Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Impru20
Files from Carta de España
[edit]Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MrCharro
- File:Antonio Hernández Mancha Retrato.jpg
- File:Landelino Lavilla Retrato.jpg
- File:Manuel Fraga Congreso Diputados.jpg
- File:Felipe González Debate Estado Nación 1984.jpg
- File:Felipe González after EP election 1989.jpg
- File:Retrato de Adolfo Suárez.jpg
- File:Retrato de Miquel Roca i Junyent.jpg
Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
May I ask why those images are tagged for deletion? The source site says "Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos del Portal Carta de España, siempre que se cite expresamente su origen público" (Total and partial reproduction of the contents in the Carta de España Portal is allowed, as long that its public origin is expressly cited). The public origin of the files is cited (by showing the author, which is a public organism (Ministry of Employment and Social Security) and copying the exact text of the attribution disclaimer in the "Permission" section. What's wrong? Impru20 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Of course you can ask, but it's stated in the very first line of this deletion request. If you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MrCharro, you'll be able to verify that there was a discussion on this "license" and the result is that it does not comply to the terms of commons licenses (I'm not really glad with the result). Therefore, the images must be deleted. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It can be discussed it the license used is correct or not (I used it back on its day because it was the most similar one to the page's disclaimer, and I did not know if I had to use a CC license or had to create one. I pasted the page's disclaimer so that someone more experimented on this issue could decide on the license, though), but the page specifically says that "Total and partial reproduction is allowed".
- I can't see why in that discussion it is said that "modification is not permitted". I understand the rationale behind that conclusion in the discussion (that since the word "modifying" is not included, then it is not allowed, because copyright law starts by saying that everything is prohibited) but you know: you can't partially reproduce any content without modifying it, because by partially reproducing something you are necessarily removing part of it (or using a part of it and not others), thus effectivelly modifying it. It is not that everything that is not forbidden is allowed, but it fact, it is allowing it by the mere fact of allowing 'partial' reproduction.
- Furthermore, as files in the public domain (because the copyright holder declares in the disclaimer itself that those are of public origin, thus releasing them into the public domain), wouldn't they abide by this?
- There is any way to prevent the deletion? These files have historical and aesthetical relevance, and are used in a number of Spanish election articles. And it would be silly to have them removed just because of a possible interpretation error. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you can see that it was me the one that actually raised the point with regard to that license (with unexpected results, as I just wanted to know how to handle the "public origin" issue). I don't really agree with the conclusion, but it's the way it works. My suggestion is you to raise the discussion again in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright referencing the previous discussion (Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/08#Is_this_condition_compliant_with_commons_licenses.3F). Don't worry about the deletion. Everything can be restored. I do agree with the relevance of the pictures, but unfortunately it doesn't override non free licenses (see Commons:Fair use). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom, However, feel free to raise the issue again. Files can always be restored if consensus changes. Green Giant (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)