Commons:Deletion requests/File:DzKK BG (87).jpg

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.

File:DzKK BG (87).jpg

File:DzKK BG (85).jpg
File:DzKK BG (84).jpg
File:DzKK BG (83).jpg
File:DzKK BG (133).jpg
File:DzKK BG (130).jpg
File:DzKK BG (129).jpg
File:DzKK BG (125).jpg
File:DzKK BG (119).jpg
File:DzKK BG (116).jpg
File:DzKK BG (108).jpg
File:DzKK BG (107).jpg
File:DzKK BG (106).jpg
File:DzKK BG (105).jpg
File:DzKK BG (104).jpg
File:DzKK BG (103).jpg
File:DzKK BG (102).jpg
File:DzKK BG (101).jpg
File:DzKK BG (100).jpg
File:DzKK BG (99).jpg
File:DzKK BG (98).jpg
And many many more....

 A gallery containing all images in question is here.

---

Has the Turkish Navy seal superimposed. I thought that was copyrighted and couldn't be here Takabeg, did you change your mind or does that only apply to other users and not yourself? I find it ironic that someone who nominated a freely-made SVG of the Turkisn Navy seal 3 times for deletion exclaiming it as a copyright violation would subsequently upload dozens of images with a non-freely made version of same seal superimposed. Surely the OTRS would only apply to the photo, not the superimposed seal. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Keep - As there are many dozens of these images and it would be a shame to delete them all for such a trivial reason, and taking into consideration that a proper watermark removal for all these images would be quite time consuming, I propose the following temporary measure... block out the seal as I've done with DzKK BG (85).jpg. This solves the copyright issue and is relatively easy to do until they can be dealt with in a more appealing manner. We can create a gallery of these images and link to it in the Graphic Labs 1 2 and various editors can either block out the seal or remove it proper. All that said, if Takabeg has access to non-watermarked images, that would be supremely helpful and I would urge him to re-upload those if indeed it is determined the seal is problematic.– JBarta (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cropping the photos only partially solves the problem, though the Turkish Navy could object to them being altered in any form, and then cropping would be moot. Either way, it doesn't solve the fact that Takabeg nominated for deletion a freely made version of the seal 3 different times till he finally got his way, and then half a year later uploads dozens and dozens of images with a non-freely made version of the seal superimposed, it shows a sense of "rules dt apply to me". Fry1989 ^eh? 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Once the images are uploaded here under a proper license, they may be modified in any way... including removing the seal. While I understand your bewilderment at Takabeg's sense of the rules, that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is whether the seals are problematic, and if they are, what to do about it. – JBarta (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant, because whether or not the seal can stay superimposed on the photos here or not can affect whether or not the freely made SVG of the seal can be undeleted or not, and Takabeg's opinion on this matter ironically influences the later. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the deletion discussions regarding that SVG seal? They may be useful here. – JBarta (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here we go, actually he only nominated it twice, once himself and a second time through a "friend". It was another file he nominated 3 times. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yet another long and rambling discussion. I reviewed it quickly and have no interest in getting involved with it. I'll bow out here and defer to my original suggestion that if the seal remains problematic it can be dealt with. And yes, Takabeg's actions are indeed curious and it would be interesting to hear his rationale for uploading all these images with a seal he argued did not belong on Commons. – JBarta (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep As long as I knonw, the Turkish Naval Forces accepted {{Attribution}} for their all photographs in their website, with sending an e-mail to User:Bermanya. For details, you can ask OTRS member User:Taysin. As to whether we can upload their seal (bröve ) separately (because users who lived in Turkey and/or who came from the Turkish Wikipedia know that the "seal" is not PD very well), User:Bermanya asked them and focused especially on it, but there is no clearness on the status of their "seal". You can ask User:Taysin about the status of their "seal". Takabeg (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If the status of the seal is unclear you should not have uploaded until you figured it out. Especially after all the effort you made to get the SVG deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seals on photographs constitute no problem. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, and attribution of photographs are allowed as you claim, than the SVG can be undeleted, because it was deleted as a "derivative" of the seal on the photos. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If need, the seal on images can be removed as watermark. But please don't remove it on File:DzKK BG (91).jpg. Because they intentionally put it in the center of picture. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If it has to be removed from one, it has to be removed from all. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In conclusion, Takabeg claims that the seal being superimposed on the photos are fine as long as they're attributed. With that reasoning, they can stay, and the SVG seal can be undeleted because it was only deleted as being a derivative of the image on the photos. Takabeg, you can't have it both ways, either the seal is ok and it stays on the photos and the SVG is undeleted, or it's not ok, and it must either be removed from these photos, or the photos themselves must be deleted. Take your pick. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing but your POV. For their "seal" ("bröve"), you can ask User:Taysin.Takabeg (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a simple fact. If the seal on the photos is fine, and our SVG was made based on that image, then the SVG is fine too. So take your pick. Also, insisting on calling it a bröve changes nothing. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I will say this.... Takabeg, you cannot have it both ways. If the seal is not allowed on Commons, then it is not allowed anywhere on Commons... including any and all photographs containing the seal. If it is allowed, then these photos are fine and the SVG can be undeleted. Personally I think the seal should be allowed and an SVG of the seal should be undeleted and all involved should move on and find something more significant to argue about. – JBarta (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The seal was not allowed on Commons, because these images were uploaded without permission. It was natural to be deleted. And I don't known the status of their emblem in detail. As long as I understand their e-mail that allows us to use their photographs, they permit usage of their photograph whether they involves emblem or not. At the same time, they states that they have no intention to give up the:r copyrights on both photographs and emblem. In short, 1. they want to keep their copyrights on photographs and emblem. 2. They permitted usage of photographs, but they didn't mention on the separately usage of emblem. This is their preference, not ours. Takabeg (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Takabeg, as Fry1989 has correctly pointed out, if permission was granted here to upload these photos with a seal, then any derivative of these images or any part of the image is allowed. Therefore a derivative in the form of an SVG version of the seal is allowed. Again Takabeg, you cannot have it both ways. Whether by iself or within another image, either the seal is allowed or it is not. Period, end of story. – JBarta (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To be quite frank, Takabeg's personal opinion is no longer pertinent. He says that the permissions provided include the seal in the photos. If that's the case, whether he likes it or not (more likely not), the SVG as a derivative of the image on the photos is therefore also allowed. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you are continuing personal attack. I didn't send an e-mail for permission to User:Bermanya, the Turkish Naval Forces sent it to him. So the preference belongs to them, not to me. And I cannot understand why you don't try Commons:Undeletion requests.Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Will you please get over yourself? I have never personally attacked you ever. The fact is that if the seal is ok on the photos, as you yourself claim, than our SVG which you so vehemently tried to get deleted, as a derivative of the photo, is also ok and will be undeleted. That is a clear and simple fact. Two users have said that you can not have this both ways Takabeg, so either these photos stay and the seal is undeleted, or your photos are deleted as well. Now, since Taysin has confirmed below that permission is given, I move for this to be closed as a  Keep, and File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg be undeleted as a derivative.. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Turkish Naval Forces gave permission for the use under the {{Attribution}}. This was confirmed by an official e-mail. No. 2012061210008721 stored with the ticket (permissions-commons). Requirement of use: it's enough for you to show the field name "http://www.dzkk.tsk.tr" as source. --taysin (message) 11:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept: OTRS 2012061210008721 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)