Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png

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.

Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png

[edit]

"for use on Wikipedia" is not enough, false license (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 needs an author, but no author is specified, license is not mentioned in the so called „authorisation“). Can someone please point this out on it.wikipedia.org? Thank you. Polarlys 12:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

--Polarlys 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Italian Army has only one condition: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." so the image Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png can be used!
I read “Authorization for use on Wikipedia granted by the Italian Army”. That’s something else. --Polarlys 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you read is irrelevant, as the official email clearly states: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." So: “Authorization for use on Wikipedia granted by the Italian Army” needs to be removed and than everything is exactly accoring to the licence granted by the Italian Army! Noclador 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it’s irrelevant, but it’s what you added to the description. So please remove this hint (not the request for deletion!) everywhere, add an author (author is needed for this license) and forward the permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Whatever an “official email” is. --Polarlys 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole post is irrelevant

The email from the Italian Army to the Italian wikipedia at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito clearly states ONLY ONE condition: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." Therefore the images are correctly licensed and everything below can be ignored, as it obviously all results from Polarlys beeing unable to read Italian. Noclador 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Polarlys can't you read? Follow this link and read at the top of the page: Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/Esercito THIS is the permission as it was emaild from the Italian Army TO the Italian wikipedia!
Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Das italiensiche Heer hat der ORTS der ital. wikipedia bereits die Genehmigung erteilt! Falls Du Dir mal die Mühe machst dem Link, denn ich Dir schon 10mal aufgezeigt habe zu folgen wirst Du sehen, dass es zu einer Seite der wiki Italy geht unter dem Titel Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute auf Deutsch: Wikipedia:erhaltene Authorisierungen
Außer dem habe ich schon überall "on wikipedi" rausgenommen! Vieeleicht solltest Du mal lesen was ich schon die ganze Zeit schreibe, nämlich dass eine Freigabe vorliegt und zwar bei der italinsichen wikiepdia!!!! Hier noch mal der Link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito this link Noclador 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On it.wikipedia.org I see a part of a mail, but nothing about OTRS. The images are not correctly licensed, since an author is missing, but Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 requires an author for proper use. It’s nowhere mentioned, that the Italien army agrees to any use under this license (commercial use, derivative works). The permission sounds like the typical “press license” to me. One thing: stop removing my request for deletion. --Polarlys 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Than I will translate once more for you: "Per sua natura, il progetto è aperto alla contribuzione da parte di chiunque, a patto che il materiale pubblicato non violi il diritto di autore e possa essere liberamente redistribuito secondo la GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." This IS the request that was sent to the Italian Army to which it responded by granting the license!
Translation: "According to its nature, the project is open to contributions from anyone, under the prerequisite that the published materials does not infringe the rights of the authors and can be freely redistributed under the GNU Free Documentation License." so as you may understand now the Italian army has therefore clearly granted a license that inculdes "free redistribution under the GNU Free Documentation License" as long as the author is named! Also all images carry the followind description: "Downloaded from the official homepage of the Italian Army. Authorization for use granted by the Italian Army (see Italian Wikipedia at: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito) under the condition that the source always be named." so, and now you tell me that there is the author missing? What about the 2! the Italian Army is mentioned as source?! Noclador 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no explicit response to this whole license part. It’s not said: Use the images under GFDL or CC-by-SA but use it but cite our site. That’s not the same. --Polarlys 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are/were many cases were such organizations reply to such emails with with answers like "you can use them, just credit us", and later it turns out they didn't know anything about licenses or the person replying didn't have the authority to release the images under a free license. In many cases those replies just mean "sure, use these images that we published online for press use, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a commercial project and will surely only use it in articles about our organization". As long as they don't explicitly say that they release the images under a free license (and explicitly state that license in the email), we can never be 100% sure that the images are indeed free to use for anyone for any purpose. --88.134.44.255 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, Polarlys, I'm user Empar of the german edition of wikipedia. I wrote almost all the articles regarding the Italian military on de.wikipdia and I have