Commons:Deletion requests/Files from ''www.congreso.es''

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files from ''www.congreso.es''|year=2024|month=November|day=08}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files from ''www.congreso.es''|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files from ''www.congreso.es''}} at the end of today's log.

Files from ''www.congreso.es''

[edit]

The license of www.congreso.es (in Spanish) says:

The information avalible in the web site www.congreso.es can be reused and is granted the public access without conditions. In order to re-use the information, the following conditions must be followed:
a) Not alter the contents of the information.
b) Not distort the meaning of the information.
c) Always quote the source of the information.
d) State the date of the latest update of the information.
e) Follow the public access and non-exclusivity principles.

I think this license is not compatible with CC-BY-SA since it says Not alter the contents of the information. I was told the same in the Commons' Village Pump in Spanish. Thanks. --Albertojuanse (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete derivatives are not allowed --Jaqen (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment It's doubtful wether "que el contenido de la información no sea alterado" actually means ND, of if it's just an equivalent to the second point "Not distort the meaning of the information. which is more related to moral rights and non copyright restrictions. In fact, the later restriction is usual in other sources that are seen as free in Commons.
Furthermore, "información" doesn't mean data as in an image file. This restriction seems more aplicable to text.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we must have take on consideration both statements, and not only one of them. Anyway, if the license refers to the text and not to the images, we must presume that the pictures have all rights reserved, since nothing else is said on the web. Albertojuanse (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS_offtopic: Pere prlpz, if his legal notice refers only to text but not to the images, ¿does it happen the same with this one? Beacause there is a lot of users -incluing me- that use this license as CC-BY-SA. Thanks Albertojuanse (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the license refers to both, but "alters the content of the information" doesn't seem to apply to an image. "Changing the information" doesn't seem to make a derivative work; it seems to change it's meaning. For example, if you change caption from "Proclamation of the king" to "The king being judged for treason", you are changing information, but if you crop a person from the image to make a portrait of him, you aren't changing. Anyway, it's quite obscure to me.
About gencat license, the main difference is that gencat doesn't include this restriction nor the last one. It just includes b) c) and d) points here. Probably you have a point in the fact that conditions a) and e) have been willingly supressed in gencat but they are present in Congress, so this difference is expected to be significative and actually change license - to something incompatible with CC-BY-SA or not.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One comment, in Spanish legislation of intelectual property the concept of public domain doesnt have the posibility of the vacantly modification of the work. Even if a picture is on the public domain the picture can't be modificated vacantly (if that is prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the author or threaten his reputation) and the author has to be recognised. And that's to protect the moral rights of the article 14 of the law.

Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia.

http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t4.html#l1t4

TÍTULO IV

Dominio público

Artículo 41 Condiciones para la utilización de las obras en dominio público

La extinción de los derechos de explotación de las obras determinará su paso al dominio público.

Las obras de dominio público podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la autoría y la integridad de la obra, en los términos previstos en los apartados 3.º y 4.º del artículo 14.

TÍTULO II

Sujeto, objeto y contenido

CAPÍTULO III

Contenido SECCIÓN 1

Derecho moral

Artículo 14 Contenido y características del derecho moral

Corresponden al autor los siguientes derechos irrenunciables e inalienables:

1.º Decidir si su obra ha de ser divulgada y en qué forma.

2.º Determinar si tal divulgación ha de hacerse con su nombre, bajo seudónimo o signo, o anónimamente.

3.º Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra.

4.º Exigir el respeto a la integridad de la obra e impedir cualquier deformación, modificación, alteración o atentado contra ella que suponga perjuicio a sus legítimos intereses o menoscabo a su reputación.

5.º Modificar la obra respetando los derechos adquiridos por terceros y las exigencias de protección de bienes de interés cultural.

6.º Retirar la obra del comercio, por cambio de sus convicciones intelectuales o morales, previa indemnización de daños y perjuicios a los titulares de derechos de explotación.

Si, posteriormente, el autor decide reemprender la explotación de su obra deberá ofrecer preferentemente los correspondientes derechos al anterior titular de los mismos y en condiciones razonablemente similares a las originarias.

7.º Acceder al ejemplar único o raro de la obra cuando se halle en poder de otro, a fin de ejercitar el derecho de divulgación o cualquier otro que le corresponda.

