Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ItalyDefense

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:ItalyDefense

[edit]

This website previously stated "Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate"[emphasized by me] = All information on the site is public information which may be copied and distributed. Copying and distributing does not mean modifying. While nonderivative is without question, it additionally most certainly refers to a "for journalistic purposes" permission. Now, this has actually been clarified on the web site. Instead of taking the correct conclusion that the old license has restated in less ambiguous terms, and was never meant as public domain, the license tag is now claiming the license was changed, and the old would still be valid. That is of course not correct, and the template and all pictures should be deleted completely. It must even be suspected that the statmenet was meant to refer to Information, not about copyright of works on the web site. That is, it was supposed to state that the webseite contained no w:Classified information; by no means it was supposed to grant any license at all. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc, what are you doing again? What are you trying to make up this time? Please stop such erroneous and ridiculous deletion requests once for ever! Your behavior here is really outraging me for quite some time! Now I will raise my voice far more vigorously than in the past when I unfortunately had less time because of business! All pictures of Italian defense ministry are clearly Public Domain! In other pages of defence ministry there it is clearly stated that pictures can be used freely at condition that ministry or dependant agencies (army, air force, navy) are cited as source. And it is more than obvious that also in this case as stated on the template they give license to the public to use the pictures as they want. The statement "Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate" means that EVERY INFORMATION (Yes EVERY) and obviously no matter if written or as picture is considered for the public and can be distributed or copied. If ministry says the old license is still valid, then it is definitely correct, as nominal holder of copyright of these pictures (that in Italy are public domain after 20 years AND are obviously governmental pictures especially when taken under the fascist regime) they have all the rights to do that. In cases like that Italian law does not allow retrospective. So all pictures uploaded before May 23rd 2006 retain the old policy if you like it or not. Rtc, is this not clear enough for you? When information of any kind is explicitely stated as published for the public it is obviously Public Domain. Quite similar to the work of US governmental agencies. If you do not properly understand Italian or Italian laws then stay away or at least ask what you want to know instead of requesting deletions in such an obviously provocative way! I really would like to know what phantasies are you trying to buid up just to force deletion of all pictures released from Italy. What you are supposing is completely wrong! Ask the ministry like I did long before if you do not believe what I say. And please stop trying to deceive and mislead other users. You seem to have a very big problem with Italian pictures and licences. It is not the first time you try to destroy work of many people even when covered by clear copyrights. Unfortunately you succeeded a few times because also many users and admins seemed to be not willing to take the time neccessary to work out if a license tag is legally acceptable or not. They just went the "way of less resistance" (a true scandal to say the least). Be aware that this time it will not be as easy for you. And I hope you will not return to your bad language of the earlier discussions of this kind. Just rants and no arguments (I prefer not to cite what you wrote). Remember that you had also been blocked on German Wikipedia for that! And your request to accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license) is an incredible proof of your incompetence. Rtc, if you are so keen on trying to rule over licenses as you think and to destroy widely accepted work of many genuine users then get outta here and get lost or at least found your very own online encyclopedia where you can do whatever you want! This deletion request is completely erroneous and I ask the fellow users to ignore it and keep the license tag. It would be fine for me to modify it in a way that every doubt would be excluded right away. To all users: Please get a hold on you with deletion requests. Too many pictures in the past were deleted in an unjust way. It is better to try to fix before deleting. For me deletion is always the very last of means.
KEEP!
Reptil 8 March 2007, 6:45 (UTC)

I do not see a single argument, and in fact most of what you write is wrong and ignores the arguments I have given in the deletion request. The template will be deleted if you do not discuss correctly and point out a flaw in the arguments of the deletion request. The Ministry does not say that "the old license is still valid", but a commons user claims that. The Ministry has actually clarified the license, I guess after having found out that it has been misread by some naive commons users to mean public domain. Ah, and please don't shoot the messenger! Your exasperation and populism won't stop me from questioning and requesting deletion for each and every single tag that is from a critical point of view certainly not intended to be compatible to COM:L. That "EVERY INFORMATION (Yes EVERY) and obviously no matter if written or as picture is considered for the public and can be distributed or copied." simply does not mean that EVERY INFORMATION can also be used to create derivative works, and that it may also be used for commercial purposes. And a law is not retrospective if copyrights come alive again, as long as they don't come alive again for the past, but only for the future. --Rtc 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to write part of the notes about this template, first on it.wiki, then here. Well, since I don't believe to be a liar, and since I'm not able to recognise serious new arguments, I cannot tell you anything different from what previously explained in the template's talk. I believe that it could seem quite rude, indeed, that someone is discussing Italian legal terms without knowing Italian language and Italian law, however the point is not politesse, the point is that all the images downloaded from difesa.it before the indicated date, are in the public domain. The problem is instead about images downloaded (and uploaded here) after that date. Nothing else, nothing more. As said before. Easy to solve, really: images tagged with this template must have been uploaded before May 23, 2006, and all what uploaded after (if not otherwise allowed) must be deleted. That's all. The rest is once again only a strange case of uninformed theoretical exercises about Italian law.
Rtc, given that you have such a consideration of other users, now please be coherent with yourself and kindly indicate us with all of your wisdom:

  • who told you that "informazioni per il pubblico" can be translated as "public information"?
  • where can we read that the previous licensing was a "for journalistic purposes" permission? Who told you that? Where in the Italian law is there a special treatment for journalists? Can you tell a case, please?
  • what allows you to conclude that "the old license has restated in less ambiguous terms" when not a word there is now in the site about licences? which concepts are now "less ambiguous"?
  • who are you to decide that difesa.it "by no means it was supposed to grant any license at all"? given that this site is run by a governmental office, why this office should not be able to do what all the other offices (in Italy) are allowed and perhaps also are expected to do?
  • where can we read that "Now, this has actually been clarified on the web site." Where is it? Please link and/or quote this passage in the original language.
  • "The Ministry has actually clarified the license": where the hell can you read it? Did you buy a special browser to read it? Where do they sell it and where can I buy this special browser so that I can read it too? The ministry simply removed the licensing terms, there is no license visible any more, are you really trying to say that this would be a clarification? Is this what you mean for "discuss correctly"? Honestly, I'm astonished. Please discuss this matter in legal terms and without inventing what has not already been invented: the removal of license didn't say anything, some text was deleted and this is the whole fact, please don't speculate on what hasn't been written.

About retrospective laws, I do hope that you can keep in mind that what once falls in the public domain, will belong to the public domain forever. This would usually be logical, but better to underline it for naive ital-deletionists. It's not really true that "copyrights come alive again", if you know the sense and the meaning (the legal meaning, especially) of "public domain". Which is said to be quite compatible to COM:L.
The Ministry does not say that "the old license is still valid" because it now says nothing, really nothing, about licenses. If you wish, the brocard is "tempus regit actum", so there would be no need to specify that point, given that its consequences (PD) cannot be reverted if they were even mistakenly caused by difesa.it and when licensed in that way contents were in PD. FYI, the removal of the license, on a legal point of view, does not actually mean that the ministry changed its policy, even if it is very likely it did. We didn't read that they had changed their policy, but considering that they probably had, we consequently modified our template in it.wiki and the one here. And it was upon this mere prudent reflection that all the correction was started. Naive users were therefore more prudent in the consideration of the situation than other users were in the choice of their words. The only relevant limit here is the date of upload.
Keep - delete images uploaded after May 23, 2006
Gianfranco 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for justification of my claims. I have no justification, and I do not claim that my argumentation is justified, but that it is true. If you doubt what I say, check it—ask the ministery by mail if they still regard the old statement as valid and that it meant that the works as such (not merely the information) can be used for any purposes, by anyone, even for profit (selling postcards, posters), and even create derivative works (caricature) without the need to pay royalties to the photographer. You will see that they will clearly deny this. Instead of writing pages of debate, I suggest you to simply check that what I say is true. PS: you are right, the permission has not been restated, but simply removed. That doesn't tackle my main claim at all, however (which is that the pictures are conflicting with COM:L). --Rtc 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested at all in your eventual justifications, I was only pointing out how far you are from the matter. And how far you brought your claims from common sense. I would have preferred to be more kind, but you also commented what other users had done, and no one had asked you to do it...
Yes, I'll ask the ministry, given that those who decide such matters happen to be relatives of mine so I'll have concrete answers (maybe quicker than mail), but unfortunately, due to this particular coincidence, this will be a personal confidence I will receive, so this is why I will keep on facts, only and solely on publicly evident facts. And facts are what is written today and what was written yesterday.
BTW, PD doesn't seem to be conflicting with COM:L, is it?
Finally, maybe these are really pages of debates, but I can also read how many edits you made in this page to enrich, little by little, your claims. There is a way to stop me from commenting: don't comment, keep on facts Gianfranco 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep on the truth, and not on alleged consequences of facts. If Einstein had kept on the facts of his time, we'd perhaps still not know the theory of relativity. --Rtc 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing about theories, but about facts. If you have any new theories of your own about Italian law, better you write to www.camera.it instead of difesa.it, and let them know everything we are longing to discover. And about jolly good Albert, I can imagine a comparison only in case you are a violinist.
Still you are not bringing any concrete facts in support of your opinion. Gianfranco 18:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A theory or opinion is a fact if it is true, and I am claiming exactly that: That it is true what I say; that it is a fact. I am not claiming that I can justify, or support it. You believe that only supported theories can become facts and hence can be valid in this discussion, but you have not supported this belief, and thus it must be assumed as invalid in our discussion by your own criteria. My claim however can be true without being justified, or supported, and, in fact, nothing at all can be a justified or supported, since it necessarily leads to infinite regress, dogmatism or circular reasoning (justification and support are the hallmark of pseudoscience, BTW). I told you that if you doubt that what I say is true, you can check it, and I am ready to admit error immediately and withdraw the deletion request if your check turns out to contradict my claim—and I am not even requiring that you can support, or justify such a discovery. However, I won't change my "opinion" merely because you have your own. --Rtc 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I know that this template had to be removed, I had already requested its deletion, but I don't know it has to be deleted, and I still don't have this idea even after you tried to convince me about this (in a very strange way, indeed). You know, while you have received legal explainations too, on the point, your only reply was that if we send an e-mail to someone, we would be told so-and-so. This is your argument. Not a word (or at least not an inherent one) on the discussed topics.