used many of the italian coat of arms available on commons. Now, besides the fact that with this request you are going to destroy or in any case to reduce in value most of the work that I have done without any reason even though there is an explicit authorization coming from the italian ministry of defence, I would like to know from you, if you don't have anything better to do here in wikipedia than to be a pain in the ass for other people who try to do their best in order to improve the articles. It may be, that the webmaster in the italian ministry of defence is not an expert in legal and copyright issues, but it is more than clear, that this person has a general order from the ministry, that states that this material can and may be used on wikipedia. What you are trying to do here is to find excuses or details that might serve as such to delete hundreds of coat of arms that other users have legally patiently prepared and uploaded for use on wikipedia. Are you aware of the fact, that you are nothing else than destructive? The Italians are explicitly authorizing it and you are searching for tiny irrelevant reasons to couterdict this authorization. I don't know what's going on with you - don't you have anything else to do? Why don't you search for reasons to put in pictures instead of eliminating them, why don't you try to improve articles instead of creating problems where there really aren't. If the italian military as source of the information/pictures was against such use, they would have protested long time ago - instead, they are helping some users answering questions and helping them with the coat of arms. So I'm asking you to withdraw this deletion request, because it doesn't violate the copyright of the italian military since they are granting the necessary authorization! If you doubt the authenticity of this contribution you can obtain my confirmation on my page in the German wikipedia -- Empar=190.56.74.216 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal attacks. It’s not my intention to “destroy” anything. Commons is for free content only and it’s my work to deal with any sort of problems here. A solid legal basis is vitally important for the whole project and its future. If you uploaded a lot of pictures under wrong circumstances, it’s a pity if we have to delete anything. Unfortunately I see no „explicit permission“ for the use under CC-by-SA-25. Allows the Italian army to use this photos in a discriminating or commercially context or am I allowed to make some funny derivative works? At the current point, the “permission” is just another press license for me. --Polarlys 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. Description placed in the images is badly written but authorization states that images can be used with only attribution required. --Jollyroger 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what you make out of it. --Polarlys 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is more accurate than what you make out of it, since you can't even read this authorization not speaking italian. --Jollyroger 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That's right, Italian army did not explicity permitted them and is a problem. So we (it.wikipedians) we'll probably upload all that with, at least, EDP rationale on it.wiki. If they start listen to me we'll upload ALL images used by it.wiki ouside this (useless) project. --DracoRoboter 20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on it.wikipedia.org you need an explicit permission. --Polarlys 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy.. Ok, you're right, my english is horrible but I think I clearly wrote "EDP" not "with CC-by-sa license". We (I mean wikipedia) already have permission for that, no? Anyway I could not get why a "coat of arms" must be modifiable.. maybe this is another problem --DracoRoboter 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don’t have a suitable permission. We have just a sort of press license, which is used for coat of arms and photos. Maybe the use of the coat of arms is restricted in another way. --Polarlys 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of information is NOT a information (or a proof), and maybe tomorrow sun do not rise. it.EDP says that "Non sia ragionevolmente possibile ottenere un file equivalente dal punto di vista illustrativo e dotato di una licenza libera conforme alla definizione di Opera Culturale Libera" (we cannot get that in a free license) and italian army said, at least, that we can use them (==copyrighted with edp permission) Draco "I quote D-Kuru" Roboter
As usual. A german "admin" shows up and ask deletion of things he do not understand. We saw it lot of times, nothing new.
Please, read and try to understand:
We have a license granded by the army itself, stating that all material from the website is usable under an attribution clause.
The license is granted by redazione del sito ufficiale dell'Esercito. -> The legitimate owner og the site. It clearly states that the material is given with a license similar to NASA's one, with only attribution required, all uses allowed.
So, why should we delete anything on the premises that Maybe the use of the coat of arms is restricted in another way? There is no "maybe": we have authorization, from the legitimate owners, and there is no special laws for that coat of arms.
if the problem is the words Authorization for use on Wikipedia granted by the Italian Army, just change them with a bot, this is just bad wording for a perfectly good authorization.
--Jollyroger 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is „no license similar to NASA’s one“, that would be public domain („NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted.“) . There is no license at all. Am I allowed to use these files commercially, am I allowed to make derivative works? Why are they CC-by-SA? Where is „CC-by-SA“ stated? --Polarlys 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to use these files commercially, am I allowed to make derivative works, provided you cite the source. This is stated in the authorization that you apparently can't read. --Jollyroger 09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
