Commons:Deletion requests/File:Жеплинський-001-135-А-Лаз.pdf
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
- and also:
- File:Жеплинський-136-219-Лаз-Рус.pdf
- File:Жеплинський-220-295-Рус-Ящ.pdf
- File:Жеплинський-296-315-Фотографії.pdf
- File:Жеплинський-обкладинка.pdf
There is permission of author of book, but there is no evidence that authors of book have rights for all photos of that book. // Є дозвіл від авторів книги, але сумніваюся, що автори книги є власниками авторських прав також на всі фотографії, розміщені в книзі. Anatoliy (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, File:Дозвіл Жеплинського і Ковальчук.jpg does state that authors (Жеплинський and Ковальчук) have rights for the entire books, which includes photos. However, I have no idea how this can be independently verified given that the book does not mention authors of photos. This may mean that either authors acquired copyrights on these images or have just stolen them without permission, and I am not sure there is a way to check this — NickK (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Якщо раптом виникнуть проблеми (що практично неймовірно), то це будуть проблеми автора енциклопедії і видавництва, а не спільноти чи фонду Вікімедіа. Не бачу причин для вилучення файлу. --Perohanych (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- But our goal is to collect free media here rather than just media placing which in here would not cause us problems. --Base (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in FOP-cases also all authors says that they are copyright holders but photos contain unfree object, and files are deleted. This is similar case. // У випадках несвободи панорами теж автори фото стверджують, що вони автори об'єкта, але твір містить інший невільний об'єкт, тому фото вилучається, тут те саме.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Photo of unfree object -- is photo of unfree object i. e. derivative of unfree work. Encyclopedia containing texts (it's most important as for me), free photos (службова робота from archive, ІМФЕ, for example i. e. in public domain) and maybe containing some unfree photo. If you find some unfree photo, it could be painted in black / blurred. It is not needed to remove entire PDF. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Any possible problem will be problem of authors and / or publisher. If they will be guilted in copyright violation with some photo then we will paint this photo in black and re-upload pdf. Now after your' discussions in Village it looks for me like harassment of Perohanych. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Could you kindly point which my discussion you mean? --Base (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I mean kilobytes of text related with Енциклопедія Криворіжжя. But it seems personally you have not be part of it. Sorry. But Ahonc was. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Could you kindly point which my discussion you mean? --Base (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Is it responsibility of Wikipedia make archive researches and identify copyright for every photo and every page in printed Encyclopedia? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ahonc is qiute serious. But his arguments are not. --Perohanych (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Perohanych: could you please provide me (or OTRS agents?) with the direct contacts of the copyright holders? it seems to me that they signed this permission without full understanding of some copyright issues. maybe they were to give theirs permission only for texts? --アンタナナ 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Antanana: do you want to accuse the authors of the book in copyright violation? You are not a copyright holder. --Perohanych (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Perohanych: accuse? please try to be more reasonable with the choice of words. they certainly do not mention the authors of the works (we have the scans) and that means that (as NickK has pointed out before)the authors might have used images without permission and without attribution. maybe we'll need to blur the pictures --アンタナナ 07:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pictures should be blurred if you are 100% sure they are not free. If you blur a picture, will it be possible to «unblur» it in 22-nd century after the copyright protection of the image expires? --Perohanych (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Perohanych: accuse? please try to be more reasonable with the choice of words. they certainly do not mention the authors of the works (we have the scans) and that means that (as NickK has pointed out before)the authors might have used images without permission and without attribution. maybe we'll need to blur the pictures --アンタナナ 07:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Antanana: According to page 2 of the book the sole copyright holders on the entire book are Жеплинський and Ковальчук. I tried to find any information about copyright holders of the images, but I didn't find any in the entire book (some images have years and sources but I couldn't find any authors). Thus I don't see any problem with the permission itself. There is however a problem that authors might have used images without permission and without attribution, but in this case this would be a problem of the entire book which would be basically a copyright violation. Which would mean they have published the book without any understanding of copyright — NickK (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why should we investigate this issue? It is not our responsibility or obligation. We have the book. We have the proper permission from both authors to use and share it under CC BY-SA licence. --Perohanych (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- See Commons:License laundering — NickK (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is no any word about books in Commons:License laundering. Commons:License laundering is only about web sites. --Perohanych (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- See Commons:License laundering — NickK (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why should we investigate this issue? It is not our responsibility or obligation. We have the book. We have the proper permission from both authors to use and share it under CC BY-SA licence. --Perohanych (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Antanana: do you want to accuse the authors of the book in copyright violation? You are not a copyright holder. --Perohanych (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Perohanych: could you please provide me (or OTRS agents?) with the direct contacts of the copyright holders? it seems to me that they signed this permission without full understanding of some copyright issues. maybe they were to give theirs permission only for texts? --アンタナナ 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ahonc is qiute serious. But his arguments are not. --Perohanych (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use ad hominem here. We discuss file deletion here, not users.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP Steinsplitter (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I uploaded the new version of a discussed file without photos. Please see: File:Жеплинський Б. М., Ковальчук Д. Б. Українські кобзарі, бандуристи, лірники. Енциклопедичний довідник (без фото).pdf. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)