About dogmatism, please note that this is precisely what you are proposing to me: you are asking to believe in your word, the only proof being hypotetical. Unfortunately I don't accept dogmas from a pope, who might be better entitled to talk about "truth" without explaination, so it would be funny if I'd accept them from you. Especially after all what we have read here above.
I actually don't have an opinion on the point: I studied instead how the thing was, together with other it.Wikipedians, all mothertongue Italians (you won't believe: several it.sysops too, some of them - what a shame - lawyers...), all with a professional background in law (but this makes no difference in it.wiki as well as in wikirealm) and with a bunch of laws to check, and finally we took the given indication. We did it for it.wiki, of course, not for Commons, but the result is one, whatever the project, and we informed Commoners of what had changed. Go check the discussions in it.wiki for more. And try to remember that you wouldn't be aware of this matter if from it.wiki we hadn't noted the change in the license and corrected the template. We are not going to produce a legal advice on this, but still it is not an individual opinion. So, you can keep your opinion as long as you don't pretend it to be a legal advice and as long as you don't believe to be Einstein. You evidently aren't. This is a dogma you can take for granted.
On a mere point of civilisation in the Western world, besides, it's not me who has to proof that what I did was correct, it's you who have to eventually proof that it wasn't correct; this is not dogmatism, it is "presume good faith", a principle which rules all the projects since their beginning, because this is/was a civilised group of projects. So I'm not going to demonstrate you anything, I already explained what I had to explain. But there's nothing I have to justify.
There was also something called perhaps Wikilove somewhere, which maybe chattered about mutual respect, but I'm afraid this would now be too much: in Italy we don't consider the study of law as "pseudoscience" and, wherever you may live, I guess that this is the same around your town too. I therefore hope that you will stop insulting: we are here for other reasons, certainly not for your personal entertainment.
I won't reply any more, I believe the question is already clear enough for those who will have the patience to read --Gianfranco 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is discussing this on a personal level. Dogmatism does not mean to make unproved claims (there are no proved claims). I am exactly not asking you to believe what I say. I already said that you can actually check my claim by sending them an email. What use is in discussing "together with other it.Wikipedians, all mothertongue Italians (you won't believe: several it.sysops too, some of them - what a shame - lawyers...), all with a professional background in law (but this makes no difference in it.wiki as well as in wikirealm) and with a bunch of laws to check" when you can simply ask by email? I already said that it is impossible to proove anything at all, so don't claim that I "have to eventually proof that it wasn't correct". There is no such proof. the study of law, if done correctly, is not pseudoscience simply because it does not justify, or support, any claims. Go ahead and check my claim. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the truth? --Rtc 09:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why is it so hard to ask them for clarification? Be sure to mention commercial use and derivatives. Unless we receive a clear statement, I expect the images to be Deleted. Kjetil r 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc, believe me, there is no exasperation at all or populism from my side. The argument of populism is completely erratic as I am not Italian. So do not make us all laugh with statements like that. You did not see a single argument from me before? Too bad, what a pity, maybe you did not want to understand what I wrote. You are once again fundamentally wrong as you always have been with your incredibly infuriating deletion requests. These are nothing else than unproved claims and rants. I never saw any significant improvements of articles or any articles written new from you, neither on German Wikipedia nor here. Only senseless destruction of honorable work. User Gianfranco is NOT a liar, he did the template to the best of his knowlwedge and is obviously right. In what you were replying to him you were just turning around yourself without any substantial arguments. What you write against this tag does not convince at all. The Italian Army said in some other cases of pictures on Wikipedia that EVERY picture can be used in the way someone wants, as long as the original source is credited, derivative work is allowed too. The only condition is not to use the pictures in a discrediting way. And after all, every picture of the ministry and also especially the older ones of fascist Italy are considered as government pictures. A government has all rights of this world to declare pictures PD or not. EU directives do not matter in such cases. If you like it or not. And no... no copyrights at all come alive again! When they say every information is usable then they cleary refer to the pictures as well (obvious, isn' t it?) and so of course they refer clearly to the copyright of works AND pictures on the web site that they obviously own. In case of pictures of fascist Italy they are the legal successor of the appropriate entities then (especially in defense matters). If the ministry says they are usable then they are usable. Basta! (Like they say in Italian...) You cannot assume things to be the same as in Germany. I will nevertheless ask the Italian defense ministry again and await reply. Rtc is definitely wrong and does not seem to be willing to understand what really matters here. He thinks he represents the holy dogma. One could think he might be paid by someone to do so. I expect the final proof that he is wrong (as always). Gianfranco is definitely right and everything can be found in his statement. Pictures from Italian Government, Army, Navy, Air Force, Carabinieri, Polizia di Stato, Guardia di Finanza, Vigili del Fuoco, Corpo Forestale dello Stato and other state identities are PD and usable if declared as that and if not tagged as something else. Rtc, write something in Wikipedia and do some contribution instead of claiming anything from the air and raising hell. Finally I ask all honorable users please let us finally stop these superfluous deletion requests. They do not help at all and lead to nothing.
Reptil 26 April 2007, 17:33 (UTC)