„Gentile Signor (omissis),
Le risponde la redazione del sito ufficiale dell'Esercito.
Può utilizzare tutto il materiale che è on line sul sito, l'unico vincolo è 
che venga citata la fonte.
Cordiali saluti e buon lavoro.“
No, it’s not. --Polarlys 14:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think there should be something bad in german's water, air or so then...
It says YOU CAN USE ALL THE MEDIA ONLINE ON THE WEBSITE. ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE SOURCE.
Does it says "no commercial use, please?" NO.
Does it says "no derivatives?" NO.
Was the condition of use presented to the licens owner? YES, THEY WERE. even the GFDL text was linked, so the license owner knew the terms of use (commercial-derivative). He did something more and requested only source citation instead of all the GFDL stuff.
--Jollyroger 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop insulting me. What do you know about my origin? Is Polarlys from Germany, Switzerland, Austria or Luxembourg or is he even living abroad and just speaks German?
They just don’t think of derivative works etc. The conditions of use were presented, but there was no response (e.g. „yes, put it under GFDL“) and finally it was uploaded as CC-by-SA-25. There is a diffence regarding the term „free“ between „free beer“ and „freedom“ … --Polarlys 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem should be in german language...
If you had known Italian language, you would have known that there is a strong difference between "free" as "free beer" and "free" as "freedom".
they are completely different words. First one is "gratis", or "gratuitamente". This is not the case.
second one is "liberamente", that means "free" as in "freedom", "free as a bird", "freefall" etc.
we are arguing about the same problem we are going into in the "agenzia Fides" matter: you do not know the difference in meaning of two different italian words meaning different things but both translated in english as "free". In both this cases you wanto to use a mistranslation to support the idea that those images are not authorized: it is an ERROR, an error due to your misunderstanding on Italian language and an errore due to you not admitting you made a misinterpretation of those authorization.
Commons is suffering from too much german (ops, german-speaking) admins, like you or Rtc, that do not even try to understand the words of a culture they do not understand and proceed according to a wrong interpretation they are too proud to correct.
That's why lot of people from it.wiki stopped uploading images here preferring it.wiki, where people understand local copyright laws better, and where people is used to try to understand the point of the argument.
actually, I'm one of the few remaining it.wikians using commons, and only because with Commonist is easier.
I have hardly seen a wikimedia project managed worse than this, and this discussion is just the last proof. --Jollyroger 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you become impolite and unobjective again and again? Have a look here: Commons:Copyright_tags#Unknown_nature. Everywhere the same: „use them, mention the source“. Everywhere requests for deletion, not by me. We don’t need more unclear templates like this. Why don’t you contact the army, asking for another permission? What could happen? I mailed FIDES as well to prevent the possibility of a later deletion and to put it on solid fundaments. Rtc is no sysop by the way. I would nominate him, because he is a truly reasonable person, but I don’t think he would like to do this job and a lot of incited users would vote him down, whenever most of them never argued with him in a reasonable way or even tried to understand his judgement. --Polarlys 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written today to the Italian Army and inquired about a new and clearly stated license. If there is an answer it will be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and in cc to me. As soon as I know more I will post it here- until then I suggest to suspend this discussion before more people get banned besides me :-) --Noclador 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

permission is on it’s way --Polarlys 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 20th, 2007 the Italian Army sent an email regarding the images license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org: "The Italian Army as owner and author of the material published on its webpage (www.esercito.difesa.it) releases aforementioned material under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 {Cc-by-2.5} license, which stipulates that the source of the material (Esercito Italiano- Italian Army) must be always named. Images of badges and insigna of the Army cannot be used to make commercial use of the work without permission of the Army." Therefore all images are now licensed under {Cc-by-2.5} and the insignia and badges too, but under national Italian restrictions: see Template:Insignia. --Noclador 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...that is clearly what was stated in the first e-mail they sent. Do anyone wish to waste more time having other authorizations re-stated? Please, if you apply to this position, be sure not to understand a single word of the original license. --Jollyroger 08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s wrong. A free license like Cc-by-2.5 was never mentioned before at all. --Polarlys 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Permission has been received. However most images mentioned do not contain a source url which proofs that they are from www.esercito.difesa.it. They can not be kept unless the explicit source is found. Also note that the permission does not apply to insignia and badges which are not free for commercial use. See Template:Italian army. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Italian_Soldiers_on_Parade.png&oldid=7615460"