Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Originally had a copyvio notice. Took this to a DR to get more opinions. It does not look like own work and the talk page of the user supports that. But it could be own work and if uploader can upload the original file including meta data it would be a good indication that it is own work. MGA73 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete, blatant case of flickr washing by uploader. Violating both, flickr terms of use and our licensing policy. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader is stealing images via flickr washing, I added both of his flickr stealing accounts to the observation list. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of billboard depicting non-free artwork. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Forgot about {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Afghanistan. IMO it is not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. This 2D graphic work appears to be modern. Missing COM:VRT permission from the graphic artists or production company. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of billboard depicting non-free artwork and photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I forgot about {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
To rehash my argument here, the Flickr uploader's profile says he's a student living in France, yet his uploads contain a great deal of widely-available-on-the-net professional photos from U.S. events as well as magazine scans under attribution licenses. Numerous photos of his have been deleted for these reasons. Mbinebri (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Originally from WENN per http://theskinnywebsite.com/site/2010/03/alessandra-ambrosio-rosie-huntington-whiteley-in-soho/ Additionally, the source is on the COM:QFI list. Tabercil (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
who is the author (as required by the license template)? as he lived 1891-1958 this photo is not surely old enough. Probably it is from ~1940 or so. Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Note that after this DR User:Tigreso uploaded a copy of the same as File:OleK.jpg. Delete all. NVO (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Why should the photo of a danish business man be registered in Argentinia (as you state in the license template)? He lived Julio 8, 1920 – Julio 13, 1995 so this picture is not very old. Maybe from ~1950-1965. See COM:L for our rules. Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete along with its copy: File:GodtfredK.jpg. All uploads by User:Tigreso look fishy. NVO (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
mistaken 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fixed name. Deleted redirect. Amada44 talk to me 08:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:LL Trixt (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted by Tabercil.--Trixt (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely "own work" - close match to camera angle can be seen at http://previews1.wireimage.com/SlideShowB.aspx?i=63359910 Tabercil (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Wknight94 talk 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replaced by File:Oorlogsmonument_Annette_Dekking-van_Haeften.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Oorlogsmonument Annette Dekking-van Haeften.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, see the file source link. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}}. No need to delete. -- Common Good (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, see the file source link. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}}. No need to delete. -- Common Good (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I received the permission to use it on specified page. Dennis Chistyakov
- If only on one page, please remove the file from Commons: it is not free. If on any page, please publish a permission. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Murghab River was created 2 months ago. Its contents was moved to a new category today, Category:Morghab River. A {{Delete}} tag was added to the old category today -- but it was not filled out. I am not an expert in Pashtun or Dari, the two main languages of Afghanistan. I think I do know that, unlike Chinese, and like Arabic, there are no consistent, reliable transliteration schemes for these languages. If one of these transltiterations is the standard one used by the Afghan government, I'd suggest we use that one. Otherwise, all other things being equal, I would be just as happy sticking with the category from two months ago. WRT the alternate transliteration -- I suggest whichever transliteration we choose to be the also ran should not be deleted, I suggest it should redirect to the main name. I will not take a stand here until we have more info. I only filled out this because it left undone. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I created this category according to en:Morghab River (Afghanistan). I am not an expert in Pashtun or Dari too :o). Mircea (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty Jcb (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, wrong uploaded file Oceancetaceen (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Wrong Source and Licensing Waihorace (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted shizhao (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrightred logo, see its source link. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No ticket and Magazine cover MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No OTRS ticket. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
EmersonCoritiba.jpg Futebol paz (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why? --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; cropped from here. Lupo 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
EmersonCoritiba.jpg Futebol paz (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why? --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; cropped from here. Lupo 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
unused and unusable writing / screenshot - I cannot imagine any use in the commons - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
file with a technical problem - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (PDF medical consent form?!) Zetawoof (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (medical chart form as PDF) Zetawoof (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text (nl) PDF, looks like advert Zetawoof (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, blurry bar-shot. Evalowyn (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Its description is incorrect and I have already uploaded same image with correct description. Mayank mehrotra03 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uloader's request George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
fails COM:SCOPE: advertising of no educational value; excluded media type (file consisting purely of text) Closeapple (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Originally tagged by User:High Contrast) Scan or photograph of two-dimensional work with unknown copyright status. --ZooFari 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete The uploader photographed the depicted photograph. There are no additional licence information given. As long as we do not know more about this image (author, year), it must get deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential information Lymantria 05:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Questionable author/source information. User has uploaded problematic image before. --ZooFari 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here it is published under "fair use" rationale. Lymantria 05:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Lymantria 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
File is out of scope. --Dferg (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Info aslo nominated File:Kamoulah kims.JPG. --Dferg (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal picture of low quality, unused. Lymantria 05:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
useless for education Slfi (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
blank image Slfi (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria 05:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
A screenshot. I don't think the uploader is the copyrightholder. Avron (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly copyvio also not in project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Description: test George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This, being a corporate logo, is highly unlikely to be the uploaders own work. Also, the only article using this file globally was just deleted on enwp. Courcelles (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an album cover, so I find the claim of own work to be highly questionable. Courcelles (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (4 pages of plain text as PDF) Zetawoof (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified subject; bogus source/author ("own computer" / "fans") Zetawoof (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate format (text/image as PDF); out of scope (press release) Zetawoof (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing else from this uploader has been his own work, and they've all be released under false self-licenses. I see no indication this would be the magic picture, his own work in a sea of copyright problems. Courcelles (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Low image resolution, no photograph-related EXIF data and the uploader had already many problems with copyright questions. Delete per our precautionary principle. --High Contrast (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; cropped from this image, linked here. Lupo 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploader seems to be a scanner, not a photographer 78.55.219.62 12:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright violation. The fact that the uplaoder is the physical owner of a copy of the book does not mean that the uploader is authorised to replicate the book in whole or in parts and upload a copy here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Alessandro Gelsumini is obviously not the copyright holder of this image High Contrast 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
don't need it Mazzacano (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be nonsense. Most likely no beryllium. Beryllium is highly toxic. Norbert Nagel 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Assume good faith. Beryllium is not so toxic it can't be photographed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)- Keep per above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work; COM:DM does not apply in this situation because the main part of this work is the copyrighted material. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Question- On the other hand, now on
en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diamond watches and the encyclopedia that anyone can editen:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 75#Diamond watches and the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is pointed out that versions of this ad, with the portrait, have appeared in magazines and several other places as well. Looks like this may be a legitimate ad campaign by an established watch company. --Closeapple (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, now on
- Comment from uploader: I tried to alleviate copyright concerns by uploading in extremely low resolution, and perhaps should have uploaded under fair use instead, as I only meant this to be used for discussion at Jimbo's talk page. I'd be grateful if deletion could wait at least until Jimbo's had a chance to respond at his talk page. After that, anyone can see essentially the same image here. Presumably this image at Wikipedia would need to be deleted for the same reason. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've added {{db-author}} to both pics. Adrian J. Hunter 11:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Adrian J. Hunter's request and note by Jimbo in en:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 75#Diamond watches and the encyclopedia that anyone can edit implying that the main image shown in the photo was a commercial shoot. --Closeapple 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyviolating DW as per Jimbo's comment on :en and per the fact that this Jimbo portrait isn't on Comons. Túrelio 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Fukushima_I_by_Digital_Globe_2.jpg. In short, we do not have a valid permission for this image. Also bundling in the following derivative works (the color difference is due to changes to the first image):
Closing admin: Please see notes on those two image description pages before deleting.--Chaser (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Own work" appears to be false; identical image appears at http://yogizendude.com/2009/12/11/video-sathya-sai-baba-chanting-the-gayatri-mantra/ and elsewhere. Zetawoof (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I accept my fault regarding this. Thank you for pointing the mistake out. I will give the source of the image ASAP. Souravmohanty2005 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Right - if that's the case, then you need to contact the author to license his work for use in Wikimedia Commons. You can't just take his work and slap a CC license on it. Zetawoof (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I once again thank you for pointing out my mistake. I have given the source of the file. I don't have any idea, who the author is. I had googled this pic out.
Souravmohanty2005 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- ...so it has to be Deleted. Anyway, what makes you think that copyright violations would become legal once you cite the source? --rtc (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete this obvious copyright violation. It appears that the uploader does not understand the copyright policy. --Karppinen (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Kristiansand_Gamle_Varoddbrua_1956_auf_der_Varodd-Brücke_L_618_m_Spannweite_337_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN1547.jpg
editLicense issues (exploting of CC-BY-SA). Wolfgang Pehlemann adds additional restrictions to the given license(s). This will either make the license invalid or we should change our policies to allow further restrictions. From the description of the image:
- Deutsch: Lizenz cc-by-sa V. 3.0 unter Nennung meines Namens (Foto: Wolfgang Pehlemann) direkt unter Bild mit Hinweis auf diese Lizenzierung und Beachtung evtl. Rechte Dritter bei weiterer Verwendung oder Abbildung (insbesondere bei kommerzieller) sowie Sicherstellung der Weitergabe nur unter diesen Bedingungen.
- English: Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained.
