Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination)

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.

Template:PD-MNGov

[edit]
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (1st nomination)

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

{{PD-MNGov}}

[edit]

The quoted statute is a public records law facilitating public access to records. It does not say they are in the "public domain", merely that they are "public", ie a member of the public can get a copy of them. A copy of such a record may still be copyrighted, and unless the state specifically disclaimed the rights, the license would still have reserved rights (most probably commercial use (other than publication) and derivative works would still be outlawed.) -Nard 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the media files. This deletion request is incorrect, because the deletion of a licence template don't involve the deletion of any file with this licence template. The licence template have to be deleted in first, and only in that case, deletion templates can be added to the files without proper template. --Juiced lemon 11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The license template is invalid. It's not a valid claim of a license (I realise that now, on further investigation). Therefore the template needs to go, it's not useful and could be confusing or misleading. Also, anything licensed under it does not have a valid license and is also subject to deletion unless a different license can be shown to apply. But these are all works of the MN state government which asserts copyright and does not provide a free license. So they're all deletion bait too. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to Juiced lemon - Not sufficient reason for deleting the media files. --FSHL 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the files have some sort of valid license attached to them, please re-tag them as necessary. If they have no license--as they won't after this deletion request goes through--then they'll be fair game for deletion. Did you see something that's allowable under some other license somewhere? grendel|khan 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken Carl's suggestion and went to the US embassy to de: site and replaced the state seal with the one from there. Therefore I removed the deletion tagging from Image:Minnesota state seal.png as it no longer is licensed under the license we are discussing. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I changed the license to {{PD-USGov-DOS}} since that is more accurate (I don't think PD-US applies), and also added the {{US state seal}} template as that seems used for images sourced from that site. We may want to delete the old revision of the seal, the one that came from the Minnesota state website. As to the other images, this template was created to formalize the reasoning used to upload the two images in the first place; if the template is invalid (and without a court decision saying otherwise, I think it is) then the two images aren't valid either, so it seems reasonable to consider them as a group. Carl Lindberg 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that this material needs to be deleted. It has been over 7 days since the discussion started, and I am the original creator of the template. The two affected maps are no longer used on english Wikinews so are ok to delete without impacting a breaking story... (They are used on other wikis so will need replacing...) Close debate and I will delete all remaining items: {{PD-MNGov}}, Image:Minneapolis I-35W bridge map.svg, Image:Minneapolis I-35W map1.JPG ( Image:Minnesota state seal.png was reuploaded and correctly licensed so is kept) ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later note (copied from the template talk page): --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version of this template was deleted based on a discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov ... which concluded that there was no PD for Minnesota goverment works. Subsequently a diligent user discovered a direct statement that makes all MN works PD unless explicitly stated otherwise. Yaay! ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This long-winded template makes an effort to explain why works of the Minnesota state government are PD. All it does manage to prove is that they are publicly accessible (within the meaning of freedom of information laws), not free of copyright. The assertion of a state official is not a law. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Well... there are apparently some interesting laws which actually do give legal weight to the opinion of that particular state official. However, those same laws also give similar legal weight to the opinion of a different official, which can counteract the first one, and that is in fact what then happened. (This is all on the talk page of the template, which may be good history to keep somewhere). So delete, but not quite for the reason originally stated ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete To forestall further offense to delicate ears intolerant of prolix explication, I confine my remarks to this: I rely on my reasoning set forth on the talk page (which I will preserve). The template has recently been used for a number of uploads; is there an automated way to notify the uploaders of this discussion, so the images can be moved? Kablammo (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete assertions on the copyright status based on the not-so-plain argument laid out by the template don't look all that strong because of the reliance on these opinions and we should, in doubt, default to require specific permission for the images Hekerui (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I reopened this deletion request. Not because I agree or oppose the deletion of the template. The reason is that non of the images using this template as their only free license rational has been deleted. The deletion of the template of course means the deletion of all files using it. