Commons:Deletion requests/French diploma

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.

French diploma

[edit]

Important: FYI

[edit]

 Comment Since the 5th of July 2010 the Russian User:Alex Spade attacks systematically my files without explication (I suspect his being from the Russian town of Zelenograd in which I lived 25 years, his being an associated professor in the High school MIEE in which my parents worked many years or, perhaps, my being political refugee in France are his REAL purposes and not the license problems with my files). I demanded him his counsel WHAT and HOW to change, he did NOT answer. In the aim to deceive the community, he systematically deletes (3 times yet) this topic from his own discussion page. When I noticed him his actions as a sort of vandalism, he finally generated this discussion. Jirnov (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, very true info and one more lie from you. You take everybody for fool? Everybody can see in the history of the file of diploma that YOU started the war of (18:11, 5 July 2010 Alex Spade (talk | contribs) (690 bytes) (undo)) and in the history of you discussion page that I initiated the discussion topic about your vandalism on your page (15:40, 6 July 2010)Jirnov (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented only last sentence (that so-called vandalism notice was before discussion start). I haven't commented other sentences. Alex Spade (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jirnov diplome ena1992.jpg and sub-variant File:Ena marianne.jpg

[edit]
*First of all, its common sense. So, it’s {{PD-trivial}}. ✓ Done Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Historically, During the French Revolution of 1789, many allegorical personifications of 'Liberty' and 'Reason' appeared. These two figures finally merged into one: a female figure, shown either sitting or standing, and accompanied by various attributes, including the cockerel, the tricolor cockade, and the Phrygian cap. This woman typically symbolised Liberty, Reason, the Nation, the Homeland, the civic virtues of the Republic. (Compare the Statue of Liberty, created by a French artist, with a copy in both Paris and Saint-Étienne.) In September 1792, the National Convention decided by decree that the new seal of the state would represent a standing woman holding a spear with a Phrygian cap held aloft on top of it. So, it’s {{PD-old}} ✓ DoneJirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is where link to law that symbols of French republic are in the public domain? Alex Spade (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted ✓ Done. Do you can cite a French law which states that symbols of French republic are NOT in the public domain? Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial rights
[edit]

The object :

  • This French Diploma is an official document that proves the educational degree of his owner. As such it can and must be copied and/or be shown freely as many times as his owner wants and is needed without demanding any permission. There is no copyright restrictions for it's owner. So it's under the following licence
Public domain
This file is in the public domain because this image is a copy of a diploma printed by the Imprimerie nationale, the french official printing office. It is accordingly a product issued by the government, granted to the owner of this diploma. This French Diploma is an official document that proves the educational degree of his owner. As such it can and must be copied and/or be shown freely as many times as his owner wants and is needed without demanding any permission. There is no copyright restrictions for it's owner.

This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead.

This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.
The text in PD-because is only words without links to French copyright law. So it's nothing. Provide links to respective article(s) of French copyright law or other acting French law with such statement. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to prove because it's {{PD-trivial}}. Jirnov (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text of diploma is {{PD-trivial}}. But there is en:Marianne profile on it also - it's not trivial. The freedom of this profile must be prooved with link to French law. And I suggest, thet your FR-Native will be very usefull for your in search of respective links. Alex Spade (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, ✓ Done for the {{PD-trivial}} of the text. Also exact in identifing the image, but wrong in YOUR ALLEGATIONS: the picture from the diploma I used is a common variant Marianne that is one of the symbols of French republic and as such in the public domain.Jirnov (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provide link to French law, that symbols of French republic are in the public domain. I only see {{PD-JORF}}. Alex Spade (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing more to provide this article(L122-5) [1] is sufficient (see allinéa n°9) Jirnov (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article L122-5 (using Google translate) is anolog of conceprion of fair-use in US-law or Articles 1273-1275 in RU Civil Code. Such conceptions are deprecated on WikiCommons. They are not make works free in terms of defenition of FCW. Alex Spade (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use is good enough for this case (see the use of the files in Wikipedia) Jirnov (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in Ru-Wikipedia/En-Wikipedia - where FU is allowed. We are on Wikicommons - here FU is deprecated. Alex Spade (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, professor. This is not an exam at your institute, neither a police or court of justice interrogation. I have from the beginning a strong feeling that you know what and how to do, but you are keeping for you your precious knowledge and doing counter productive things for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects that frankly I don’t appreciate.Jirnov (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your filling is nothing. If I know what and how to do, I do - as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description. Alex Spade (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as I have done with many other your files with incorrect description: My Lord! On the 9th-10th July you made minor positive changes on 3 (three) of my files. But from your phrase, one lazy enough not to see the history of your contributions, could think that you spent ten years in making my files better. In France we call this « exagération marseillaise ». You never are ashamed of taking people for imbeciles ? Jirnov (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, where I'm living and working, so I suppose, that you know perfectly, that I'm User:SpadeBot also (you have edited some your pages (from both your account) after "him" in addition). Alex Spade (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I ignored that other side of your identity (I am only a former spy and can’t spend all my spare time to make investigations on you, I prefer write articles for Wikipedia rather than to do KGB style actions against other contributors). Thanks for your positive actions even if I think they are really a sort of cover (alibi) after I pointed your general attitude as vandalism. Jirnov (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The freedom of work must be prooved, not vice versa. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The freedom of this work is automatically supposed (proved) because it’s {{PD-trivial}} and because there is a general presumption of MY innocence and good will. If YOU doubt about all this, it’s then up to YOU to prove the contrary and to prove that I’m GUILTY.Jirnov (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original image of this object:

