Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado

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.

Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs)

These files were initially tagged by Yilku1 as Copyvio (copyvio).

Speedy deletion challenged at COM:UDR. Opening a discussion as a result.

Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yilku1: File:LUIS FERNANDO CAMACHO.jpg ([1]); File:MARIA DE LA CRUZ.jpg ([2]); File:LUIS ARCE.jpg ([3]); File:JORGE QUIROGA.jpg ([4]; File:JEANINE AÑEZ.jpg ([5]); File:CHI HYUN CHUNG.jpg ([6]); File:FELICIANO MAMANI.jpg ([7]); File:CARLOS MESA.jpg ([8]) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per P Cesar Maldonadoː The images would not be copyright infringement, since the images are of political candidates who usually know how to use their photographs everywhere, either digitally or in print. I accompany links to the pages where the same images are used freely and varied, where their use is national (Bolivia), international, and also through social networks where the content is free, in addition to the images previously they have been edited by meː[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] [22][23]--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P Cesar Maldonado: Widely used does not mean "under a free licence". Editing the photos does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract (in writing and signed). Please advise who is the photographer of the images in question and by which reason you are the copyright holder. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: I explain, the basis of the photographs are taken from an image from the social network Facebook [24]. Although the social network recognizes the property of a person, but somebody when uploading images Facebook allows free distribution to third parties freely creating a license "free of copyright" [25] unless it is the same page that uploaded it, says otherwise or proceeds with a process of restitution of authorship or eliminate the corresponding content [26][27]--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P Cesar Maldonado: Facebook's terms of service is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy and uploading an image to Facebook does not extinguish one's copyright -- the position that content uploaded to Facebook is "free of copyright" is flat out incorrect. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: You can please cite in text where Wikipedia explains that its policies are not compatible with Facebook's policies, and on the other that it is incorrect for Facebook to extend a free license, just as textually, because Facebook says the opposite: "Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is protected by intellectual property rights in or in relation to our Products, you grant us an international, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, and non-exclusive license to host, use, distribute, modify, publish, copy, display or publicly display and translate your content, as well as to create derivative works of it (in accordance with your privacy and app settings). In other words, if you share a photo on Facebook, you grant us permission to store, copy and share it with others (of course, according to your settings), such as service providers who use our services or other Facebook Products you use. This license expires when your content is removed from our systems."Because it is not fair that I defend my position with fundamentals and links, and the other party does not base that I am making a mistake.

@P Cesar Maldonado: The text quoted there grants Facebook a licence, but does not grant anyone else a licence. As such, it is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: Ok, but you didn't answer my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P Cesar Maldonado (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@P Cesar Maldonado: I did answer your question. But it seems that you have chosen not to understand. And it is Facebook's terms that are not compatible with that of Wikimedia Commons. For clarification: This is not Wikipedia. This is Commons. And Commons is not Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: Let's avoid hints and avoid falling into disrespect. Okay. This is Commons. I repeat my question that you clearly did not answer. Can you please quote me verbatim as Commons says their policies are not compatible with Facebook? obviously your reasons or terms.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P Cesar Maldonado: Again it is Facebook's terms of service that are not compatible with Commons policy, not the other way around. I will reiterate: The text quoted there grants Facebook a licence, but does not grant anyone else a licence. COM:L: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: They are individual and personal perceptions that I read, so far there is no where it is written. So far I have received an interpretation from you about Facebook and Commons, but so far I have not seen textual, things must be in physical and be clear, because if clear instructions are not given like this from Facebook in Commons or vice versa, it should to be clearly written in the regulation. But especially, in this discussion, it has not been shown to me verbatim, I have only seen your interpretation, and obviously that is not enough. I'm sorry, and it's not necessary for you to repeat things to me that I clearly understood the first time and say in a derogatory tone, please.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you please too, avoid using bold in your answers, since you express in another way what you want to say as it says in COM:TALK--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P Cesar Maldonado: Policy is clear. The images are not under a free licence per COM:L. Facebook's terms of service is not compatible with the criteria set by COM:L. The licence that a user grants to Facebook does not licence anyone else to use that content. This is not my interpretation. This is policy. Your failure to understand -- after being told, now, multiple times -- and clear failure to read COM:L is astounding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: These are unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIOs per the uploader's admission above and thus are (and should have been) speedied per CSD#F1; the uploader's apparent deep confusion, and w:WP:IDHT, related to COM:DWs, libre vs. gratis, and our licensing requirements does not make them other. --Эlcobbola _talk 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs) 2