Este derecho no permitirá exigir el desplazamiento de la obra y el acceso a la misma se llevará a efecto en el lugar y forma que ocasionen menos incomodidades al poseedor, al que se indemnizará, en su caso, por los daños y perjuicios que se le irroguen. --CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, I think this files are not in Public Domain at all, but have all the rights reserved. Anyway, this moral rights allow to use and modify the work for any purpose while it does not implies harm to his/her legitimate rights or detriment to his/her reputation (mientras no suponga perjuicio a sus legítimos intereses o menoscabo a su reputación). But, I think, this files are not in Public Domain at all, since the license says nothing about them. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the author or photographer directly, please! Then you can adapt the license. File:Discurso de Felipe VI.jpg is a very good historical photo for Wikipedia-articles! If Felipe is really a king for all, he will find a solution, ask him too. Maybe he contributes some more photos to Commons in future. Show him the (overcrowded) Category:Barack Obama. Category:Felipe VI of Spain in 2014 is nearly empty. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I lost his phone number, because last time we met I was sooo nervous, so I don't think I will be able to talk neither with the author neither with His Majesty. So sorry. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LudwigSebastianMicheler The File:DiscursodeFelipeVI.jpg belongs to the Congress of Spain (Congreso de los Diputados) and I get the picture from here so I will send an email to the Congress right now about this.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
E-Mails are a chance, thanks too. And a link to the discussion here (+ from es-WP-disc.?) --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This pictures are not in the public domain, but we can use because the website about congreso says this:

Español: Reutilización de información

La información disponible en el sitio web www.congreso.es es susceptible de reutilización y es puesta a disposición del público sin sujeción a condiciones. La reutilización de los contenidos debe cumplir los siguientes criterios:

a) Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado.

b) Que no se desnaturalice el sentido de la información.

c) Que se cite la fuente.

d) Que se mencione la fecha de la última actualización.

e) Que siga un principio de acceso publico y de no exclusividad

(Aviso Legal)

English: Reusing this file —Not an official translation for legal equivalence.—

The information avalible in the web site www.congreso.es can be reused and is granted the public access without conditions. In order to re-use the information, the following conditions must be followed:

a) Not alter the contents of the information.

b) Not distort the meaning of the information.

c) Always quote the source of the information.

d) State the date of the latest update of the information.

e) Follow the public access and non-exclusivity principles.

(website disclaimer in spanish) --Altorrijos (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this license is the problem, so there are two point of view up to know, Altorrijos:
  • If this license refers only to the information (text), the images have all the rights reserved.
  • If this license include the images as information (not only text), it says Not alter the contents of the information, wich is not compatible with CC-BY-SA.
That is the problem. Is not that easy. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Ok, I will note my opinion on this here because I also had problems in the past with this very same license. From what I'm reading, the confusion is, on the one hand, whether the license applies to only information in the website (that is, excluding images) or includes images as well; and on the other hand, should images be included, what does that license exactly mean with "Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado/That the information content is not altered". My opinion on this, not in any way binding of course, is as follows:
For the first issue, I believe images ARE included within the license, because of the following:
1. The license states that "La información disponible en el sitio web www.congreso.es es susceptible de reutilización y es puesta a disposición del público sin sujeción a condiciones. La reutilización de los contenidos debe cumplir los siguientes criterios" (Translation: The information available in the www.congreso.es web site can be reused and is made available to the public without conditions. The re-use of the contents must follow the following criteria). So while initially talking about information, in then talks about the site's contents, not differentiating between what could be information and images.
2. If images were to be treated differently, shouldn't a different, separate license be present for them? It is common practise for web sites using images to put such a license for them, so if there is not a separate one for them, and considering that the license present talks about the site's contents, then it must be intended for them.
3. The treatment used here for the website's contents is similar than what used on the Spanish Government official website (see the English version as well), the latter being used on this wikipedia as a copyright license for images (see this).
Thus, for all of these I believe we should consider that images ARE indeed included within the Legal Notice of the www.congreso.es website, and thus abide by its license.
Now, the issue comes about the interpretation of the license itself. First of all, there is a problem with it that you don't have addressed: if the license says that "The content of the information must not be altered", then why does it states that "The meaning of the information must not be distorted"? Should not that be implied in the previous condition in the first place? If you distort the meaning of the information you are of course altering its content. Thus it has no sense to state it in such a way unless it is meant to address two different kinds of "information": that the first condition refers to written information and the second one to images. I conclude this for several reasons:
1. The large amount of written information in the website in comparison to the relatively few images present there can be a reason to give written information much more importance.
2. The license differentiates between "content of the information" and "meaning of the information" (something which the Spanish Government official website does not do). Content usually gives a given information its meaning, so it is weird to find it treated differently, unless "content" refers to written data and "meaning" to images (which would make sense: written information in itself would have content meant to be protected, whereas it would be weird to talk about images on terms of its "content", but more about their "meaning").
This difference is important, because whereas "the content" is not allowed to be altered, "meaning" can be altered as long as it is not distorted. So, if images are considered to belong to the first category of information, they can't be considered for inclusion in the Commons; but if they belong to the second category of information, maybe they could be. Art. 14.4 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12, bans alteration of images in the public domain only if such alterations mean "prejudice to [the author's] legitimate interests or threaten his reputation". It is allowed if that is not the case.
While a personal opinion, I hope this helps a bit out. Impru20 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My email to the Congress doesnt have any answer. I spoke them about the posibility of change de legal advisor to make it more similar to the Commons policies of content to keep the file in this web and use it in Wikipedia. I explain them all. I guess that this matter doesnt mind them.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion, obviously not released under cc-by-sa Krd 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_%27%27www.congreso.es%27%27&oldid=127664520"