This also applies to nearly every other image from the same user: Link
In my oppinion there are two options:
- Delete all the image, since license is broken
- Let the user remove this additional information to be on the legal side (don't remove it yourself)
I hope we come to an good conclusion. Otherwise our policies have to be doubted. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Martina at [1], CC license still valid as per CC terms. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is a false statement. The CC license does not allow further restrictions as mentioned inside the license. It revokes itself if further restrictions or claims are made. (Next time i will add the information that every user of my image has to perform the Chicken Dance?) Even Wikipedia itself does not follow this claims. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete either the additionaly restrictions or, if Wolfgang Pehlemann does not agree with this, delete the image. There are already users of his pictures who violate the additional restrictions, see e.g. http://www.reise-weblog.com/2011/04/20/die-beliebtesten-sehenswuerdigkeiten-deutschlands/ . If contributers invent their own restrictions, it will be difficult to use their media as free content. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Following your logic, this File talk:MailaenderDom.jpg (just look at the few red-circled X) does proof that we should not request even the undisputed CC-BY-SA usage terms, because re-users violate them anyway? --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You got it wrong. In this case (not your example) the reusers would make themself guilty if they would follow only the given CC-BY-SA license. This wasn't the case in your example. So both cases can't be seen as related. - You did not make/enforce any further restrictions, as in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Niabot. The uses should clearly follow CC-BY-SA, which is already difficult enough ( http://www.reise-weblog.com/2011/04/20/die-beliebtesten-sehenswuerdigkeiten-deutschlands/ tried to follow CC-BY-SA). Further restrictions additional to CC-BY-SA, however, are not acceptable. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You got it wrong. In this case (not your example) the reusers would make themself guilty if they would follow only the given CC-BY-SA license. This wasn't the case in your example. So both cases can't be seen as related. - You did not make/enforce any further restrictions, as in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Following your logic, this File talk:MailaenderDom.jpg (just look at the few red-circled X) does proof that we should not request even the undisputed CC-BY-SA usage terms, because re-users violate them anyway? --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Die Lizenz ist auf commons zulässig. Die Erweiterung ist eine Erläuterung für den Nachnutzer, wie es der Bildautor denn gerne hätte, genau so, wie es auch im Lizenztext beschrieben ist. Der Zusatz ist keine unzulässige Einschränkung der Lizenz. Lesetip -- smial (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lesetip: Sie dürfen keine Vertrags- oder Nutzungsbedingungen anbieten oder fordern, die die Bedingungen dieser Lizenz oder die durch diese Lizenz gewährten Rechte beschränken. Sie dürfen den Schutzgegenstand nicht unterlizenzieren. 4. Bedingungen
- Reading tip: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. 4. Restrictions -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Niabot, are you at all aware that you are citing conditions directed to the user/Lizenznehmer, not to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber? --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm completly aware of that. But i'm also aware of the fact that the license is invalid if this two points aren't fulfilled. Otherwise you could write: CC-BY-SA and 1000$ on my account XYZ, which is obviously not the case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm completly aware of that. - funny, then why do you still apply it to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber? The "You/Sie" in the license code is the re-user/Lizenznehmer, not the Licensor/Lizenzgeber. Wolfgang Pehlemann is the Licensor/Lizenzgeber in this DR. --Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The CC-BY-SA license is broken (Termination) in his case. Whats left is to delete his image by COM:L or rewrite the policies. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You still didn't get it. That's how the legal code defines the "you": "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation. Therefore, your linked "Termination" terms again refer to the re-user/Lizenznehmer, not to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber. Seems we have Borg-time, i.e.
resistancediscussion is futile. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)- Further restrictions are either a revoking of the license or/and violation of the project policies. Point. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You still didn't get it. That's how the legal code defines the "you": "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation. Therefore, your linked "Termination" terms again refer to the re-user/Lizenznehmer, not to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber. Seems we have Borg-time, i.e.
- The CC-BY-SA license is broken (Termination) in his case. Whats left is to delete his image by COM:L or rewrite the policies. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm completly aware of that. - funny, then why do you still apply it to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber? The "You/Sie" in the license code is the re-user/Lizenznehmer, not the Licensor/Lizenzgeber. Wolfgang Pehlemann is the Licensor/Lizenzgeber in this DR. --Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm completly aware of that. But i'm also aware of the fact that the license is invalid if this two points aren't fulfilled. Otherwise you could write: CC-BY-SA and 1000$ on my account XYZ, which is obviously not the case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Niabot, are you at all aware that you are citing conditions directed to the user/Lizenznehmer, not to the Licensor/Lizenzgeber? --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tja. Und wo genau ist die Unterlizensierung oder die Beschränkung zu finden? -- smial (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Und vergiß nicht die Löschanträge auf beispielseise diese oder jene Medien zu stellen, wenn Du schon meinst, etwas beweisen zu müssen.
- Ich habe sie oben zur Kenntlichmachung unterstrichen. Ich kann in den von dir genannten Fällen keinen Verstoß entdecken, da dort die Lizenzen nicht weiter eingeschränkt sind und damit ihre Gültigkeit verlieren würden. Das ist ein kleines Detail, aber mit großer Wirkung. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ach! Ach was! In "Attribution of this image to the author (DAVID ILIFF) is required in a prominent location near to the image." siehst du keine Einschränkung, in "Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo" aber dann doch? --smial (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Die Angaben von David sind in etwa genauso wage wie die der Lizenz. Was heißt denn bitteschön "in der Nähe des Bildes"? Ich halte zwar das schon für extrem grenzwertig, aber während David damit womöglich noch mit der Hacke auf der Klippe tanzt ist Wolfgang mit seiner Forderung schon einen Schritt weiter. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Deine windelweiche Erklärung dürfte vor keiner juristischen Institution auch nur die kleinste Chance besitzen. Was willst du eigentlich wirklich? Das Projekt schützen sicher nicht, denn diese ganze zeit- und resourcenverschwendende Aktion ist die eigentliche Projektschädigung. -- smial (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Da macht man auf einen Missstand aufmerksam und dann soll es Projektschädigung sein? Behalte deine haltlosen, vom eigentlichen Thema ablenkenden Beschuldigungen bitte für dich. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Deine windelweiche Erklärung dürfte vor keiner juristischen Institution auch nur die kleinste Chance besitzen. Was willst du eigentlich wirklich? Das Projekt schützen sicher nicht, denn diese ganze zeit- und resourcenverschwendende Aktion ist die eigentliche Projektschädigung. -- smial (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Die Angaben von David sind in etwa genauso wage wie die der Lizenz. Was heißt denn bitteschön "in der Nähe des Bildes"? Ich halte zwar das schon für extrem grenzwertig, aber während David damit womöglich noch mit der Hacke auf der Klippe tanzt ist Wolfgang mit seiner Forderung schon einen Schritt weiter. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ach! Ach was! In "Attribution of this image to the author (DAVID ILIFF) is required in a prominent location near to the image." siehst du keine Einschränkung, in "Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo" aber dann doch? --smial (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ich habe sie oben zur Kenntlichmachung unterstrichen. Ich kann in den von dir genannten Fällen keinen Verstoß entdecken, da dort die Lizenzen nicht weiter eingeschränkt sind und damit ihre Gültigkeit verlieren würden. Das ist ein kleines Detail, aber mit großer Wirkung. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tja. Und wo genau ist die Unterlizensierung oder die Beschränkung zu finden? -- smial (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Und vergiß nicht die Löschanträge auf beispielseise diese oder jene Medien zu stellen, wenn Du schon meinst, etwas beweisen zu müssen.
Please observe that some pictures (e.g. File:Wandersmann-Süd-Tunnel Süd-Portal Wallau mit Zugfunkmast für GSM-R und für ETCS-Daten Foto 2009 Wolfgang Pehlemann IMG 5097.jpg) also have a further restriction:
- Deutsch: Lizenz cc-by-sa V. 3.0 unter Nennung meines Namens (Foto: Wolfgang Pehlemann) direkt unter Bild mit Hinweis auf diese Lizenzierung und Beachtung evtl. Rechte Dritter bei weiterer Verwendung oder Abbildung (insbesondere bei kommerzieller) und Beibehaltung meines Original-Dateinamens sowie Sicherstellung der Weitergabe nur unter diesen Bedingungen.
- English: Using or re-using the photo or distributing it, you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA, additionally using or re-using only with my original file name and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained.
What restrictions are allowed, what restrictions are forbidden? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Any restriction on top of the most restrictive license given is forbidden. Furthermore any license weakened by further restriction has to be removed. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What a pitty, Niabot is illustrating a point. We already had this discussion - about exactly this user's images - two (!) years ago. And we had it again and again. What is the new point now? The licence remains valid in any case and independent from what he states on the image description page. According to the licence reusers have to keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means ... the name of the Original Author. Thus, Wolfgangs expectation is right for some usages and can rightfully be disappointed by some other usages. It is not our job nor our competence to anticipate judicial decisions on single cases of such usages. --Martina talk 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If he wouldn't enforce it for any kind of medium, i could agree. But not in the way he currently does it. There is also no current or future rule how this things will be done or are "reasonable to the medium or means". PS: This is no point from myself. It's our policy. Accept it or not. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're on mission. Our policy is that content has to be be delivered under at least one free licence (free according to freedomdefined.org). Wolfgangs images are available under a such a licence (CC-by-sa). No less, no more. --Martina talk 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- They aren't if he makes further restrictions, which forcing the license to terminate itself. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're on mission. Our policy is that content has to be be delivered under at least one free licence (free according to freedomdefined.org). Wolfgangs images are available under a such a licence (CC-by-sa). No less, no more. --Martina talk 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If he wouldn't enforce it for any kind of medium, i could agree. But not in the way he currently does it. There is also no current or future rule how this things will be done or are "reasonable to the medium or means". PS: This is no point from myself. It's our policy. Accept it or not. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the CC licenses are absolutely irrevocable—we only allow cc files to be deleted by the author's request when it is clear the author fundamentally didn't understand the license terms, as a courtesy—, and the additional terms just aren't entirely valid. —innotata 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Should this wrong informations not be removed in this case? It could mislead re-users that aren't familiar with the facts you stated. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment The key is that the additional requirement goes against the "reasonable to the medium or means" part. This is what allows a book to e.g. list credits for all images in the end instead of underneath each image. It's also what allows Wikipedia to have the name on the image page (one click away) rather then as a byline. As it stands the cc-license is either made invalid or we view the cc-license additions as a "new" license in which case it's not an allowed licence on Commons. So either the extra requirement must go or the image must be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for stating it in short and understandable. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The additional conditions are invalid and thus we can ignore them. But it's absurd to delete this image because these conditions doesn't invalidate the license. Chaddy (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you made this edit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Linz_Mariä-Empfängnis-Dom_Neuer_Dom_Oberösterreich_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_IMG_4960.jpg&diff=53327901&oldid=53187913 Does this mean you prefer that we should just remove all the invalid terms of use (without asking Wolfgang Pehlemann whether he agrees)? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Right, see my reasons given above. Chaddy (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I would not take the risk to change the license terms of someone else without asking for permission. IANAL, but if someone uses Wolfgang Pehlemann pictures using the license terms changed by you, Wolfgang Pehlemann could claim you. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I have already said the additional license terms are invalid. Thus Wolfgang Pehlemann can't claim anyone who doesn't follow these terms.
