Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2016-51

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.

Files uploaded by Justice Imran Nasir Habeeb (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope!

Ras67 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (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 uploaded by Justice Imran Nasir Habeeb (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope!

Ras67 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 27 December 2016 (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.

File:Hhjjjjji.jpg

[edit]

No current educational purpose Elisfkc (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:08, 21 December 2016 (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 in Category:Media needing categories as of 22 July 2014

[edit]

Unused, uncategorized personal images, out of scope.

Gauss (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: also some copyright violations. --Didym (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2016 (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 uploaded by Lourencio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Obviously these aren't own works of uploader. Some old images, may be in PD but may not. Wrong licensing and attribution.

XXN, 23:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2016 (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 uploaded by Hanzawtunmdy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

lNeverCry 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:09, 22 December 2016 (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.

File:Sofia- 2013-09-22 03-30.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal photo. XXN, 17:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 22 December 2016 (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.

File:Riviere agnilkir.png

[edit]

Out of project scope. What is this river? Also seems a screenshot of a video to me, which triggers COM:PRP. ★ Poké95 02:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2016 (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 in Category:Luciano Minguzzi

[edit]

Artist died in 2004, meaning that the images of its works will be PD in 2074. NB: I excluded from this selection files that might allowed because in de minimis.

Ruthven (msg) 11:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the BEIC images. All images by Paolo Monti were taken by the photographer (a professional photographer, and one of the most important photographers in Italy at the time) with full permissions, as the photographer worked for museums, catalogues, and artists. The Paolo Monti Archive contains the documentation and BEIC (owner of the Archive), who already published all images in his official site, gave us an OTRS permission [1]. So we have the declaration of rights by the istitution owning the full rights on the images. The archive is protected as "archive of historical interest" by the Italian ministry and the Minguzzi heritage (or any other artist's heritage) did not excepted at all about the use of images, or about the legitimacy of the publication of the images, on the BEIC website, already done many years ago with a CC free license. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the BEIC photos. Premise: I would suggest to be extra careful in reaching conclusions without a) reading up a bit on Italian law; b) having read the OTRS ticket.
    • Some relevant material that I considered when uploading this file and that I think needs to be studied before deciding to delete it follows.
      1. In multiple cases, for the Berne Convention a country has the power to make decisions that will then affect the use of a work in other countries as well. It's not irrelevant that this photo has been shot in Italy.
      2. In Italy, the supreme court has ruled that in some cases even a photo of a painting can be creative enough as to not infringe the copyright of the painter (see Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Italy). We must not rush to conclusions, but it's clear there are no automatic universal ways to determine who holds rights on the photo of a work.
      3. Commons has its own tradition, especially Commons:De minimis. The extent of the reproduction of a work depicted in a photo matters.
      4. There is a tradition of accepting OTRS tickets for both a copyright release on the work at hand (a photo) and reassurances of various kinds on the rights of third parties, especially in the case of photographers for hire, such as 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. Every responsible photographer clears the rights underlying their work, so we're often able to get reliable reassurances in that regard.
      5. To consider invalid a release made by an entity, we generally require some evidence (4a, 4b, 4c); it's not enough to speculate that the releaser might have ignored third party rights, though it's ok to ask on a case-by-case basis whether there was a mistake about a specific photo (4d).
    • I think the image can be kept, for the following reasons.
      1. The BEIC lawyer stated that «BEIC foundation owns all [attribution] copyrights» («Fondazione Beic è proprietaria di tutti i diritti di attribuzione»). The ticket body specifies that «BEIC foundation is the only rightsholder» [italics mine] («BEIC è il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright)»). This implies that third party rights, where existing, have been acquired by BEIC.
      2. This statement is consistent with the story of the photos as we know it: the artists commissioned the photos for inclusion in future publications authored by Paolo Monti, so they provided the necessary authorisations and transfer of rights. Paolo Monti was a professional photographer with a broad experience in taking photos of pieces of art, so it makes sense that he took care of acquiring the artists' rights.
      3. The statement is also consistent (or non-inconsistent) with the judgement by the supreme court of Italy, which stated that photos of a piece of art may not be an infringement of the copyright of the artist, when deemed sufficiently creative, because the purpose of the diritto d'autore is to protect creativity and hence in such cases the author of the photo can have complete copyright on the photo itself. (Corte di Cassazione, Sezione 1 civile; Sentenza 12 marzo 2004, n. 5089.) We might speculate about international effects in case the author of the sculpture claimed ownership of some copyright on this photo, but the Court didn't impose such a restriction.
      4. The statement is also consistent with common sense: the term "derivatve work" may mislead us (2(3) of the Berne convention is about «Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations»), but such a photo of a 3D object doesn't in any way enable the reuser to reproduce, as in rebuild, the original object. A cc-by-sa license on the photo doesn't hence affect the copyright of the original object.
    Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Zes personages, 1957.jpg, which is taken in Belgium. Since June 2016 there is a freedom of Panorama in Belgium. This piece of art is located in a museum and therefore falls under this law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyxian (talk • contribs)
  • @Federico Leva (BEIC): I do have read OTRS tickets in Italian and the Italian law, so please refrain from jumping to quick conclusions. To me, I'm happy if we can keep these images; it just seems at least curious that BEIC owns the rights of pieces of art actually exposed in museums, and/or sold for a fortune (I am not talking only about these images). Another example here: it is reasonable to consider that BEIC obtained the copyrights on the buildings from Luigi Cosenza? I agree that we should evaluate case by case, but considering that «BEIC è il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright)» for everything in the frame of the pictures is difficult to believe. --Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Federico Leva (BEIC): Cass. Civ. 5089/2004 does not say that the photo of a artwork may not be an infringement of the copyright of the artist. The Court is not discussing whether the photo is an infringement of the artwork, because the plaintiff (the artist) did not complain about that! He only complains that the photo was not protected by copyright, and the Court says says that a photo of a artwork can indeed be protected if it is not a simple reproduction. --Jaqen (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where you see what you say, but the outcome is quite clear: the painter was not able to exercise any right of those granted by copyright (articles 12–19 LdA) on the photo, as if they had no rights whatsoever on the photo of their painting. Cassazione is not «discussing whether the photo is an infringement of the artwork» because they say that merit should be discussed by the lower court, of course. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevant passage of the judgement is: "Il ricorrente, con il mezzo in esame (...) non si duole del fatto che il suo diritto d'autore sia stato ritenuto pregiudicato dall'elaborazione fotografica della M." And since the plaintiff did not ask about this, the judge does not give any answer about this (art. 112 CPC). Cassazione is not discussing this. --Jaqen (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't understand why this case is compared to the photos of Dippy's statue with a scarf, where a regular OTRS was sent by the owner of the copyright on the statue, something that we haven't here. If you read again the judgement from Corte di Cassazione, Sentenza 12 marzo 2004, n. 5089, you can see that it just says that a picture of an artwork can be an artwork itself (as Jaqen clearly said above): this is why BEIC sent the authorization for Monti's photographs, as they are not "simple photographs" and have an artistic value that is copyrightable. In conclusion, we're still missing the OTRS ticket from Luciano Minguzzi's heirs. --Ruthven (msg) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I agree. I see no evidence that the paintings have any free license from the heirs of the artist. Template:OTRS ticket speaks only to the copyright for the photographs "BEIC è il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright) dell’archivio fotografico del Fondo Paolo Monti". We do not need a license for the photographs for Commons because we follow Bridgeman v Corel for all photographs of 2D art. We do need a license for the underlying works of art.
The comment above with respect to the work in Belgium is incorrect:
"the [FOP] provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public" (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Gallo Nuovo Luciano Minguzzi Utrecht, which is taken in the Netherlands. There is a freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands . This piece of art is located on a square in Utrecht.--Brbbl (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most per nomination, kept two for which FOP applies. --Jcb (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2016 (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.

