Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EuroparlTag

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:EuroparlTag

[edit]
And all images that embed this tag.

Non derivative only, in direct violation with Commons:Licensing. Email contact established: 

No you can not modify them.
Regards,
Catherine Juckler

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Tong Minh
Sent: 19 June 2007 13:02
To: JUCKLER Catherine
Subject: Re: Images from http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/

So this means that I am allowed to modify them?

Sincerely,
Bryan Tong Minh

On 6/19/07, JUCKLER Catherine
wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> You can use our photos as they appear on the website. They are free of
> charge but must be credited "photo: European Parliamen".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Catherine Juckler
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Tong Minh 
> Sent: 18 June 2007 21:57
> To: JUCKLER Catherine
> Subject: Images from http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/
>
> Dear madam,
>
> I have a question regarding the rights of the images on
> <http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/>. On
>
<http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/Cumulus/Standard/agree.pdf>
> it is written that the images can be freely used. Does that also mean
> that I can use the images in commercial work and modify them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bryan Tong Minh
>

Could probably even be speedied. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it! It's not written that "they can be freely used", the PDF says that files are copyright free! I don't know it was deliberate, but it was certainly unnecessary to confuse her. --Ssolbergj 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine example for misleading copyright statements on websites. --Polarlys 13:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email contact with the EU photo personell have earlier proven that their copyright answers are incoherent. They have no clue! I'm sure her boss wrote the PDF. When you asked her if you could use their images commercially and edit them, she got scared and answered: "well of course not". This tag should not be deleted without further contact. And discussion if needed. --Ssolbergj 13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Junker seemed more willing to help, can I ask people hold off for a while as I send a few emails seeing if this can be cleared up. If it is copyright free I'm not sure how they can have limits on them, and modification isn't a major right to them surely, they may be willing to surrender it. If anyone else would like to lobby on this I'd suggest you contact now. 88.105.179.64 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (- J Logan c/en: 13:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If anybody wants to clear up and receive permission for modifaction, go ahead, deletion requests stay open for at least a week and generally for two months. The current situation however is that the images are unfree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would think with all the lawyers around they could write a better copyright disclaimer. big difference between copyright free and 'royalty free' you would probably get a better response if you faxed the right people at this organization rather than emailing some webmaster Madmax32 12:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Madmax: This contact provided for the service.
General update, I got one responce but it has been silence, trying again. This is the last thing I heard: "Our photos are actuality or historical photos, it's not necessary to modify them. You can resize them or make a light colour correction if you need. If you really want to modify them you can send me a copy before publication and I'll agree or not with it." - as I said, I am responding again, did anyone else heard back if you emailed?
But regardless of that, their statement says "The photos published on this website are copyright free, but must be credited "Photo European Parliament". " - Copyright free... if they have stated that, do they actualy have a right to say we can't edit them? From a legal point of view? The two do conflict, and the official document takes precedence wouldn't it? That document says copyright free, that's public domain. - J Logan c/en: 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we had this all before (Swedish Riksdag, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs): This is a sort of unclear press license and an explicit question if we are allowed to use them to create derivative works of for commecial purposes mostly provokes an hysterial “Of course not!” And I keep on repeating that we shouldn’t create templates or use files without an explicit permission to do that under a common license like CC-by-SA. Regards, --Polarlys 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment in the legal side, because I cannot, but from an ethical point of view, I would say that we should look at the intent of the statement, not at the statement itself. It is very clear that this statement meant, you are free to use this in publishment. They did never intent to release the right to modify the image. That said, I would say that we should Delete the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they will say no. But it is not a question of copyright, but of personality rights of the shown person. If you take a picture of a person, you may not modify them in most legislations. So it is pointless to ask for authorisation in this matter. Not even US-Goverment will give permission to do so. -- Stahlkocher 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US Gov't is public domain isn't it, so they do give that. That's what I'm thinking with the Photo Service, they say copyright free which means they might have just said no as an immediate reaction. They might be willing to change on this. I still haven't got another responce, they were quick before. I'll try the other addy as well and unless I hear back by the end of the week then go ahead and wipe, just give me these last 4 days to talk to them. - J Logan c/en: 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a more fundamental problem. They can not give permission to modify the images. It is not a copyright question, but one of personal rights. This means, even if a image is marked as GFDL, it may not be modified, if it shows living people who did not agree to these modifications. It further may not be used