- Believe me, I have not quite less expert knowledge in copyright questions from my work in German Wikipedia's forum for copyright questions (Urheberrechtsfragen) and the file review team (Dateiüberprüfung). Chaddy (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a question whether I believe you or not. As I said, I will not change the license terms of someone else. If you do, you do it at your own risk. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I would not take the risk to change the license terms of someone else without asking for permission. IANAL, but if someone uses Wolfgang Pehlemann pictures using the license terms changed by you, Wolfgang Pehlemann could claim you. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Right, see my reasons given above. Chaddy (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Clear thing: the user released his files under a CC-BY-SA-licence. That's enought. What he wants additionally from a potential file-user is irrelevant. This appendix can be understood as a wish to that potential file-user. --High Contrast (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same problem as mentioned above: Wolfgang Pehlemann insists that his additions are relevant. He uploaded his file under a restricted CC-BY-SA-licence. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I said: it is Wolfgang Pehlemann's wish. A potential user can ignore it. A CC-BY-SA-licence is what it is, further individual wishes can be added but are optional. Very easy. --High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a potential user can ignore it. But why is then not written as a wish? It is written like an fixed, necessary rule, which causes confusion for re-users. Is this our goal on Commons? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think that this confuses potential users. The licence tag is visually sufficiently divided from the individual text. Besides, CC-BY-SA is very obvious to anybody. The uploader can hope that somebody respects his wishes, so it can be written in his information template. In my experience users ask oftenly the person to be quoted as author how you want to have your name written. --High Contrast (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree -- the user has never authorized re-use of his photo without the "directly under the photo" requirement, which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA, and therefore the file has not been released under CC-BY-SA at all but rather a non-free variant. I think it is not a good idea to simply ignore that requirement -- if the author is OK with relaxing it then great, but we cannot change authors' licenses to what we want. It should be the author's choice on how to proceed and nobody else's -- the requirement cannot be kept, so either it gets relaxed to a suggestion, or the file needs to be deleted. If such restrictions are added well after the original upload, then OK, we can revert to the original permission, but if this was the original license, we can't change it -- only the author can. Our only option if we deem it non-free (and I think it is not free) is to delete it, if the author does not wish to remove the requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- In similar earlier cases there was always some consent, as far as I remember, that anything beyond CC-BY (-SA) could simply considered as non-binding/invalid. --Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to similar cases? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, and I'm not willing to invest more time in this case. Besides, it wouldn't help, as all these are just community/user opinions. To have a definitive answer, you need an copyright-experienced laywer or a court interpreting CC-BY's legal code. Next to this would be to ask CC about that, as they wrote that license. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is exactly the problem. It seems that we will not get a definitive answer. This means that if we want to be on the safe side, either Wolfgang Pehlemann deletes his restrictions, or we have to delete his pictures. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, and I'm not willing to invest more time in this case. Besides, it wouldn't help, as all these are just community/user opinions. To have a definitive answer, you need an copyright-experienced laywer or a court interpreting CC-BY's legal code. Next to this would be to ask CC about that, as they wrote that license. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to similar cases? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- In similar earlier cases there was always some consent, as far as I remember, that anything beyond CC-BY (-SA) could simply considered as non-binding/invalid. --Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree -- the user has never authorized re-use of his photo without the "directly under the photo" requirement, which is not compatible with CC-BY-SA, and therefore the file has not been released under CC-BY-SA at all but rather a non-free variant. I think it is not a good idea to simply ignore that requirement -- if the author is OK with relaxing it then great, but we cannot change authors' licenses to what we want. It should be the author's choice on how to proceed and nobody else's -- the requirement cannot be kept, so either it gets relaxed to a suggestion, or the file needs to be deleted. If such restrictions are added well after the original upload, then OK, we can revert to the original permission, but if this was the original license, we can't change it -- only the author can. Our only option if we deem it non-free (and I think it is not free) is to delete it, if the author does not wish to remove the requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I said: it is Wolfgang Pehlemann's wish. A potential user can ignore it. A CC-BY-SA-licence is what it is, further individual wishes can be added but are optional. Very easy. --High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- keep. "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" [2]. And don't tell me what you think "manner" is about. Just do it. NVO (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Deed" has no juristic relevance. The only thing that matters is the complete license text. This is also mentioned at the page your linked to. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The whole "free license" scam has no legal relevance. It's just a made-up game, a college reenactment of a "world government". So what? NVO (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Remove the "directly under the photo" restriction or delete. That is incompatible with the CC licenses, meaning this is not licensed CC-BY-SA, and is not free at the moment. CC-BY[-SA] does not allow authors to add any other conditions other than those permitted by the license. It allows the author to specify the manner of the credit, i.e. the textual content -- requiring it to say "Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann" is definitely fine. However, it does not allow authors to restrict the implementation of the credit -- "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner"[3]. Any restrictions to that mean the license is no longer a CC-BY-SA license, and is not free. Authors must allow licensors to implement the credit in any reasonable manner and cannot specify that. It is fine to request that type of credit, i.e. say that is the preferred way if possible, but it cannot be a license requirement. If the author of a book, for example, wants to put image credits in their own section at the beginning (or end) of the book, as is often done, that needs to be perfectly OK. This requirement will also run afoul of usage on Wikipedia, which puts the credit on the image page themselves, not in the articles -- that is also OK and an exception cannot be forced by a license restriction. I can certainly understand authors' frustration about images being taken and not being credited, as it happens all too much and perhaps Wikipedia itself is setting a bad example, but that does not mean that authors can claim "CC-BY-SA" by going beyond the terms of what that license allows. At the moment, this file has never been licensed CC-BY-SA, as it is incompatible, so the author must voluntarily relax the restriction to be a suggestion instead, or the file should be deleted as non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Deed" has no juristic relevance. The only thing that matters is the complete license text. This is also mentioned at the page your linked to. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the 64 years old author of the photo.
After WP-discussion some years ago about my attribution there are a lot of my photos here and in the WP with this attribution since the discussion in the past. And in more than 15 years publishing my photos by myself or third parties I've had not once a legal dispute in court.
1. I've no problems with your add. discussion at this time about question of deletion of my photo(s).
2. The basic question is: by my attribution there will be an invalid license, which makes
the photo "not free"?
Sorry, there's something wrong:
3.1 The solution is explained in the terminations of chosen license in no. 8. Miscellaneous
pointed under c.:
"If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this
License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall
be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable."
3.2 This part of terminations in German version:
"Sollte eine Bestimmung dieser Lizenz unwirksam sein, so bleibt davon die Wirksamkeit
Lizenz im Übrigen unberührt."
So this licence can't be invalid or not guilty - the photo stays free under licensing and attribution as given.
But only - if there happens a legal qestion between the two parties under license-contract about attribtion under this licence - this two contract parties are questioned to find the solution in sence of license no 8 c., sorry, not to do by Wikipedia.
Please, feel free to spend time to your easter days. All the best to all of you -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- If some criteria can't be forced by law, then the license is still valid up the point the law allows it. This has nothing to do with selfmade restrictions that are provided by yourself ontop of the license. The chapter 8.c only relates to license in original form.
- Your answer raises one major question: Do you agree to remove the additional restrictions? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 07:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing legally wrong with your license. We do not however consider it "free" ( the restriction where you specify the placement of the credit is too restricting for re-use, and it makes it non-free). You cannot claim to have licensed this CC-BY-SA however, since you have added restrictions which are not allowed if you want to claim to have used that license. It specifies "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License" and that is exactly what the credit placement restriction does, since the CC-BY-SA license specifically says "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" and your restriction interferes with that CC-BY-SA right. The filename restriction does this as well. Once that restriction is there, it is no longer CC-BY-SA (or compatible). The restriction is legally enforceable, so section 8(c) is not relevant here -- it simply makes the license non-free and therefore against Commons policy.
- I would obviously love to keep all of your work licensed this way -- it looks terrific. But, per policy, we must have everything licensed in a "free" manner, and that license is unfortunately over the non-free line. For example, if a book author wants to put image credits in a separate section in the beginning or end of the book, as is quite common, your license prevents that. Your license prevents usage on a postcard, unless they have a strip at the bottom, and not make the photo the entire front of the card. That condition will also mean usage on Wikipedia is a problem, as they use the image page as the credit page, and do not put credits directly in the article. It may seem like a simple restriction, but it actually is pretty significant.
