the version of Andreateletrabajo) we need to remove the file from all global usage articles related to "Rubén Paz" as this photo does not show him. Gunnex (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kept and Deleted: I've deleted the two overwritting revisions, kept the two revisions based on the original cellphone photo, renamed the file, and updated the summary. —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case).
Note that our version has since bèn changed to include other bits (the horse) traced from another copyrighted source. So the defacto license/source being claimed is National Coats of Arms cannot be copyrighted, see art. 6er Paris Convention at www.wipo.int not xrmap. I'm not going to get into the validity of that claim just wanted to clarify the situation. /Lokal_Profil15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Paris. A blazon does not define a coat of arms in the very last detail. The shape of the shield, for instance, is left completely undefined. Non-geometric elements are only broadly described ("a rearing horse, facing left", but how exactly that horse is drawn is left undefined). Coats of arms including non-geometric elements leave the author of an emblazon considerable freedom to express his creativity to produce an original work. Examples of such non-geometric elements include animals and plants, but also crowns, banners, pinnacles, and so on. An emblazon of a coat of arms that contains such non-geometric elements is thus always copyrightable in itself as an original work. By extension, any drawing of a flag that shows a coat of arms is basically copyrightable. A Blasón could be free, however, Coat of arms design is copyrighted --The Photographer (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree which is why I instead found the xrmap version I believed was free. If, as the statement above indicates, that version isn't free then there are no objections from my part to deleting it.
But since the current version doesn't rely on xrmap to be free, but instead Paris, that is the criteria under which it must be argued. For this reason I've pinged in the users involved in the later (Paris motivated) uploads. /Lokal_Profil09:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MaxxL, It is obviously impossible, however, is exactly the same version of the coat of arms. I have not managed to see the author and original design that clearly exists somewhere. I believe that there is little evidence that this shield is really free for the same arguments above. The idea of placing the link is to show that this version has been circulating on the internet long before being uploaded here. We do not have a source that can verify the original work from this version was made is actually a free.--The Photographer (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensing OK . 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. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.--EEIM (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted
In the source flags file says clearly "These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain
(unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case)." So not all flags are in PD and we don't know exactly wich of them yes and wich no --Ezarateesteban19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
God, what have you done, you idiots. You deleted the coat of arms of a country, that is in the lead infobox of Venezuela's article in many wikipedias, such as in the Portuguese wikipedia article, which now has a redlink where the coat of arms was supposed to be. I hope you are satisfied Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely is the drawing their own work, the original arms is mosst likely PD, so the drawing is their own.
Not read the DR or the README file, but if it is the source code that's the problem, we could just scrub it and recode it, and it would be fine...If it is a artistic different they have made that is above TOO however, I understand this deletion Josve05a (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: The hell are you talking about. The colombia coat of arms is the real coat of arms of Colombia. It is no artwork. I will just re-upload the coat of arms of Venezuela and upload it as Own work. Either that or we delete all coats of arms of every country. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a TL;DR? What is the source claiming might be copyrighted? Their design (the image) of the arms, which may be below TOO in terms of artistic expression, or the source code (of the svg) which can be solved by either redrawing it in incscape which will result in another source code which someone can claim as own, or simply scrub the code using svg optimizes and claim it as an own work. There are 2 copyright to consider in normal svg-cases, here there are 3.
The original images copyright status. In this case PD, I assume, as it is a coat of arms of a country.
The artistic change the 'drawer' has made, which may warrant copyright.
Copyright of the code it self, which svg's are made of.
Yes, we have in 2. It is a coat of a country, in this case Venezuela, therefore, the blazon is free because PD, however, design is the artistic interpretation of someone and here is where is the copyvio. On the other hand, the svg generated with automated conversion process to svg ('potrace') was published under public domain, however, Sigge Kotliar ran the script to automatically generate this svg, he is not the original author and this would contradict the original license (Readme file from source), at this point the license is applied to a source, however, it is not only a source, It is a art work, svg is only the free format. Thus, the source code license is irrelevant because it is an automated conversion from somewhere. Btw, I've been looking for a replacement of this file, however, the official site of the government of Venezuela shows a bizarre low quality version. --The Photographer (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As near as I can tell from reading this page, it was deleted once, then reuploaded by Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk·contribs) (who may or may not have been accused of falsely claiming it as own work?) who was angry that this left a redlink in many articles.
What was the rationale for keeping the second time around? Ellin Beltz said "Kept: Per Fry." But the only thing the record shows Fry1989 saying was "Keep Close this nonsense."
And while I'm trying to puzzle this out, I notice that Incendiary Iconoclasm's comments (beginning with "God, what have you done, you idiots.") were tacked directly onto a "do not edit this archive" message. Don't we normally have a renomination rather than an editing of the original?
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, again. If you have a problem with this close, renominating it over again is not going to solve it. Discussing it at the closed nomination is also not the way to go. Please reconsider the badgering tactics, find your COM:MELLOW and let's get some other work done. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?
The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to markothers’ works that are in the public domain.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture was in a Flickr gallery of StarCard organisation. Originally it has a full copyrigth. When Horner died, I asked the organisation to change license in order to use it on WP. The answer I received said: Hi, the attribute - "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" is not an option in the flickr drop down menu. I have selected Public Domain so there are no restrictions. Hope this works for you now?. many thanks. StarCards (see in https://www.flickr.com/mail/72157654582745710). It is, for one unknown reason they couldn't change to CC-BY-SA as I demanded, and chosed some wider license. Image must be keep as it's the only one free image from a dead person. It's obvious that the image belongs to StarCard; it is their core business. Even they show a hardcopy of the WP article in their flickr gallery. Thanks,--amador (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I chcked when the image was released, it was under an appropriate licence, if there is an error, its on COMMONS side, not flickr...--Stemoc01:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on the StarCards Flickr feed - all other images present there are licensed as "All Rights Reserved". The fact that only this one image has had its license changed to be "Public Domain" seems sufficient to me as it was a willful act by them to make that change. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tabercil: We can not act on willful acts. We need explicit permissions. (Hence why systems such as OTRS was created and is so rigorous.) An no permission has been given as to release the image per the legal meaning. Josve05a (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All other Public Domain Mark DR's has been closed as delete, or been renominated to later be closed as delete, unless the license changed on Flickr. (see the categories) Josve05a (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is one of the only DRs that has been kept amongs ALL other Public Domain Mark images, whi is this DR different from all the rest? Uniformity. What has changed is that all other has been deleted, but this remains. {{Flickr-public domain mark}}} is pretty clear cut. Josve05a (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "uniformity" is your option, why don't we change the license of the other DR to give them the same as this one ?. It's really amazing your obsession to delete this picture. What do you pourpose to fix the problem, but delete ?. Probable we can explore it. Thanks to be (pro)positive. --amador (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like StarCards have indeed attempted to release the image to the public domain, so perhaps it should be accepted on Commons. However {{PD-author}} shouldn't be used, because they haven't agreed to the "fall-back" license of that template. The statement "this applies worldwide" on the template is also optimistic. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: It is perfectly clear that the PDM is not acceptable on Commons. Among other things, it can be changed at any time. We require that licenses be irrevocable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]