  • I, the owner of this free of rights document made myself an original image of my own object and uploaded it to Wikimedia. So my image must be  Keep under
Public domain I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
.
Your are owner of documnet, you are not copyrightholder of document. Alex Spade (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theses words are YOUR PURE allegations. Cite a French law that states it. Jirnov (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is common fact. For example -point 202 of US-law (Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
False, your statement is in the US law. My diploma is under the French law. I demaned you to cite the French law statement, which is still missing Jirnov (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my best Russian friend that I suspect working for Russian special services doubts about it, he must prove the contrary.

Jirnov (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Master's degree.jpeg

[edit]
Same problem, in addition there are two unfree logos of en:University of Toulouse on this work. Alex Spade (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Question The image description has the following license information in it. What's wrong about that? I would really assume a diploma is an official work. Also, a diploma is owned by whoever earned it, together with the right to use it for whatever he needs to. Whoever earned the diploma will definitelly make commercial use of it (i.e. he will use it to get a good job). --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain
This file is in the public domain because this image is a copy of a diploma printed by the Imprimerie nationale, the french official printing office. It is accordingly a product issued by the government, granted to the owner of this diploma.

This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead.

This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.
I do not see anything there to make the work free. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no evidences (links to official acts), that this lic.tag is correct. Also, the owner of something is not equal to copyrigholder. For example, somebody is owner of book - he can sold, burned out and etc. this book, but he is not copyrightholder of book (he can not reproduced, translate for commercial using and etc.) as usual. In addition, diploma can be free ({{PD-trivial}} as possible variant), but university logos are not free. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please state why the above PD tag (printed by the official printing office, issued by the government) is wrong. The owner of the diploma can certainly use and copy it for commercial purposes, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to upload it here, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The freedom of work must be prooved, not vice versa. Please state why abobe PD tag is correct. In addition owner of the diploma can use and copy it for own, personal purposes. The presentation of diploma in the time of job search, posting of diploma on cabinet wall and etc. are not commercial using, these are own, personal purposes. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using a diploma for job search is definitelly a commercial usage, since you intend to make money from it. You can even pay someone to use your diploma to find a job for you. If the diploma is i.e. for becoming a medic, you'll even stick it onto the wall of your waiting room for your clients to see.
This is personal commercial using. You cann't change, modify it as work (as Definition of FCW demands), you can change, modify it as thing (piece of paper). Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The common sense says me that in the case of an official document, your logic if I understood it well, is not right. The document as a “thing” (piece of paper) could be modified only by the authorities of its issue, otherwise it becomes obsolete (deciduous) by forgery and /or counterfeiting. On the contrary, the “image” of your personal official document can be changed at will: if you like to publish it, you can hide from the image of your document your personal data in the aim of protecting your private life. Like the owner of this diploma of Toulouse III university had done. Jirnov (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, cite the precise norm of the French law to prove your allegations Jirnov (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We consider passports as free (see category:Passports by country, also Category:Passports of France). I wouldn't know how this differs from a passport in terms of copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement "We consider" without links to copyright law is nothing. French passport is enough differnet case. The unnofocial COA of France is {{PD-old}} (his author died in 1909), the text in passport is {{PD-trivial}}. In addition, there are not non-free logo of non-goverment establishments in French passport. Alex Spade (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*French passport is enough differnet case. -- Another lie or rather your complete misunderstanding (you are a Russian biologist without knowledge of French language and, so obviously INCOMPETENT in this field of the French law and administration – you don’t have a Diploma of the National School of administration with the French Prime-minister as I) : the French passport is EXACTLY the SAME case. On the cover page of French passport File:French passport front cover.jpg you can see another SYMBOL of French republic: the armories (or the seal) of the republic, which is exactly the same thing as Marianne. And as such in the public domain. And even better: on the cover page of the French pasport of 1947 File:Henri Pinault 1947 Passport cover.jpg in the circle seal between “REPUBLIQUE FRANCAISE” and “PASSEPORT” you can directly see our MARIANNE. ✓ Done Jirnov (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*non-free logo of non-goverment establishments -- Big fault, my friend. FYI : ENA is a government institution under the direct authority of the French Prime minister. Its non-free logo is completely different (see the French page of the school in Wikipedia). fr:Fichier:Logo Ecole nationale d'administration.jpg The picture from the diploma I used is the Marianne that is one of the symbols of French republic and as such in the public domain.Jirnov (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this part we are talking about File:French Master's degree.jpeg with two logos of en:University of Toulouse, not about your files.
non-free logo of non-goverment establishments Still your fault: Paul Sabatier University (Université Paul Sabatier, UPS, also known as Toulouse III) is a French State university, in the Academy of Toulouse, placed under the double authority of French Ministry of national education and French Ministry of higher education and resurch.Jirnov (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In addition, is where link to law that symbols of French republic are in the public domain? As I said, I didn't see {{PD-FR-exempt}}, I saw {{PD-JORF}} only. Give link to French copyright law or link to publication of disscused Marianne profile in respective Journal. Alex Spade (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We (in France) live NEITHER in the USSR of Stalin, NOR in Russia of Putin. Here the main principle is: all that is NOT specially prohibited by the law, is considered automatically granted ✓ Done. Do you can cite a French law which states that symbols of French republic are NOT in the public domain? Jirnov (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand of advise