- You can ask that the credit be done that way, but it cannot be a license requirement if you want to claim to have a CC-BY-SA license. So... if you change those requirements to requests, it would be fine. I have no idea how important that requirement is to you though, and I do not like altering authors' licensing statements to conform with CC-BY-SA. For some authors, having that restriction is the only reason they would allow there photos on Commons, and would prefer to remove them if they can't have it, and I have no idea which you would prefer. If we can just remove those requirements, or reword them somehow to make clear that style if credit is preferred if possible but not required, that would be great. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, there's something wrong oncemore. I cannot agree with this construct with ref. to changes in licensing as given. In the discussion there is a mix of two different complexes:
- 1. upload of photographs to Wikimedia/Wikipedia under various licences for e.g. cc-by-sa with
- "Under the following conditions Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or Licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Here is no restriction and no chance for interpretation.
- ATTRIBUTION ...IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED BY THE AUTHOR. I did my uploads this way, licensing cc-by-sa and with my attribution terms: use with name of the Original Author directly under the photograph. This is not forbidden in the Wikimedia/Wikipedia. (Using my photos in Wikipedia works since years, it's well known that I do without any requests to my name in WP-articles/under photos in use by WP.)
- 2. Please understand, my licensing effets to third parties outside Wikimedia/WP. You try to bring the cc-by-sa-terminations no. 4 restriction to a kind of regulation for photo-uploads. No. 4 has nothing to do with authors attribution; No 4 is a restriction to the attention of third party license users - here is your misunderstanding! The cc-by-sa-terminations no. 4 restriction effects only the contract rules to be acted by third party users in case of use of licensed photographs. This has nothing to do with upload and licensing under no. 1 as said above. Under No. 4 restiction is said only: the third party user may not do... may not change... has to do... - as said contract rules between author and user, not between author and Wikimedia/Wikipedia.
- Free ...freeer ...freeest :-) ...this will not work. - Please to the attention of everybody: Third party photo users are needing others than licensed? It's normal to ask author in such case especially for an agreement, this with ref. to your example of a book author - I got as a standard requests for use in newspapers, in flyers, in films, there's no problem this way.
- I'll will ask you one point: you've seen a newspaper without attribution under articles/ photographs? Please stop the discussion about free-...freeer-...freeest-photos; attribution is not an abnormity or an irregulary term.
- Finalizing: my licensing stays as given (all other requests to me came to a good and cost free agreement, there is no problem - but even this cannot questioned here by Wikimedia/Wikipedia). Remember: spending under my licencing aerial photographs for no costs, I've to pay for rent of the aeroplane between 200,- und 750,- Euro per flight (add. my car costs up to the air fields?!) ...and you will delete the requested my immaterial attribution?
- Take a look - use of my photo Landtag von Sachsen-Anhalt out of de.Wikipedia: attribution is not a problem as discussed
- (commercial use of photo and use by "MITTELDEUTSCHER RUNDFUNK Anstalt des Öffentlichen Rechts"
- Further pretty easter days. -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The basis for "free" media (as considered bei Wikimedia) is to allow reusage without the need to inform the original author. Therefore any accepted license follows one basic rule: They don't allow any further restrictions by the original author, neither by resusers to be added. If you don't agree with this terms, then you declare the licenses as invalid. Under this conditions the images have to deleted. If you added this restrictions later on, then they will have to be removed, since you are not allowed to remove or change given licenses.
- I acknowledge your work, but i also acknowledge the basic rules of free media. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Happy Easter, as well ;-)
- Yes, you can specify the "manner" of the credit. That means you can specify the text of the credit - i.e. to use your name, or a pseudonym, or an alias, or something like that. However, it is is misinterpretation (understandable, as many others have made the same mistake) that they can specify the implementation of the credit as well. You, via the CC-BY-SA license, specifically give others the right to implement the credit "in any reasonable manner" -- but then your license immediately removes that ability by specifying one particular implementation. The "manner" means you can require your full name to be used -- that is definitely fine -- but does not include the ability to dictate the placement, as that contradicts the ability to place the credit "in any reasonable manner" which you had supposedly already given by using CC-BY-SA. That style of credit may indeed be very reasonable in many circumstances, as you note, but it is not the only possible way to do it, and you have to allow *any* reasonable way of doing the credit if you want to claim a CC-BY-SA license. Some newspapers or magazines put the credit vertically up the right hand side, for example, not below -- that seems silly but that would technically violate your license and thus be a copyright violation. Note that since that style of credit is typical for newspapers, Wikinews does tend to do credits that way. It is usually not a problem on websites as well, but it may be. However, the typical implementation of credits differs in many other possible contexts of re-use -- for example, books often do it in various different ways, postcards usually do it on the back of the postcard, etc., etc. How about as part of a montage? They may want to have a simple "image credits" link near the photo, instead of having tons of text immediately visible in the page, which can start to be an aesthetic problem. That license condition means that other parties are significantly restricted in how they can use your work -- that is against the entire spirit of the "free" movement. And, even though you say the requirement is geared to usage outside of Wikimedia projects, the license you give must apply equally to Wikimedia and everybody else -- meaning Wikimedia must follow the same license conditions as everyone else. We do not allow Wikimedia-only licenses. Thus, usage on Wikipedia, where the credits do not appear below the image, are violating the license you gave.
- Yes, you are correct about No.4 -- "You" in that case refers to people re-using the work. Sorry about that. However, the license also says "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." You are adding additional parts to the agreement not specified in the legal code, in fact directly contradicting the legal code.
- In short, if you want to use CC-BY-SA, you must give others the ability to implement the license in any reasonable manner. If you do not want to do that, you cannot claim to have licensed it using CC-BY-SA in the first place, and we do have to remove that tag. You can say something like "you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann), in any reasonable manner but preferably directly under the photo, with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained." In other words, you can ask that the credit be done that way, but you can't require it, as the CC-BY-SA license has already given others the ability to place the credit in other places, as long as it is reasonable. Otherwise, you are contradicting the license itself -- either the condition has to be relaxed, or you can't claim to have licensed it CC-BY-SA. I know it seems reasonable, but it's not. Even right now, you could claim copyright violations against Wikipedia by not doing the credit that way, and there really would be no recourse. Some have tried to force Wikipedia to implement credits that way via basically this mechanism, BTW (or even by specifying the credit had to remain as part of the image, e.g. watermarks) and we have had similar discussions and results. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep simply Niabots POV and only SPAM again. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please give more details what you think is wrong with Niabot's POV? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I can: senseless discussion, waste of time. Do you like more arguments? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes: Are Wolfgang Pehlemann's additions compatible with CC-BY-SA? (to be more precise: are his media still free in the sense of wikimedia?) Why or why not? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is unimportant. We have a valid CC-BY-SA license. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have, he doesn't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is unimportant. We have a valid CC-BY-SA license. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes: Are Wolfgang Pehlemann's additions compatible with CC-BY-SA? (to be more precise: are his media still free in the sense of wikimedia?) Why or why not? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I can: senseless discussion, waste of time. Do you like more arguments? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Waste of time by Niabot: Men on a mission. --ST ○ 09:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Of course im on a mission. The mission to keep at least one of the five fundamental pillars of the Wikimedia projects. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Conditional Delete
- I appreciate and encourage any declaration which specifies attribution preferences of the author. But such a declaration must be a recommendation and must have the appearance of a recommendation.
- Authors may sue users anyway even if there is no specification on how to attribute the authors name. It is inherent to the system of "reasonable manner" that the notion of what is reasonable might differ between people.
- CC does not offer any procedure or provision which allows to specify the attribution mode beyond "reasonable to the medium or means"
- Any additional provisions which are not clearly described as recommendation shoud be considered as License which does not conform to COM:L.
The Uploader of the file which ist discussed here has strongly argued for the adherence to his additional provisions 2 years ago. I don't know if he changed his mind up to now but reading his above statements i guess that he considers his additional provisions as mandatory. As far as additional provisions are not clearly marked as recommendation we should delete those images. Obviously the author does not want to provide any of our valid licenses as registered on COM:L and it would not be fair to declare those images as "free" because the author has accepted the wikipedia style of attribution for wikipedia but does not accept this style for other users. Suggesting those images are fine for wikipedia/commons will be misleading for the author and others users likewise.--Wiggum (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Could we, please, read all together own own advices on Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia or Commons:Weiterverwendung (the German version with some usage examples). Far most usages require (at least in Germany) such a credit directly at or near the image. If this expectation isn't accepted on Commons for outside usages we'll have to delete my photos as well. I also do - outside of Wikimedia projects - not accept a background attribution. --Martina talk 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good example for printed media:
- In Druckmedien sieht ein korrekter Nachweis so aus:
Bildnachweis
...
