Commons:Deletion requests/File:Proposed Streamer of United Ireland.jpg
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.
I tagged this as lacking complete and verifiable source information, as the image description originally stated that it is a derivative work of an image found using Google, but the source or author of the original photo is not identified. The uploader blanked out the tag and changed the description, but without clarifying the source of the original photo. If the original photo is copyrighted and non-free (and without evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that it is), the uploader cannot legitimately release the resulting work into the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really hate the nannyism of the Wikimedia commons. You really sound like you're making me out to be some kind of jerk or copyright thief. I've no strong recollection of what I knew about images in March 2006. I am sure there was an uncopyrighted image of a Norwegian flag out there and I changed the blue to green and the red to orange. Is the image in any way problematic? It's as low-res as you would get from a mobile phone. Do YOU have to ASSUME something about the original? Did you TRY to google for Norwegian flag streamer and see? Or are you just all excited about making the Wikimedia Commons unpalatable to users? I try to be a good citizen. I don't appreciate being censured as you have done. Evertype (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Commons is supposed to be a repository of verifiably free media. That means it's a little trickier to upload to than some other sites that don't really care about authors' rights or free content. I'm doing my part in trying to identify files that may not be verifiably free. Please don't take it personally. I don't think you're a jerk.
- If the file is a derivative of a non-free work, then yes, claiming that the result is free is problematic, because that does constitute copyright infringement. And yes, the precautionary principle means that we have to assume the original is non-free unless there is evidence to the contrary. The resolution of the file does not affect its copyrightability. (It is relevant to fair use, but fair use does not apply to Commons.)
- You say that you believe the original was in the public domain. For what reason was the file in the public domain? Is it a very old photo with expired copyright? Did the photographer explicitly place it into the public domain? (Note that publishing a photo is not the same as placing it into the public domain, which is a somewhat common misconception.)
- It is up to the uploader to specify a verifiable source; others should not have to do detective work to verify it. Nevertheless, I have tried Googling for various combinations of keywords. It looks like it's the last photo on http://www.vimpelen.no/cart/cart.htm, http://www.vimpelen.no/images/ovimpel.jpg. Could that be where you found it. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probably copyvio, poor quality and not useful for an educational purpose. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