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-MNGov has 100 transclusions at the moment, 97 photographs and 3 seals. Due to the template deletion the category Category:PD Minnesota will be empty soon. --Martin H. (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't oppose reopening this, I should point out that the DR covered only the template itself and not any of the images which contain it. Since there may be other reasons that we can keep a few of the 100 items, they probably should be considered one by one, or at least someone should take a look at the problem and make a proposal.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a good idea to leave the untagged files on Commons forever. When the only indicated rational why a file was included in Commons collapses the file is not longer identified as free and must go, this applies to files using this and no other copyright tag. --Martin H. (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, those files need to be re-nominated for deletion, but in a separate DR. The authors need to be informed, etc., via normal process, which was not done as part of this DR and therefore they should not be part of it. There were even individual DRs on some of them, which were closed pending how this one turned out. So, I think those nominations should be a separate DR, and not part of this one. I removed the tag from one of the seals (it was there incorrectly, as that particular one was PD-USGov); the other two seals may or may not be Minnesota's work (they are sourced to Brands of the World; not sure how good a source that is). Most of the rest, at first glance, were photos taken from a Minnesota government website, so a bulk DR for those is probably a good idea. Not sure if the bots will mark all of those "no license" now or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partly disagree, renomination? Thats unecessary complicated. Informing the uploader now that the tag was deleted? For what purpose? When uploading the uploader relied on the information given to him via this tag, if the tag turns out wrong what should the uploader say? Making people angry about the deletion of the wrong tag and angry about Commons, thats maybe the only purpose of an idw now. The photos are simply unfree if their only chance to be free, this tag, is gone. You may tag them with {{subst:nld}}, but for what purpose? That the uploader can visit the upload a last time and say goodbye? The delreq on the tag applies to the files using them as an inclusion rational, apply comonsense. If you disagree and wikilawe says, that it was not clear that untagged files get deleted on Commons I make the following suggestion:
Restore the tag, reopen the request, and continue this deletion discussion. If it was not clear so far about what we talk here it will be clear now: Files using this tag, and only this tag, will be deleted, they are not Public Domain contrary to the claim of this template. --Martin H. (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Could someone restore the talk page somewhere? Kablammo said he would "... (which I will preserve)." but I don't find it anywhere.--Elvey (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Q: "Informing the uploader now that the tag was deleted? For what purpose? " WOW, OBVIOUS A: In MANY cases, these images don't need to be deleted; rather they need to be moved, e.g. to en, de... etc. where fair use tags such as {{Non-free mugshot}} are applicable. I wasn't notified of the proposed deletion and think I should have been, due to my edits. OTOH, the reference justifying the template deletion does make sense. The authors of all tagged images MUST be informed, via normal process, by the nominator, and given time to respond. Plus this question was already answered by Jim before it was asked by Martin! --Elvey (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All 97 photos are recent photos of politicians, not one is a mugshot. From a sample I took I assume that all of this politicians are alive. So this does not qualify for fair use on any project. Now that we already decided to disallow the template on Commons, informing the uploader with Template:Image license means nothing but asking the uploader to fix something that he can not fix or change. Thats not "WOW" or so, its a question if you want to bother people with things that they can not change and that will only dispoint them or if you just refer to the obvious reason why the file was deleted in the deletion log. If the image qualifies for fair use it will still be possible to download it from the original source. Wikimedia Commons is only a reuser of this image, we are not the first nor the only place of publication so we are not the only source to upload this image to Wikipedia if it qualifies. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of non-recent photos, taken from a 1935 or 1956 Minnesota book, which look like they are PD-US-not_renewed (and probably PD-US-no_notice, but can't prove that). The original source indicates "No Restrictions" on this (you need to follow links from the source listed on the image pages). I have updated a few, but not all of them. The modern ones, agreed, they can't fall under any of that. The copyright statement from that site indicates the images are free for nonprofit use, and even possibly for commercial use if attribution and source is maintained, but says nothing about derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For recent photos another solution could be OTRS permission. Jcb (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - involved files MUST (not 'should') be nominated in a separate (mass)DR. I emptied the template, but it's still present with a notice, so that somebody can have a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-MNGov to check the individual files - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 using Template:PD-MNGov