S. 281 oben: Fb78, Wikimedia Commons, lizenziert unter
GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation (Lizenztext siehe ANHANG A),
URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Borromini_SantIvo.jpg
S. 281 unten: Archiv des Autors
S. 282 ...
- Observe that the "Bildnachweis" is not directly at the image. As Carl Lindberg 15:26, 23 April 2011 said:"If the author of a book, for example, wants to put image credits in their own section at the beginning (or end) of the book, as is often done, that needs to be perfectly OK." --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jetzt mal unter uns Pastorentöchtern in unserer gemeinsamen Muttersprache. Ich schrieb von den allermeisten Nachnutzungen. Die finden eben nicht in Büchern statt, sondern sind Einzelnutzungen, für die in aller Regel ein individueller Credit in Bildnhähe zu erwarten ist. Das kannst du mit einem Bildbeitragszähler unter 50 Dateien in sechs Jahren vielleicht nicht wissen. Ähnlich wie du in den Nutzungsbedingungen der WMF zwischen Empfehlungen an Nachnutzer bezüglich Text und denen bezüglich Mediendateien offenbar nicht unterscheiden kannst. Es wäre nett, wenn du dich erstmal auf den notwendigen Kenntnisstand bringen könntest, bevor du diese Sau noch länger wortreich durch die Projekte treibst. --Martina talk 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to post all relavant links. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jetzt mal unter uns Pastorentöchtern in unserer gemeinsamen Muttersprache. Ich schrieb von den allermeisten Nachnutzungen. Die finden eben nicht in Büchern statt, sondern sind Einzelnutzungen, für die in aller Regel ein individueller Credit in Bildnhähe zu erwarten ist. Das kannst du mit einem Bildbeitragszähler unter 50 Dateien in sechs Jahren vielleicht nicht wissen. Ähnlich wie du in den Nutzungsbedingungen der WMF zwischen Empfehlungen an Nachnutzer bezüglich Text und denen bezüglich Mediendateien offenbar nicht unterscheiden kannst. Es wäre nett, wenn du dich erstmal auf den notwendigen Kenntnisstand bringen könntest, bevor du diese Sau noch länger wortreich durch die Projekte treibst. --Martina talk 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- After some additional discussion I changed my mind. There is no place for files which this kind of restrictions at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear authorship information. The author is stated to be User:tobacco museum, but no such user exists. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The photograph was taken in violation of the policies established by the U.S. Finals. Further, the image is of minors who have not consented to the use of their image and likeness. 98.239.143.151 04:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This photo was taken last year (2010) at the U.S. finals, where as far as I know, there was no rule on photography. Actually, it's not even a photo, it's a screenshot I took from a video I took from my seat. Which, as far as I know, is within the allowance of competition policy this year and in previous. I specifically made sure that no faces or recognizable features were seen in this photo and even went as far as to make sure the gym name was not able to be seen on the front of the uniform. Kirsten5400
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The photograph was taken in violation of the policies established by the U.S. Finals. Further, the image is of minors who have not consented to the use of their image and likeness. 98.239.143.151 04:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This photo was taken last year (2010) at the U.S. finals, where as far as I know, there was no rule on photography. Actually, it's not even a photo, it's a screenshot I took from a video I took from my seat. Which, as far as I know, is within the allowance of competition policy this year and in previous. I specifically made sure that no faces or recognizable features were seen in this photo and even went as far as to make sure the gym name was not able to be seen on the front of the uniform. Kirsten5400
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Snapshot of KDE running Firefox"? Firefox are not shown in the image. 201.167.34.210 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I dont mind if it gets deleted, but the running browser is firefox. rafax (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's Firefox, but with a little interface. Do not delete the image, I will upload a newer version soon. Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 09:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: reason not valid to delete Ezarateesteban 23:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture from some wineplace, not used Motopark (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Carlos mañas.jpg with overly generic name Zetawoof (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- File:Carlos mañas.jpg was bad overwriting. This file does not have a source, the depicted person is not the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted work - The logo from the website was cutted. See the first version Fabrice 
Ferrer 09:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Hm, not really a copyvio, since it's just a scan of an old plan. Anyway the webmaster asked for a link to his site (which is quite normal after all, since it's the source of the document) so I added it. Alchemica (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The original of this plan, drown when Saint-Geramin-en-Laye old castle was rebuilt under the reign of Napoleon III, is in public archives of "monuments historiques français", so its in public domain since a long time. -- // — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.152.89 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of original work, looks scanned in from a magazine Hold and wave (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I took it myself with a minolta camera at the American Jewish Congress' annual conference in 2006. The picture is a cropped version of the original which had the heads of people in attendance. This is not a phony picture and it is all my own work. --Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. No evidence for being a copyvio. Surely the image shows compression artifacts, that are typical for strong jpg compression, but not for a scan from print. The unambiguous statement "This picture was taken by Juda Engelmayer and posted for use on WikiCommons" posted by the uploader only hours after this DR was filed, makes it additionally unlikely that this is a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Now it was uploaded a new version with camera metadata. Not a copyvio as the reporter said. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 07:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Case is clarified, the picture is an original work. Dereckson (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
given the small size of the photo, the amateurishly removed watermark, given that the photo has at least one tineye hit (was published elsewhere before): I have strong doubt that this is own work. I also have much doubt with all other contributions from this uploader, we should talk about them too. Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Photo not created by VOA but from agency. See {{PD-USGov-VOA}}. Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader, I mistakenly thought the photo had been created by the VOA (and not an agency).--Banana (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ezarateesteban 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
according to the source website (http://www.eco-paradise.com/culture.htm) Photos © Adrian Lok; thus cannot be released into PD by uploader; ELEKHHT 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to source website (http://www.tripadvisor.com/ReviewPhotos-g298307-d650823-r19327951-Borneo_Survivor_Resort-Kota_Kinabalu_Sabah.html#18372089) image not by uploader, no evidence of PD release by author ELEKHHT 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also from tripadvisor:
- File:Sipadan.jpg ([http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g303996-Pulau_Sipadan_Sabah.html) --ELEKHHT 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. Building from 1992, architect's right violated. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. Modern building. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. Modern building. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and personality rights Ezarateesteban 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. Modern building. PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lesless as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own, fake license
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Hits on TinEye are after upload to Commons. It is plausibly an own work. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Sculpture by S. Scherbakov (2003). PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Job 14:09 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: scan of books or collages without source given. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, this includes File:Russell se declara mason.gif, source for the scan is not given, not clear if this is public domain. The other two uploads File:Smbolos Masones y de Russell.jpg and File:Templo Masón.jpg are collages of mere photographic works, I doubt too that this photos are entirely ownwork. --Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an official logo/symbol of Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), which is not in public domain, which makes it non-free image and thus can't be upload here on Commons. Bill william comptonTalk 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per {{PD-shape}} Ezarateesteban 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
License doesn't match source (source web page states "all rights reserved") Zetawoof (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source indicates "© Copyright 2011 Epic Evaluations.com. All Rights Reserved." (http://epicevaluations.com/seo-analysis-seo-tips-1.html) Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Only copy from german wikipedia Knergy (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free copyrighted poster. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Contains nothing of interest other than banners/posters, which themselves prominently focus on non-free photographs of candidates. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of billboards featuring non-free photographs. Contains nothing else of interest, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Scene contains nothing else of interest, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of posters featuring non-free photographs. Nothing else of interest in scene, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Poster is large, prominent, and central in composition, scene contains nothing else of interest besides poster, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of posters featuring non-free photographs. Focus is on posters, background contains nothing of interest, photographs occupy substantial proportion of posters, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Background contains nothing of interest, photograph occupies substantial portion of poster. Additionally, poster contains several paragraphs of legible text, subject to its own copyright as a document. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand. Poster was visible in public, meant for everyone to see. And it is an important document of the Rajapaksa government's propoaganda and the decline of democracy in Sri Lanka. Following the logic of the deletion request, Wikipedia should not be able to document governments' publicity measures anymore, which would be harmful to the goal of providing information. Krankman (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this is an important document and it would most likely be eligible (at reduced resolution) for fair use at En. However, the fact remains that in the country of Sri Lanka, as far as I know, that poster is protected by copyright law, and if so it is also copyrighted in the United States. It would be against the law for us to distribute it without its authors' permission. I agree that deleting it harms our goals, but we and our content reusers are bound by the law. Being placed in public is not relevant in most nations. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster featuring non-free photograph. Despite occupying only a small portion of the photo, it is central in the composition, highly contrasting (draws the eye), and the title suggests it is intended to depict the election poster. A version with the poster removed would be acceptable for other purposes. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this one is borderline, close to DM Jcb (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of several posters featuring non-free photographs. Nothing else of interest in the photo, not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of posters featuring non-free photographs. Posters are central in composition and highly contrasting (draw the eye), title suggests posters are main subject. If the two central posters are blanked out the photo may be useful for depicting the object behind the posters. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a suspected copyright violation. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster with non-free copyrighted photos of candidates. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of election poster containing non-free cartoon artwork. Date of publication unknown. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Contains artistic expressions, hence copyrightable...