for advertisement and only in certain context. This also applies e.g. to the image Image:Whn.jpg, which is CC-BY-SA-2.5. It is not limited by the copyright owner, but by a different law. So it is either useless to ask for such a permission or to ask for fulfilling such a precondition. The used templates are misleading in this matter. It is also unexplainable why someone requests a template deletion for such cases. -- Stahlkocher 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:Personality rights, they do not concern modification, but commercial use. What we have, is that we are not allowed to even modify them. Realize that this means that we are not even allowed to crop them, or correct the lightning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask to crop or adjust the lighting. Also ask to change to b/w. Do not ask just for modify. You also may not exchange the image later. Have a look at Image:Herbert beim Interview.jpg, and see the GFDL license: "with no Invariant Sections". Do you see that there is something incoherent? In this case the license is lying. I know what your intention is, but be honest and ask the right questions. Of course you may crop it, you may adjust the lightning and you may denoise it. Up to a certain amount. If you want everything, you will get nothing. -- Stahlkocher 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably did not know: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany makes 2004 a decision, in which they denied the right to manipulate images of persons. This also (probably) means that you must not change the background, if this is missleading. Espacially in the case, when the person did not agree to the modification. So it is a question of personality rights. -- Stahlkocher 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with their copyright status. See Template:Personality_rights. --Polarlys 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now you got it. The limitations are owed not by copyright. And the rightsowner can not unleash ist, because it is not in their power. It is the same with COA or with work created in Panoramafreiheit. Modifying in such cases is unlawfull. -- Stahlkocher 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it has nothing to do with copyright and Wikimedia Commons. It’s limited by other restrictions which are different from one jurisdiction to another. We provide files without potential copyright concerns, what you do as an individual is within your responsibility and you have to deliberate about other restrictions in your jurisdiction. --Polarlys 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what i say. The images are usable with the attribution-tag, but it is unlawfull in many countries to use them eg for advertisement or to modify them. So it is pointless to ask the copyright owner for permission to do so. The modify? question is abstracted: "Do you allow me to do something unlawful?" And the answer is: "NOOOO". As you wrote: It has nothing to do with copyright or Wikimedia Commons. -- Stahlkocher 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s not what you said. The permission to modify an image is one thing, we always need this permission from the author (independent from the character of the work). Modifying covers a wide range of possibilities; cropping, colour adjustments and so on, and doing this isn’t unlawful. --Polarlys 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've all lost me - copyright was never my area - but whatever the situation is, I have not heard back from either contact. If you can reach a consensus on this and decide to wipe them or not that would be great. - J Logan c/en: 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, modifying is a wide range. If it is just a technical matter, like cropping or resizing, it is never a problem. But if you ask just for "permission to modify" you also ask for unlawfull things. Modify eg also includes "replacing" which means 100% modifying. No honest copyright owner could give you permission to modify images of living people, except the images shows paid modells. Neither they could give you permission for unrestricted use. This is *because* it is are not a copyright issue. -- Stahlkocher 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this permission is okay then? It can be used on commons? - J Logan c/en: 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. We need a permission to modify works, regardless of local laws concerning personality rights. According to Stahlkocher’s argumentation, nobody would grant the permission to modify text, just because someone else could add passages which are illegal somewhere on the globe. --Polarlys 14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is forbidden, by which law ever, it is definitely pointless to ask for a permission. They have the {attribution}, add the personality tag and everything is fine. See {PD-Coa-Germany}: never a rightsowner gave permission to modify or even to "use" them. -- Stahlkocher 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EOD. --Polarlys 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the images cannot be modified or used for commercial purposes, they are no better than a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriv license, which is not allowed on commons. Why would this instance be any different? Images on commons should be free to be modified in any way anyone else wants. Someone wants to use the image for parody purposes, that should be fine. Restricting modification means the images are not free and have no place on commons. Perhaps they can be uploaded to the individual projects under a fair use claim. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 13:50
  • Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are these going or what? On the note by the guy defending them, I suppose this wouldn't help at all? - J Logant: 08:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be no keep tags in this discussion, what are we waiting for? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 05:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for an uninvolved admin. Although the result is obvious for me, I will not close this discussion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, this request is two and a half month old, there is a obvious conflict with Commons:Licensing (“Non derivative only”) and we received no further statement from the copyright holder about a different licensing possibility. --Polarlys 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:EuroparlTag&oldid=13285480"