Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Autonomous agent 5
Files uploaded by Autonomous agent 5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Incorrect licensing or self-made licenses.
PD-RU-exempt covers government decrees, official documents, etc., not works created by the government, government workers or government companies (compared to the US, for example).
- File:Bomba=eM.jpg
- File:TsarBomba wolk1.jpg
- File:2020 aug26 hbomb.png
- File:AN602 dust formation.jpg
- File:30-10-1961 bomba.webp
- File:Tsarbomba.jpg
rubin16 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:TsarBomba wolk1.jpg i.e. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:TsarBomba_wolk1.jpg is currently in use @ wikipedia russia, downloaded 2006, so I see no reason to delete the file here, unless the contesting editor would like to go challenge the same file there. Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. That is different, in ru.wiki it is stored as fair use, not a free file (like needed here on Commons) rubin16 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added a speedy deletion template to File:Tsarbomba.jpg, having neglected to do so at an earlier time, when another user prior to yourself suggested a 7 day interim before deletion, I had already decided at that time the file should be deleted, but forgot to add the speedy delete template... - c.f. the reasons given @ that file, thanks Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I changed c.f. > q.v. @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bomba%3DeM.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=568699967 etc consequent to your request, to show that the Public domain#governmental works indication is a relevant referent not a proof, regards 14:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonomous agent 5 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Autonomous agent 5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious application of {{PD-ineligible}} and {{Cc-zero}}. No evidence of a free license.
- File:Ufo aft propulsion craft.png
- File:Reality unknown with a cloud and the sky.png
- File:Reality-unknown-video-still with cloud.png
- File:Reality-unknown-with clouded sky.png
- File:Reality-unknown-video-still.png
✗plicit 10:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Succinct reply: Copyright law doesn't apply because the crafts shown are of extra-terrestrial origin, so it is not in the interests of any member of the species (that is humans) to protect (by copyright law) a possible risk, or stop the possible advancement of technology possessed by the human species. Copyright law exists to protect individuals rights, being a protection of one individual, this same protection protects all members of humanity, by recognising there is a law for one, so there is a law for all. There is no indication of the works being secret military technologies or hoaxes at the source (the former being a necessitated request for use to a secret military technology organisation, the latter being a recognition of an artistic work, i.e. by CGI), unless either of these aspects are known (if the actual owners would "own-up" to being the owners), wikimedia has the automatic right to any use, so therefore all humans have this right.
Longer thought reply: Looking at fairuse.stanford.edu...basic-copyright-principles, considering the problem isn't solved by establishing suitability for the fair use criteria, I found the images should be considered at least possible as exempt from restriction (with regards to the fair use as a guide) because: " Educational, nonprofit ", "Using only a small portion of a copyrighted material".
With regards to the actual cc-zero, ineligible aspects, my thoughts were that, the technology seemed non earth based, therefore the works aren't owned by the video producers. Since the subjects of the images are then of extra-terrestrial origin - although the video takers are personally associated with the work (i.e. those individuals are the uniquely positioned viewers of such aspects of reality, which indicates a kind of special right those two have, by the fact of they being witness to the reality of the events), wikimedia is authorised to use the images because the takers were only that, i.e. they aren't authors on a subject, as professors or artists for example are thought of, in relation to their own work (literally it is their work, their own work, so they own that work, and trying to re-associate with their work, interferes with the good and constructive progress of thinkers, that is professors and artists, for example, by creating a confusion in reality as to author, and possibly dis-credits the authors, i.e. jeopardizes their place is society for obtaining financial reward for their work, which they need to further their own and societies progress and good. Re-considering the images, the crafts are of extra-terrestrial origin, therefore it is of benefit to the species to obtain the right to use the video stills,especially for commercial use (i.e. arms trade, secret technological project works (Boeing Phantom Works, DARPA, Skunk works) in order that thought and progress could be made to improve the species survivability against threats of an extra-terrestrial origin, in addition to spurring technological advancement generally whether or not to this previous (contra-extra-terrestrial agencies defence) end. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC) spelling correction after signature 19:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC) minor correction 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC) minor correction 19:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC) typo correction 19:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC) minor correction 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC) minor correction 20:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
afterthought: asserting the right of an alien species over humanity is tantamount to securing the possibility of the obliteration of the human species by alien hostility. My thoughts on this, is that, this would not be a good thing. If the alien species would in the future assert this right, it is for that species to do so, not wikimedia. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is ridiculously wrong. ✗plicit 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you could clarify, how wrong? In support of deletion or against deletion? I'm presuming the former not the latter, so; you think the video stills depict some other reality than I showed in my response, and therefore the argument is ... what? Please state the argument of how I'm wrong, and/ a policy page where I could see how I have made an error; so that I could concur or provide an argument against. Regards Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Copyright has nothing to do with the design of the UFO's but it protects the video/photo itself. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)