I am not claiming that anything I say is proved. I am claiming that it is true. If you doubt it, go ahead and do whatever you feel necessary to check to prove it for yourself. Please stop your lengthy pleadings and start to make yourself comfortable with the idea that these and many, many other templates are going to be deleted, since they are actually not free licenses. It may hurt you in your very heart that non-free content that is not compliant to COM:L is being chased down and proposed here by me to be burnt at the stake, but you'll have to sustain that pain—that's your private matter and I won't interfere with that. Eradicating non-free content from wikipedias is a very honorable contribution to the projects that is highly underestimated. --rtc 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You simply don't want to read that this material is PD because released as such until the mentioned day. It's not me who's saying it is PD, it is a governmental institution which said it was PD. It wrote it, also, and this is why we know it was PD. It was written in Italian language, which is my mothertongue, so I may entirely appreciate all the meanings of the declaration; I'm sorry if this is a problem, but they wrote it in the legally relevant language. I'm not going to prove that I read it, I already gave you links where you can read it too, unfortunately I cannot be held responsible for your knowledge in Italian language. Eradicating PD from wikipedias is not as honorable as working honestly to add free content to them. So let's calm down tones, please, and let's regain the sense of proportions.
Since I have no interest in letting not-free content be included, I have to specify that Reptil is partially wrong. This template applies to the images from www.difesa.it, which contains the sub-websites about army, navy, air force, no one else; Carabinieri, Polizia di Stato, Guardia di Finanza, Vigili del Fuoco, Corpo Forestale dello Stato are NOT included, because their respective websites (not related with difesa.it) said nothing similar and so we cannot extend by deduction the previous declaration. Only www.difesa.it, nothing else. --Gianfranco 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I was asked to be more precise about the latter point, also in order to avoid misuse of certain contents and I will gladly try.
Carabinieri (www.carabinieri.it) always had a separate website which always had a © indication. Same for Guardia di Finanza (www.gdf.it) and Vigili del Fuoco (www.vigilfuoco.it) (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
Corpo Forestale dello Stato (www.corpoforestale.it - js-only) gives no indication and is presumed to be copyrighted (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
Polizia di Stato (www.poliziadistato.it) uses a CC-by-nc-nd/2.5 license (and no content of theirs is used on it.wiki)
Just to be clear, these sites don't ordinarily release contents that we could use.
And just to be precise, images taken from difesa.it and uploaded after May 23, 2006, MUST be deleted, because we cannot compare each page with its previous "ante-May-23-2006" version (they could still be in PD, really, but we cannot be sure about that, so the convenient limit is the date). --Gianfranco 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of images at risk (all uploaders have been required to check their status):

The suggested way is to verify if recorded (i.e. in archive.org) as already available on difesa.it BEFORE May 23rd, 2006. --Gianfranco 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axed; there is no proof that the works can be commercially distributed and derivative works are allowed. (→O - RLY?) 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:ItalyDefense&oldid=13285535"