[edit]

Started the required deletion request. Required? Not realy, if you delete a copyright tag and ban a public domain reason from the project it is 100% obvious that you have to deal with the unlicensed files accordingly. You made them falling under COM:SPEEDY#Missing_legal_information, so it is your responsibility to deal with the images and not to leave them hanging around untagged. Commons is a project for free content, you can not simply leave a lot of unfree files alone without license tag just because you think that a deletion request on the copyright tag does not include the files using this copyright tag as their only rational. Of course a discussion to remove a copyright status does target all files beeing uploaded based on this copyright status. Well, since the above request was closed so badly I now make it quick:

The bellow files use a public domain rational (Template:PD-MNGov) that has been considered invalid. We should delete this files. The files fall under (but there is nothing to fix). The few free files were sorted out above already. See also Category:PD Minnesota.

list
#File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg
  1. File:Seal of Minnesota (B&W).svg
  2. File:Seal of Minnesota.svg
  3. File:Gopalbrand5.jpeg
  4. File:TomPettersmugshot.jpg
  5. File:Carol Molnau official portrait.jpg
  6. File:Senator Tarryl Clark.jpg
  7. File:Senator Satveer Chaudhary.jpg
  8. File:David Olin.jpg
  9. File:Bernard Lieder.jpg
  10. File:Kent Eken.jpg
  11. File:Brita Sailer.jpg
  12. File:Tom Anzelc.jpg
  13. File:Loren Solberg.jpg
  14. File:John Persell.jpg
  15. File:Anthony Sertich.jpg
  16. File:David Dill.jpg
  17. File:Mary Murphy.jpg
  18. File:Thomas Huntley.jpg
  19. File:Roger Reinert.jpg
  20. File:Bill Hilty.jpg
  21. File:Tim Faust.jpg
  22. File:Paul Marquart.jpg
  23. File:Mary Ellen Otremba.jpg
  24. File:John Ward.jpg
  25. File:Al Doty.jpg
  26. File:Al Juhnke.jpg
  27. File:Larry Hosch.jpg
  28. File:Larry Haws.jpg
  29. File:Gail Kulick Jackson.jpg
  30. File:Jeremy Kalin.jpg
  31. File:Andrew Falk.jpg
  32. File:Lyle Koenen.jpg
  33. File:Terry Morrow.jpg
  34. File:Kathy Brynaert.jpg
  35. File:David Bly.jpg
  36. File:Kory Kath.jpg
  37. File:Patti Fritz.jpg
  38. File:Robin Brown.jpg
  39. File:Jeanne Poppe.jpg
  40. File:Kim Norton.jpg
  41. File:Tina Liebling.jpg
  42. File:Andy Welti.jpg
  43. File:Gene Pelowski.jpg
  44. File:Phil Sterner.jpg
  45. File:Sandra Masin.jpg
  46. File:Mike Obermueller.jpg
  47. File:Representative Rick Hansen.jpg
  48. File:Joe Atkins.jpg
  49. File:Will Morgan.jpg
  50. File:Ann Lenczewski.jpg
  51. File:Paul Rosenthal.jpg
  52. File:Maria Ruud.jpg
  53. File:Sarah Anderson.jpg
  54. File:John Benson.jpg
  55. File:Steve Simon.jpg
  56. File:Ryan Winkler.jpg
  57. File:Sandra Peterson.jpg
  58. File:Lyndon Carlson.jpg
  59. File:Michael V. Nelson.jpg
  60. File:Debra Hilstrom.jpg
  61. File:Denise Dittrich.jpg
  62. File:Melissa Hortman.jpg
  63. File:Jerry Newton.jpg
  64. File:Carolyn Laine.jpg
  65. File:Kate Knuth.jpg
  66. File:Tom Tillberry.jpg
  67. File:Paul Gardner.jpg
  68. File:Mindy Greiling.jpg
  69. File:Bev Scalze.jpg
  70. File:Leon Lillie.jpg
  71. File:Nora Slawik.jpg
  72. File:Julie Bunn.jpg
  73. File:Marsha Swails.jpg
  74. File:Karla Bigham.jpg
  75. File:Joe Mullery.jpg
  76. File:Bobby Joe Champion.jpg
  77. File:Diane Loeffler.jpg
  78. File:Phyllis Kahn.jpg
  79. File:Frank Hornstein.jpg
  80. File:Karen Clark.jpg
  81. File:Jeff Hayden.jpg
  82. File:Jim Davnie.jpg
  83. File:Jean Wagenius.jpg
  84. File:Linda Slocum.jpg
  85. File:Erin Murphy.jpg
  86. File:RSearle.jpg
  87. File:AWDirlam.jpg
  88. File:LDuxbury.jpg
  89. File:EdChilgren.jpg
  90. File:AlfredIJohnson.jpg
  91. File:Antonrockne.jpg
  92. File:Johnajohnsonmn.jpg
  93. File:OscarASwenson.jpg
  94. File:GeorgeJohnson.jpg
  95. File:Haroldhenrybarker.jpg
  96. File:Hartle.jpg
  97. File:2009 Stauber.jpg

We talked about the deletion above already. --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated by Carl Lindberg and by me in the above DR, there could be solutions possible for individual images. That's why it IS required to notify all uploaders. Jcb (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No uploader will have the legal power to change the status, all other users will have the same ability to find alternatives if any exist. At the moment you decided to close the deletion request and not care about the files using the template that you delete: Hell, why did you close this request? Fix it or ask for help! You can not just make 100 files unlicensed and 1) with a little luck none will ever mention it or 2) burden others to fix the mess you created. It is obvious that we have to care for this files, the whole discussion about the process is so extremly unecessary and avoidable if you not just close deletion requests without carying for the consequences. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you didn't read or you didn't understand comments "Carl Lindberg 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)" and "Jcb 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)" above? Jcb (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - template, category and all files without another valid license template - Jcb (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-MNGov_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=52679797"