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe that {{PD-USGov}} applies to this photograph as the National Portrait Gallery doesn't appear to be a department/organisation of the US Federal Government and the Oscar is protected by copyright (not just trademarked) and the page the photograph is on states "Photos for News Media Use Only". The site also states its content is copyrighted unless it states "no known copyright restrictions". Bidgee (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The "National Portrait Gallery" is not how this file is attributed. It is attributed to the "Smithsonian (Institution)'s National Portrait Gallery". The Smithsonian Institution is a well known agency of the U.S. federal government, so the public domain tag is correct. Additionally, the Terms of Use instructions expressed on the site are equally clear. Variously: " The Smithsonian invites visitors to use its online content for personal, educational and other non-commercial purposes." Also under the site's Intellectual Property Rights & Content section, it expressly states: "Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use. This may mean that: (1) a copyright existed at one time but was not renewed, or the copyright may have expired, or the owner may have intentionally placed the Content into the public domain; or (2) the Content was never eligible for copyright protection because it was created by an employee of the United States as part of his or her official duties, or (3) there are no copyright markings or other indications on the Content to indicate that it was copyrighted or otherwise restricted; or (4) Smithsonian records do not indicate any evidence of copyright restrictions. These facts do not necessarily mean that the Content is in the public domain, but rather indicate that no evidence has been found to show that copyright restrictions apply." As the image was generated by, and properly attributed as: "Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery", the Smithsonian's own determination that "no evidence has been found to show that copyright restrictions apply" must logically be considered definitive - as the Smithsonian would obviously know if IT had imposed any copyright restrictions. No such copyright restrictions accompany this image. To the contrary, the tag clearly states: "photo courtesy of" - and not - "photo copyright by". X4n6 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding concerns for the use of the Oscar statuette, under EDITORIAL USE, the Motion Picture Academy's website states: "News and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions: all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration." If you believe the legend must be applied to the image, I certainly have no objection to you applying it. After that, any use concerns as expressed by this section, appear to be fully satisfied. X4n6 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Oscar is copyrighted, we know it for sure, see Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative. House Promotions Inc., 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), and it will not be free until 2037 at least. "Editorial use", etc. is not free enough for Commons. It's a moot point, but there is no enough evidence that the picture itself is free. It's NOT marked "no known copyright restrictions", so paragraph 2 of "Intellectual Property Rights & Content " section is not relevant. And even if the photo is attributed as "Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery", it easily can be created by a third party (e.g. a photographic studio) making this photo non-free. Trycatch (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Reproduction of old photograph. Uploader at Flickr unlikely to be copyright holder Lymantria (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: see [4]. The picture was tagged {{OTRS pending}}, but giving that this is a high risk picture (from EXIF -- "NO WEB SITE USAGE AT ALL UNLESS PREVIOUSLY AGREED WITH ALASDAIR OR GARY" in all caps), I delete it now. It's not hard to undelete this picture, in a very unlikely case if there would be a valid OTRS-ticket. Trycatch (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Image consists of nothing of interest except four posters, three of which reproduce non-free copyrighted photographs. Title of image supports that it is intended to depict the posters. De minimis obviously fails. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear derivative work, as the point of this image is obviously not the brick building behind the copyrighted elements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright violation. Derivative work is allowed, see en:Derivative work. USchick (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to reread that article. Under United States Code: Title 17, section 106(2), it is specified that only the owner of copyright has the rights to do and authorize the preparation of derivative works. In the absence of license permitting the creation of a derivative work from the copyright owners, derivative works are a copyright violation. See also [5]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Irish copyright law states that the copyright in a work on public display is not infringed by making a photograph or film of it. Odea 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- According to [6], this is true of "buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." I'm scarcely familiar with Irish copyright law, but would be interested to know if they regard photographs or posters as "works of artistic craftsmanship". I know the UK does not. Is there a better definition of "artistic craftsmanship" somewhere in Irish law? --Moonriddengirl 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ireland follows the UK model - mass-produced posters are not works of artistic craftsmanship. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In any case that only applies to permanent display, not temporary display. I have made a fairuse copy at en:File:Dublin posters for Irish general election, 2007.jpg which hopefully other Wikipedias can duplicate. Jnestorius (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above & COM:FOP#Ireland. The picture is not covered by Irish FOP, because 1) posters are not covered by Irish FOP at all (see COM:FOP#Ireland & COM:FOP#United Kingdom) 2) the posters are on temporary, not permanent display. Trycatch (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster containing at least 18 non-free photographs occupying about half the image area. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work - bottom poster contains non-free photo and is important part of the image (it's mentioned in the title and description - its inclusion is not incidental and so not de minimis). This poster would have to be removed to retain this. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Converted from copyvio: {{copyvio|1=copyrigted picture from 1990 }}
- Not sure. In the article on :ru this image is in the section about early 20. century. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
--ZooFari 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Get OTRS from the authors (both living and active architects) or delete. NVO (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per NVO Trycatch (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The PD template is clearly false. But instead of deleting outright am bringing this for discussion so that there is an opportunity to have the image licenced correctly with OTRS. russavia (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe the license here is correct. It is true that as a composer of the Soviet anthem, he would have a lot of photographs. But with the 2008 copyright law of Russia, he worked during WW2 and died shortly afterwards. Because of that, this photo is still probably copyrighted in Russia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. Author S. D. Merkurov ( 1952). PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of copyrighted statue. Place in Category:Undelete in 2023. MKFI (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Jcb (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster including non-free artwork. See also File:KPÖ election poster 2006 015.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. While this may the most photographed mosque in Dubai, it does not change the legal situation as far as Commons is concerned. I have tried to find out when the mosque was built to see if the architectural copyright is in the public domain, and since websites seem to say 1978, then the copyright of the lifetime of the author 50 years end of calendar year is very unlikely to have expired. CT Cooper · talk 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am also adding File:Jumeirah Mosque.jpg to this nomination for the same reasons. CT Cooper · talk 10:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- As it's the life time of the author (architect) the actual building year is not relevant. A quick search did not give any info about who the architect was. // Liftarn (talk)
- It is relevant, in terms that it is unlikely that a building built in the 1970s was designed by an architect that has been dead for the long period required for this to be in the public domain. The precautionary principle states that files should be deleted if there "significant doubt" on if they are free, and absolute proof is hence not required. In other words, the fact that it is unlikely that the building's copyright is public domain is enough to justify deletion, even if proof that it is copyrighted has not been presented. The presumption of the building still being copyrighted is made in the overwhelming majority of deletion requests concerning architecture in the UAE, see Category:UAE FOP cases. However, most of those are of recently constructed skyscrapers, and since this is an older building I tried to find out more information about its copyright status before nominating. Anyone is welcome to present more information about the architect(s) if they can find anything, however I have been unable to. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Restored per UnDR. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work. Image consists of nothing of interest except two posters reproducing 10 non-free copyrighted photographs. Title of image supports that it is intended to depict the posters. De minimis obviously fails. See also the following images from Category:Election posters in Singapore with the same problem:
- File:Aljunied GRC election banner, GE 2006.JPG
- File:Aljunied GRC election poster, GE 2006.JPG
- File:Ang Mo Kio GRC poster, Apr 06.JPG
- File:Hougang election poster, GE 2006.JPG
- File:Jalan Besar GRC election poster.JPG
- File:Jln besar pap.jpg (note: only poster is in focus)
- File:Joo Chiat SMC PAP campaign poster.JPG (only poster is bright enough to be clearly visible)
- File:Joo Chiat SMC poster (WP), GE2006.JPG
- File:Joo Chiat SMC poster, Apr 06.JPG
- File:PAP campaigning poster.JPG
- File:Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC poster 2, Apr 06.JPG
- File:Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC poster, Apr 06.JPG
- File:Potong Pasir SMC election poster 2, GE 2006.JPG
- File:Potong Pasir SMC election poster, GE 2006.JPG
If some of these images are worthy of further consideration, please point them out and I'll nominate separately. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear derivative works. Clearly the point of these is the posters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright violation. Derivative work is allowed, see en:Derivative work. USchick (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to reread that article. Under United States Code: Title 17, section 106(2), it is specified that only the owner of copyright has the rights to do and authorize the preparation of derivative works. In the absence of license permitting the creation of a derivative work from the copyright owners, derivative works are a copyright violation. See also [7]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: much as I would like to see the photographs being retained, I agree that they are unauthorized derivative works. The issue has been raised at the SGpedians' notice board, and hopefully steps will be taken to write to the political parties involved and ask for permission. (We have another election on 7 May, so hopefully we will get permission for photographs of banners and posters that will be going up after 27 April to be taken as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- What about this File:Zama election posters.JPG? Does the law address public display? And how is this different File:Wikimania Posters.jpg? I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. USchick (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- To answer your question: 1. I hadn't gotten to File:Zama election posters.JPG yet (there are like a thousand of these photos to go through); 2. posters that consist entirely or mostly of text and simple shapes are usually okay (see {{PD-text-logo}}), if the artwork/photograph is "incidental" (see Commons:De minimis; roughly speaking, the artwork could be removed without affecting the image's utility - I consider the tiny logos in the second photo to be de minimis, but possibly not the Terra logo). There are limitations to the amount of text that can be copied though (see Commons:Images containing text). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for other countries, but in Singapore there is no special defence against infringement of copyright for political campaign posters, and freedom of panorama does not apply to two-dimensional works. The copyright in such works is presumably owned by the political parties who created them. I e-mailed seven political parties today requesting consent; let's see what the response is. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- To answer your question: 1. I hadn't gotten to File:Zama election posters.JPG yet (there are like a thousand of these photos to go through); 2. posters that consist entirely or mostly of text and simple shapes are usually okay (see {{PD-text-logo}}), if the artwork/photograph is "incidental" (see Commons:De minimis; roughly speaking, the artwork could be removed without affecting the image's utility - I consider the tiny logos in the second photo to be de minimis, but possibly not the Terra logo). There are limitations to the amount of text that can be copied though (see Commons:Images containing text). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- What about this File:Zama election posters.JPG? Does the law address public display? And how is this different File:Wikimania Posters.jpg? I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. USchick (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete All derivative works. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: unfortunately, I have received no response from any political parties to my e-mails yet. Polling day for the Singaporean general election, 2011 is on 7 May; they may be far too busy to respond. Perhaps we should wait for about two to three weeks after 7 May? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Files can be undeleted if we receive a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster containing non-free artwork (bird). Dcoetzee (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster containing non-free photo and bird. Centrally prominent, nothing else of interest in photo, title indicates billboard is subject of photo, de minimis does not apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of five posters containing non-free photographs. Composition is central, in focus, and high contrast, background contains nothing of interest, and title and description refer to posters in detail; not de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Irish copyright law states that the copyright in a work on public display is not infringed by making a photograph or film of it. Odea 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no FOP in Ireland for two-dimensional works, except works of artistic craftsmanship, which these obviously are not, being mass produced. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment ODea that only applies to permanent display, not temporary display. I have made a fairuse copy at en:File:Euro and local elections 2009 posters Dublin.jpg which hopefully other Wikipedias can duplicate. Jnestorius (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the many posters depicted, many of which include non-free photos. The posters are central in the composition, high contrast, the background is unimportant, and the posters are mentioned in the title and (in detail) in the description, so they are not incidental and de minimis does not apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Irish copyright law states that the copyright in a work on public display is not infringed by making a photograph or film of it. Odea 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no FOP in Ireland for two-dimensional works, except works of artistic craftsmanship, which these obviously are not, being mass produced. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment ODea that only applies to permanent display, not temporary display. I have made a fairuse copy at en:File:Euro and local elections 2009 posters Cork.jpg which hopefully other Wikipedias can duplicate. Jnestorius (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I think there is a good argument to be made that this is a photograph of a large cluster of election signs, rather than a derivate work of individual signs. The copyrightable elements of each individual sign are de minimis to the overall image of the grouping - there are enough signs in the image, along with sufficient surrounding context, that the photograph is of the mass rather than of the individual items. I seem to recall this argument being used to save a photo of a large number of magazine covers on a newstand, but can't at the moment locate that discussion. I'm not sure this argument would apply to File:Euro-local elections 2009 posters Ireland.JPG. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would probably buy that normally, but the description describes each of the posters in detail, suggesting that it is intended to illustrate each of the posters individually rather than just "a bunch of election posters." Dcoetzee (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough - good point. Although put another way, the who-is-who list in the description merely emphasizes that many of the posters in image are illegible, and we are really dealing with an image of a grouping. Having said that, do you happen to know if intent is a factor in determining DM under Irish law? I can see from COM:DM that, for example, intent appears to be a factor in Canada ("not deliberately"), while it doesn't appear to be a factor under U.K. law ("incidental inclusion"). I will see what I can find. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 states in s. 52: "The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work." The question, I suppose, is whether the coprighted elements of each poster are central to the image, or are incidental to the image of the grouping. I don't actually know where the cut off point would be. It's an interesting question. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough - good point. Although put another way, the who-is-who list in the description merely emphasizes that many of the posters in image are illegible, and we are really dealing with an image of a grouping. Having said that, do you happen to know if intent is a factor in determining DM under Irish law? I can see from COM:DM that, for example, intent appears to be a factor in Canada ("not deliberately"), while it doesn't appear to be a factor under U.K. law ("incidental inclusion"). I will see what I can find. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in this case DM can be applied to the individual posters Jcb (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Appears self-created by the uploader, has no real educational value. ShawnIsHere (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal artwork without obvious educational use - out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Uploader at Flickr is unlikely to be copyright holder Lymantria (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is an unfortunate case. From working with the uploaded at Wikipedia-en-help IRC, he claims to be P.M. Taj's son. It's also obvious the photo is from a newspaper or other publication. It's unlikely the uploader holds the copyright. However, it's at least possible that the photo was owned by the family and only then given to the newspaper for use in that photograph. There are other photos available which do appear to have not been published, although admittedly, this is the best photograph I've seen of Taj. Quite handsome. Might not be possible to keep, however. Ocaasi (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader is in fact P. M. Taj's son, as evidenced by this comment on my talk page [8]. Salih (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Likely to be historical photo, not own work. EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:China 1141 A.D..jpg
Recent photos by Tillor87
edit- File:Fullscreen capture 262011 115407 AM.jpg
- File:Fullscreen capture 4152011 95707 PM.jpg
- File:Fullscreen capture 4142011 114025 PM.jpg
- File:Fullscreen capture 12282010 74052 AM.bmp.jpg
- File:164298 479303051637 108855536637 6316072 4224620 n.jpg
- File:3806063957 2072ac0f6d o-1-.jpg
- File:Turri2.jpg
- File:Tamarindo.jpg
- File:Flamingo Guanacaste.jpg
- File:Isla tortuga puntarenas.jpg
- File:Islatortugapuntarenas.jpg
- File:PN Ballena.jpg
- File:Monteverde CR.jpg
- File:Isla del coco CR.jpg
- File:Tortuguero limón.jpg
- File:PN Chirripó.jpg
- File:Rio celeste.jpg
- File:Monumento Nacional Guayabo.jpg
- File:Esferas Precolombinas.jpg
- File:Teatro Nacional de CostaRica.jpg
- File:Interior Teatro Nacional de CR.jpg
- File:Basilica de los Ángeles Cartago.jpg
- File:Iglesia San Rafael Heredia.jpg
- File:Templo Mormón en Belén.jpg
- File:Templo Budista Fu Hui Shan.jpg
- File:Iglesia de San Isidro de Coronado.jpg
- File:Iglesia de Cañas.jpg
- File:Primera Iglesia Bautista de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Volcanes de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Volcán Arenal CR.jpg
- File:Volcán Orosí.jpg
- File:Rincon-de-la-Vieja.jpg
- File:Volcán Miravalles.jpg
- File:Volcán Tenorio.jpg
- File:Volcán Platanar.jpg
- File:Volcán Barva Heredia.jpg
- File:Volcán Cerro Cacho Negro Heredia.jpg
- File:Volcán Irazú CR.jpg
- File:Misiones Diplomáticas en Costa Rica.png
- File:Quetzal en Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Venado Cola Blanca.jpg
- File:Rana Verde Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Mariposa Morfo Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Rana Roja Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Guaria Morada.jpg
- File:Árbol de Guanacaste.bmp.jpg
- File:Bosque Lluvioso de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Corteza Amarilla.jpg
- File:Roble Sabana.jpg
- File:Manglar Río Grande de Térraba.jpg
- File:Nuevo Estadio Nacional de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Universidad de Costa Rica UCR.jpg
- File:Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica UNA.jpg
- File:Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica ITCR.jpg
- File:Escuela Buenaventura Corrales.jpg
- File:Colegio San Luis Gonzaga Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Universidad Earth Guácimo.jpg
- File:Volcán Turrialba Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Ujarrás.jpg
- File:Isla del Coco Costa Rica.jpg
- User:Tillor87 uploaded many Costa Rica images and it seems wast majority of them comes from Panoramio, Flickr, stock photo websites via the skyscrapercity.com where user with the same name is moderator. None of the uploaded images are in full resolution and 9 photos that has original EXIF data are made with 8 different camera models. All images are marked as "own work" although some are clearly blatant copyright violations like File:Turri2.jpg taken from [9] or File:Volcanes de Costa Rica.jpg posted on skycrapercity and taken originally from panoramio and others are credited to different people (File:Tamarindo.jpg posted by Tillor87 on skycrapercity attributed to Flickr user kidklein --Justass (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination High Contrast 09:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Article or text contribution in pdf format, not in scope of Commons, COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content. Martin H. (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Jujutacular talk 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Article translation go to wikipedia please (with using an import and translating the imported article). Wikimedia Commons is not the place to upload translated articles in pdf format. Martin H. (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC) --- Deleted Ezarateesteban 23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Please delete the two previous versions
- 07:29, 20 April 2011
- 07:36, 20 April 2011
The current version is OK, please don't change it
Thank you, DMY (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the versions mentioned Jcb (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The images in question:
Some users like User:Jacklee (not me) support deletion of this content on the grounds that it "poses a danger to human life." I am moving the discussion here from Commons:Village pump to associate this discussion with the images and archive it properly. Original discussion follows, but "deletion requestified". Dcoetzee (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A while ago while fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, I came across the first image and found it potentially inappropriate. The whole diagram/how-to nature of it is what raised a flag in my head. I didn't know what to do, so I went to the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to ask. The general consensus was of uncertainty and during the conversation, the second image was brought up.
- So that leaves me to ask here, are these images appropriate enough to remain here or should they be deleted? I'll leave my opinion here: I think they should be deleted. They are too strong and descriptive, they pass beyond informative/educational, and I'm afraid they might encourage suicide or that someone will use the images to help them commit suicide using the methods in the images. The first image is way too informative because of all the measurements and labels and whatnot. The second image is just ... disturbing, in my opinion (I'm aware that it's probably fake).
- The first image is not as big of a deal because it's not used anywhere currently. It was originally used on this Wikipedia page but I removed it for the time being because of my belief that it is inappropriate. Additionally, I'm not the only one who thinks that because it has been removed in the past, then later added back again until I finally removed it (look at the history).
- The second image is more of a problem because it is used on several other Wikimedia projects. Uhai (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (Wikipedia: Uhai (talk)
- Delete I realize that the Commons is not censored, but these images do make me very uncomfortable. I would support a policy that distinguishes between adult material (in scope), and material that poses a danger to human life (how to commit murder or suicide, how to make a bomb, and so on – out of project scope). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (Edit conflict). I too think these should be deleted, and a policy created... Rehman 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe these pictures should kept. Like it or not suicide is part of the world we live in and we can not just ignore an issue as important as suicide. The ways people tend to commit suicide are also a very important piece of knowledge about ourselves that should not be ignored on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Uhai, you say that these pictures should be deleted because and I quote "The first image is way too informative because of all the measurements and labels and whatnot. The second image is just ... disturbing, in my opinion".
- About the first picture: your point is that because of all the measurements (the diagram is BTW not to scale as indicated on the picture) someone can use this picture to construct a suicide bag and kill himself/herself. I am sorry to bring this to you but there are so many ways to commit suicide and so many places to learn them removing this will not have any effect on the suicide rates around the world. In fact I would argue that they could increase were this picture to deleted because than people who are not the one planning to commit suicide probably will not immediately recognize a suicide bag when they see one before it is too late. Say for example that you are a relative or a friend of someone who is planning to commit suicide (and you are not aware of this person's plan). Now imagine if by accident you find in that person's room something that resembles a suicide bag and let's say that it was because of the diagram or picture on Wikipedia that you know how a suicide bag looks like. As you can tell this is a vital piece of information that can mean the difference between having someone commit suicide and being stopped before it is too late. This is just an example of course there are also other situations in which knowing what a suicide bag looks like can allow you to save someone's life.