[edit]

In Wikipedia and Wikimedia there are very few files of this sort of documents. So I think it’s really important to upload more. I think, that the attitude of the Russian User:Alex Spade in this case is a sort of POLICE (even KGB) action, and not a concern to make Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects richer. In case of lack of arguments (what I doubt) in favor of keeping above mentioned files,  Question So, I demand to all of you the same advise that had not been responded by the initiator of this false discussion: WHAT and HOW to change so that this important illustration to the articles about ENA, French education system, diplomas and so on may stay in Wikimedia Commons? Jirnov (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete While the use of Marianne may be old, each drawing of her has a new copyright -- she is in a similar position to all works of heraldry, see Commons:Image_casebook#Coats_of_arms, where each individual realization has its own copyright. Unless someone can find specific law to the contrary or can show that this Marianne is old, then the first diploma is clearly a delete. As for the second, it has several elements that are subject to copyright and we have no evidence that it is PD. I also note that the first diploma was issued to User:Jirnov and I think it may be out of scope as too personal.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example and bad argumentation in this case, my friend. If an artist makes a representation of Marianne and keeps it to him like his original piece of artistic work, it’s true. His original work is protected by the law. But if he decides to send that representation to the French State via a state organization or ministry as part of an official current and common document or paper or decoration (official logo in the header of a formulary, diploma, banknote, medal, etc) that is reproduced and published without a special notice that the work of this artist is still protected, then it’s another case. He is considered as having received his fee for the work and renounced to his further copyright. An original work becomes then a common representation of the symbol of the French republic, and passes in the public domain as such. Besides, according to the article L122-5 of the French code on the intellectual property, all work that is once published publicly without notice of the protection of right passes in the public domain. Jirnov (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I express freely here my opinion and arguments and only that counts.Jirnov (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The USA Federal government rules are that all documents created by Federal employees are PD. Even with that rule, if an outside person creates a work for the Federal givernment, it is not necessarily PD -- it depends on the contract between the outside person and the government. As far as I know, the first half of that example does not apply in France -- not everything created even by a government employee is PD, so why should something created by an outsider be automatically PD? In order to prove your case you will need to (a) give us a citation to the French law you assert above and (b) show that the creator of this version of Marianne sold the copyright to the government. You must prove those things here, not simply assert that they are true.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
section L122-5 of the code has nothing at all to do with public domain and does not make anything free. It merely lists specific contexts where copyrighted material may be reproduced in fair use, such as a private reproduction, in a news story about the work itself, etc. Also, for the present discussion, it does not really matter if the patrimonial copyright is owned by the artist or by the State. Works of the State are not excluded from copyright protection. So, the work is not free anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to close this. Jirnov has not offered any proof or citations for his various assertions. As Asclepias points out, the cited law gives situations in which fair use is permitted, but we do not accept fair use in any circumstances, so these must be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/French_diploma&oldid=47323519"