File:Lamsari Wulandari.jpeg

[edit]

Low-quality selfie out of project scope. Uploaded for soon-to-be-deleted vanity article on Indonesian Wikipedia. Rrburke (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2016 (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.

File:Benedicta.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. Commons is neither a personal photo album nor social media. Please read COM:SCOPE for what is acceptable here. All the best Wikicology (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Contesting deletion

[edit]

I clearly understand Commons is not a personal photo album,and I am not in the habit of uploading personal pictures. This picture was uploaded because the individual is a member of the organizing Committee for the upcoming Wiki Indaba Conference and we needed a picture of hers for the conference's Wiki page.--Rberchie (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop creating subsection on DR page. Someone who coordinate Wikimedia projects in Ghana and leads Wikimedia training should know how to use indentation and Wiki markup. Wikicology (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW... these are members of the organizing Committee for the upcoming Wiki Indaba Conference. Why is the said photo not used there? This is another reason not to trust you or believe anything you say. Wikicology (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology, please stop personal attacks. This projects here is about the media as such and not about accusations of uploaders. Please stay on topic. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gereon, where is the accusation? The statement in question is a statement of fact and not a personal attack. Wikicology (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of the page and you will realize the picture was used there but later taken off if you are dilligent enough you will realise there are other pictures there that were also taken off and replaced with others--Rberchie (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rberchie, This is the page history you mentioned. Where is the image? Wikicology (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the facts provided are not right here as the picture in question is a picture of a volunteer for the upcoming WikiIndaba conference 2017. The picture was uploaded with the sole purpose of being added under the volunteer list for the conference and not for any other reason as stated above. The picture was uploaded here once and removed as it waas supposed to go on the volunteer list and the final list had not being compiled yet. Check the history of the Wiki Indaba Website for proof.--Flixtey (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcornelius (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (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.

File:Cuarto.jpg

[edit]

out of com:EDUSE Pippobuono (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2016 (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.

File:First Teaser Poster For Phantasm V Ravager 2014-03-28 18-28.jpeg

[edit]

Non-free movie poster. XXN, 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2016 (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.

File:Glidinglecturetimoshenko2016.jpg

[edit]

IMHO out of scope without more information. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2016 (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.

File:Pdf.pdf

[edit]

Absolutely nothing of use herein. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I add the uploader's other contributions for deletion due to same reason. Florn (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2016 (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.

File:Joe.jpeg

[edit]

Unidentified device; useless. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2016 (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.

File:Kat DeLuna on set of her music video "Push Push" ft Akon 2014-01-04 23-51.jpg

[edit]

Image credited on getty images to one Prince Williams. Google puts the datestamp as May 2010 much before date of upload on commons. The site asserts copyrights on all its contents. Copyright violation? Rahul Bott (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: Missing source as of 18 December 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.

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.

File:Nouveau album 2014 2014-02-03 23-50.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. XXN, 11:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2016 (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.

File:Rivaldo Bangula.jpeg

[edit]

Out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:19, 14 December 2016 (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.

File:Rivaldo Bangula.jpeg

[edit]

Uneducational selfie, out of scope ManniLo (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2016 (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 uploaded by Redtrabajar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Non-free logos, probably above COM:TOO.

XXN, 12:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2016 (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 uploaded by Rivaldo Bangula (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope!

Ras67 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/mobile_tracking/archive/2016-51&oldid=226890967"