Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sas1975kr

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.

Files uploaded by Sas1975kr (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These drawings are taking from Frost Holloway Halstead. The Battle of Jutland. — United States Naval Institute, 1936 copyright renewed 1964 and Campbell N. J. M. Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting. — London: Conway Maritime Press, 1986. Both works are still under copyright, so these derivative works infringe on the copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the books' publishers.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I make no claim to being expert -- I simply named the books that you named in the file descriptions. If your file descriptions are wrong, then that is simply another problem with the images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: . Jim, source i showed only for "fire distribution". But you have not even seen it. And did not notice my comment like this:

Source - Frost Holloway Halstead. The Battle of Jutland. - United States Naval Institute, 1936. -R.254 Time on the present scan is not legible - 17:15 or 17:13. Perhaps this diagram to 17:13 as at Campbell "Von der Tann" was shooting at Malaya only until 17:13, then moving it to the destroyer. In the original scheme the following changes according to Campbell N. J. M. Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting. - London: Conway Maritime Press, 1986. - 440 p. - ISBN 978-0851773796 Invalid ISBN. Uboany tlko obvious discrepancies. In the case where Campbell calls allegedly several goals that kotoroya left on the original scheme Frost. 1) Based on the text Visibility seems to have been good at first, at least for the Lutzow, but smoke and haze soon made conditions difficult, and although the Lutzow continued to engage the British battlecruisers until 1727, her firing at ranges of 19,000 - 20,800yds was latterly intermittent and ineffective. - Lützow fired "Lion" from 16:58 to 17:27 Added fire "Lutzow" to "Lion". In the original, he did not shoot. 2) Based on the text Contrary to the usual accounts, none of the 3rd Squadron was firing at the 5th BS, while they were making their turn and the first ship to engage them in this phase was the Derfflinger. Altogether she fired 22 salvos, most if not all of semi AP, between 1655 and 1719.20 at ranges of from 18,800 to 20,500 yds, and averaging 19,500. For most of this time she was engaging the Barham, but the Valiant may have been her target latterly. Four hits were made on the Barham, the times being approximately 1658, 1701, 1708 and 1710 - Derflinger from 16:58 to 17:20 shelled Barham. Fire "Derflinger" in the diagram shown on the "Barham", rather than "Princess Royal" as the original 3) Based on the text The 5th BS were offering a good, if distant, target to the 3rd Squadron and the Konig opened at 1710 on the Malaya, at c18,600yds, and fired her first 7 salvos in 5 minutes. Straddling salvos were reported, and a hit claimed at 1717 near the forward turrets. Fire "Koenig" moved on "Malaya". The original was "Valiant" 4) Based on the text It is not certain which of the 5th BS was engaged by the Markgraf, though it may have been the Malaya or perhaps the Warspite Fire "Margrave" moved on "Uorspayt" in the original was "Tiger" 5) Based on the text The Kaiser fired 1 I salvos at the Southampton in 8 minutes from 16481/2 at 16,000 - 20,800yds, and a further four salvos at the same target from 1705 to 1708 at c 19,000yds. She then opened on the Malaya at 17101/2 at 17,900 yds, and continued engaging this ship, as did the Prinzregent Luitpold which began at 1708 at 19,100yds. Fire "Prinzregent Luitpold" moved on "Malaya". The original was "Worspayt" --Sas1975kr (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • All images listed here are PD-trivial, there is no need to explain or discuss anything. The book mentioned above is the source for data, that has nothing with copyright. AndyVolykhov (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do not see how it is copyrightable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have access to Frost to compare them, but I see no reason to assume they're derivative of the copyrighted parts of those diagrams, and one certainly can produce useful graphs of historical data without copying the copyrighted parts of previously published diagrams.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fire distribution diagrams (PD-trivial, well-sourced, trivial visual representation of textual descriptions of the battle). As for the maps, I cannot comment; it's difficult for anyone to assess the validity of the claim that they are a derivative work without a scan or photo of the corresponding original figures in the book. (You do have the book?) — Tetromino (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sas1975kr (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Many of this user's other contributions have been deleted, or are subject to current DR, for being derivative works of illustrations in copyrighted books. I think it is very likely that these are also DWs and infringe. However, in the unlikely event that SAS1975kr has drawn these without a source, then they are unsourced personal speculations which are out of scope as not useful.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also:
And also:
Sas1975kr (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also:
Sas1975kr (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also:
lets do it Sas1975kr (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @Jameslwoodward: . "Many of this user's other contributions have been deleted" - Interesting. What is a confirmation of your words? Sas1975kr (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misquote. I said, "Many of this user's other contributions have been deleted, or are subject to current DR", which is certainly true, see the DRs above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you nominated some files for DR and used that as a justification to nominate more?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete svg files which are direct derivatives of copyrighted diagrams and drawings, however  Keep "unsourced personal speculations" as these may be argued to be in scope as educational illustrations, so long as they are based on the facts. We keep speculative drawings of fictional aliens, I think we can allow some of these. I strongly recommend that individual deletion requests are used on non-DW materials as there needs to be separate assessment of likely educational value, and this is going to vary by diagram. For example File:Trident 2 D5 PBV trajectory.jpg is an illustrative diagram in use on two different Wikipedias, and it's up to those Wikipedia projects to make a judgement as to encyclopaedic value, not Commons. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fæ: . It makes no sense. Kill him all. In any case they all based on "illustrations in copyrighted books" --Sas1975kr (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's your position then nobody is going to second guess you. Please take a moment to consider if they are all close derivatives. If any are original creations or differ significantly from versions in published books, then they may be a case to keep. Handling derived works well, is an area that remains quite difficult on Commons, so don't be discouraged from sharing original illustrations where there would be good educational value. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fæ: Please, kill him all. Any scheme or drawing based on "illustrations in copyrighted books". (Not only my, any). If Jim said it was unacceptable and any deriative work must be deleted - lets do it --Sas1975kr (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Russian discussions Sas1975kr claims he did not redraw images from books, but have read the numerical technology data and drafted his own projections based on that numerical data. He gives and example: if we prepare engineering drafts of the same detail, and if we follow all the drafting rules, we will have the same drafts. This is not about art, this is about engineering. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the files must be renominated separately, indeed some of them look like not copyrightable, while others may very well be and need a proper discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Jameslwoodward: this mass deletion request is IMHO absurd. You cannot just assume that a line drawing of a ship must be a derivative work or an unsourced speculation, with no third option possible! That's as bizarre as assuming that any Wikipedia article about a ship can only be a derivative work or speculation. Have you not considered the possibility that the drawings are original works in the author's own style, created using published data as reference? So please drop the mass deletion request, and provide an argument for each file you wish to remove: that it's an exact trace of copyrightable figure X on page Y of book Z. — Tetromino (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In at least one case, Sas1975kr has admitted that he copied directly from a copyrighted work. In most of the files above, the source drawing is stated -- he has simply taken a scanned drawing and vectorized it. Note also, that Sas1975kr added most of the files above -- what is that if not an admission that there is a problem? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an admission of a problem, it's being extremely pissed off at seeing months of careful work being threatened with deletion, and being unable to express one's defence properly due to a language barrier. — Tetromino (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vectorized it? What do you mean? Scan and "Save as a new file"? These drawings are carefully created by his own hands. A lot of work (actually many months of work), a lot of research, so much time and money spent. And in the end the prize – deletion request. Great! Wheat must be separated from the chaff. --Maxrossomachin (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: "copied directly from a copyrighted work", "scanned drawing and vectorized it" - diff? Of course English is not my native language. I could not speak accurately. But the words "copy" and "vectorized" I did not use.
"what is that if not an admission that there is a problem?" - yes, Jim, problem. With your way of summing up the request. HMS Perfection you have deleted as non-exist whith one source in the description file and one in the discussion. You are not conducted an independent search. You will not find my sources. You do not even ask me what is written in them. You simply deleted the file. The issue of copyright is really a discussion. But if you're in an apparent case deleted file, how can I hope for a positive result in 50 more difficult DR? I'd better remove from the Wikimedia Commons. Absolutely. --Sas1975kr (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: As far as I can see, there are no obvious DWs and no unsourced personal speculations here. I mostly see the uploader's works - carefully done own drafted projections based on well-sourced data. Second, the result of this work is often trivial. Next, I agree that this mass DR can't justify itself and neither proves the problem exists nor shows the uploader admits it. Moreover, such a large list makes it almost impossible to find a needle in a haystack. We're just wasting our time, trying to discuss all these files rolled into one. Therefore, this request is closed. In case there still are infringements among Sas1975kr's contributions, they should be discussed separately, without mixing educational value and copyright issues. --Sealle (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sas1975kr&oldid=303774639"