derivative of political party logos. While uploader may have placed them in the coloured round squares, they are neither {{Own}} (own work) nor {{Self}} (the copyright holder) as claimed. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licensing tag is incorrect. Correct information (e.g. author, year of creation/publication, etc.) should be supplied to determine copyright status and the licensing tags should be corrected.

Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We should not be creating our own derivative logos for parties but using the parties' logos. If the parties' logo is non-free, then it's up to the individual wiki to figure out. Better to delete these and upload the actual logos and work out the licensing rather than allow this which even isn't right anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the following: File:PARTIDO DEMOCRATA CRISTIANO.jpg, File:CONSTRUYENDO FUTURO.jpg, File:BOLIVIA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:CHUQUISACA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:UNIDAD CIVICA SOLIDARIDAD.jpg, File:SOBERANIA Y LIBERTAD PARA BOLIVIA.jpg (but File:Soberanía y Libertad para Bolivia (SOL.bo).jpg is redundant?), File:PARTIDO DE ACCION NACIONAL BOLIVIANO.jpg (but File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg is redundant), File:MOVIMIENTO AL SOCIALISMO - INSTRUMENTO POLITICO POR LA SOBERANIA DE LOS PUEBLOS.jpg, File:ALIANZA LIBRE 21.jpg, File:ALIANZA COMUNIDAD CIUDADANA.jpg. Neutral (but hope that closing admin will take a look at them) File:SEGURIDAD ORDEN Y LIBERTAD.jpg, File:VAMOS COCHABAMBA.jpg, File:UNIDAD NACIONAL.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO DE ORGANIZACION POPULAR.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO DEMOCRATA SOCIAL.jpg. Delete The rest as complicated enough to warrant copyright protection. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Los logotipos de empresas y organizaciones no son ninguna excepción, y poseen también derechos de autor. Sólo los logotipos con licencia libre o en dominio público son aceptables en Wikipedia. La excepción son aquellos logotipos que consisten sólo en formas geométricas simples y en texto. Este tipo de logotipos no alcanza el umbral de originalidad necesario para que esté protegido por copyright y están, por lo tanto, en dominio público. [28] --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eliminese estosː File:Soberanía y Libertad para Bolivia (SOL.bo).jpg y File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg por redundancia, no me opongo.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ricky81682, derivative logos aren't official. Taichi (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per original authors explanation translated here: "Company and organization logos are no exception, and are also copyrighted. Only freely licensed or public domain logos are acceptable on Wikipedia. The exception are those logos that consist only of simple geometric shapes and text. These types of logos do not reach the threshold of originality necessary to be protected by copyright and are therefore in the public domain." All of these logos seem simple enough to be in the public domain. Furthermore, these images are all different enough from the original party logos that they could qualify as the author's own work and are thus public domain. But at the same time, that fact puts into question whether they should be used as articles since none of these parties use these exact logos in their campaigns. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg) We are talking about a circle surrounded by squares and letters. Simple geometric images and text. It clearly DOES NOT meet the minimum criteria for originality, making it ineligible for copyright--FelipeRev (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted most per nomination and several other arguments and myself having significant doubts about the licensing and free use according to Precautionary principle. Kept two because these are simple text logo's beyond any doubt: File:CHUQUISACA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO AL SOCIALISMO - INSTRUMENTO POLITICO POR LA SOBERANIA DE LOS PUEBLOS.jpg Elly (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado

Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs) 2

Navigation menu

Search