- About the second picture: Your argument in case of this picture is flawed because, well you could say the same thing about many other pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I for example would say that some of the historic and religious imagery on Wikipedia Commons is pretty disturbing as well but we keep it because they are a very important part of who we are and the world around us. The same goes for media concerning suicide.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't like the drawing or the photo and it also makes me feel uncomfortable. Main problem I see is that some countries (like Australia) class both the drawing and photograph as illegal for anyone, depending on the law in the country they are in, to even look at it! Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If we kept those kind of pictures, we should not wonder when there will be pictures about raping and other snuff videos. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If we delete these pictures because they make some people feel uncomfortable or because someone thinks these pictures are disturbing we also should delete all pictures showing death, content with sexual connotations because some might not like that, pictures of firearms, etc. etc.
- As you can see this is a very slippery slope. Also if someone feels that looking at imagery related to suicide makes them feel uncomfortable why is this someone looking for it and watching it? We have free will and we should use that free will to filter what we look for on the Internet. If someone is interested in the subject of suicide (and let's assume that someone can be interested in it and not plan to actually commit suicide) I do not see why we should remove such an important piece of information as the one provided by these pictures.
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The first image has no conceivable educational use. Yes, it could "educate" someone in how to better commit suicide, but such "how-to" content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I have a hunch Wikibooks would not be interested in a "how to commit suicide" book. Since the content is not appropriate for any of our projects, it can and should be deleted from Commons.
- I am also reluctant to keep the second image for exhibitionist reasons -- similar reasoning to why we don't keep random pictures of genitalia. Powers (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep These images will not motivate anybody to commit suicide and not having them will not stop anybody from committing suicide.
- Wikibooks probably doesn't want to host a "how to" wikibook on suicide but they perhaps want to create a wikibook that explains for what reasons people try to commit suicide, the methods they employ and how other people can detect their plans before they carry them out or how to react properly if you discover a person who tried to commit suicide. This wikibook could use the images above so people are prepared to take the right measures to rescue a person that used a suicide bag. --Slomox (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Removing stuff simply because it makes you uncomfortable and don't like it is pretty much the definition of censorship. If simply publishing this image violates U.S. law there would be an issue, but we would need examples of the law and convictions. While the first one does make me uncomfortable as well, I'm not sure we should remove it. I guess it comes down to if we feel it is advocating a crime (suicide); that may step beyond the bounds, but I'm not sure it does -- that is more a matter of context, not the image itself. As for "not encyclopedic", we support more than encyclopedias. In this case, particularly, b:en:Suicide (a Wikibook). This images can certainly be useful in an educational discussion of suicide. Just because it's a controversial and uncomfortable topic does not mean we should shy away from discussing it altogether, which is what removal of the images amounts to. The second one, other than the name I guess, could almost be used to demonstrate the dangers of plastic bags -- without looking at the image name, there is nothing to indicate the situation was intentional. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe both images serve a legitimate educational purpose. In addition to the arguments outlined above (that they could assist in preventing suicides, illustrate dangers of plastic bags, etc.), suicide bags are also promoted as a means of self-euthanasia by euthanasia advocates in regions in which euthanasia is illegal; although I'm not taking a position in the political debate here, these advocates would argue that making information available on self-euthanasia methods is essential for empowering terminal patients with free choice. @LtPowers: Calling the second image "exhibitionistic" is ludicrous - it is not depicting erotic asphyxiation nor is it intended to do so. @Bidgee: If we believe it's illegal in some nations we could tag it appropriately to help warn reusers in those nations. @Jacklee: Although protecting human life is important, I think many of the topics you describe (media describing "how to make a bomb") also serve a legitimate educational purpose (learning about chemistry, training munitions workers, etc). We should, of course, avoid media that directly advocates imminent illegal action, but such media is rarely encountered. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: fair enough. (Anyway, it looks like there is no consensus for deletion.) I would agree that at the very least material that poses a clear and present danger to human life should be out of the project scope, though (as indicated earlier) I am inclined to think that we might not want certain types of files that may not meet that strict standard. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well, if it's "ludicrous", you must be right. In truth, though, I did not intend for the word to be taken sexually. My concern is that the individual in the photo took it with the intention of having the image of his face disseminated on Wikimedia wikis. Powers (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, this secondary meaning didn't occur to me. I won't speculate on the uploader's intention - I think drawing attention would be more of an issue if they were going around replacing an alternative higher-quality image with their own, which would be problematic, but this image has no alternative at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep copyright seems ok, (possible) usage: check -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Regarding "I have a hunch Wikibooks would not be interested in a 'how to commit suicide' book". Well, I think you have not checked usage for File:Suicide bag.jpg, which has been use at en:b:Suicide/Suffocation since May 2010. Therefore it's in scope. Nominate that book for deletion at Wikibooks if you feel otherwise, or find a replacement image that would serve the same purpose. – Adrignola talk 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- To quote from that book: "This book aims to be a scholarly discussion of philosophy and not a debate or guide." I stand by my reasoning that a suicide instruction manual is not in Wikibooks' scope, and that's the only conceivable use for an instructional diagram (which is the image I was referring to, not the one you point out as being in use). Powers (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The suicide bag is a well known concept. They are sold in several countries. The wikipedia page on the w:suicide bag used to feature this image until someone unlinked it. It should be relinked. The photo of the child in the bag is a prank photo, and may be deleted, although I see no strong case for or against on that one. Oceankeys (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It was removed by me because of the whole "how-to" nature of it. A photograph or drawing of an actual suicide bag (sans the labels and measurements) would be more appropriate than that image. If the phrasing and general tone of the image were changed, I can see it being more appropriate. If it's added back to that Wikipedia page, I will remove it again, and if I am disagreed with then it can be discussed over at W:AN/I or somewhere else. As already said, it has no educational use other than helping someone better commit suicide. It's a schematic. Are schematics of torture devices or pipe bombs available on Wikimedia projects? No, they aren't. Also it's irrelevant whether it's to scale or not - it still has the measurements. - Uhai (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have strong feelings about this image, for whatever reason. Comparing a diagram of a suicide bag to a torture device or bomb betrays a degree of emotional involvement incongruous in an encyclopaedic setting, imo. If you cannot be dispassionate, it may be best to recuse yourself from the discussion. Just a suggestion. Your assertion that this has "no purpose other than to help people commit suicide" is a highly subjective view, arguable at best. If you object to dimensions being shown, why not edit them out and re-upload? Oceankeys (talk)
- You're distorting what I have said - perhaps you should reread it. I was stating that there are no schematics for torture devices or bombs on Wikimedia, therefore why should there be a schematic for a suicide device on Wikimedia? They are easily in the same category: they kill (well not the torture devices so much but they're just as bad). Next thing you know Wikimedia will be sued by a suicide victim's family for providing detailed information on suicide methods. Now instead of sticking brainlessly to the policy that Wikimedia isn't censored, why don't we apply some common sense here? Where does the line get drawn? Also my "assertion" was actually originally stated above by Powers. - Uhai (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'm done with this. Keep the image, if you want. I'm not going to try to edit it because I don't know how to upload it as a revision. If I do see this image on Wikipedia again, there will be a thorough discussion about it over there, rest assured. - Uhai (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep discussion here about whether the image should be kept on Commons rather than whether it should be used in the English Wikipedia article. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll edit it if you like, but give me a few days. I'll change the text to make it less "instructional" and more descriptive; I think that's probably appropriate. In general, we need to avoid making value judgements about information. This diagram may be dangerous in some hands, but useful, or even essential, in others. Editors are not moral guardians on controversial topics like euthanasia, where there are widely differing opinions in society. I suggest this be closed as a keep pending changes I suggest above. Oceankeys (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. - Uhai (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. This deletion request can be closed now. Oceankeys (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. - Uhai (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll edit it if you like, but give me a few days. I'll change the text to make it less "instructional" and more descriptive; I think that's probably appropriate. In general, we need to avoid making value judgements about information. This diagram may be dangerous in some hands, but useful, or even essential, in others. Editors are not moral guardians on controversial topics like euthanasia, where there are widely differing opinions in society. I suggest this be closed as a keep pending changes I suggest above. Oceankeys (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep discussion here about whether the image should be kept on Commons rather than whether it should be used in the English Wikipedia article. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'm done with this. Keep the image, if you want. I'm not going to try to edit it because I don't know how to upload it as a revision. If I do see this image on Wikipedia again, there will be a thorough discussion about it over there, rest assured. - Uhai (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're distorting what I have said - perhaps you should reread it. I was stating that there are no schematics for torture devices or bombs on Wikimedia, therefore why should there be a schematic for a suicide device on Wikimedia? They are easily in the same category: they kill (well not the torture devices so much but they're just as bad). Next thing you know Wikimedia will be sued by a suicide victim's family for providing detailed information on suicide methods. Now instead of sticking brainlessly to the policy that Wikimedia isn't censored, why don't we apply some common sense here? Where does the line get drawn? Also my "assertion" was actually originally stated above by Powers. - Uhai (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have strong feelings about this image, for whatever reason. Comparing a diagram of a suicide bag to a torture device or bomb betrays a degree of emotional involvement incongruous in an encyclopaedic setting, imo. If you cannot be dispassionate, it may be best to recuse yourself from the discussion. Just a suggestion. Your assertion that this has "no purpose other than to help people commit suicide" is a highly subjective view, arguable at best. If you object to dimensions being shown, why not edit them out and re-upload? Oceankeys (talk)
- Comment -- Although the contents at Commons:Village pump says the discussion has been moved here, only some of the comments that were voiced at the Village Pump were moved here. I am not suggesting that the suppression of comments from there were obfuscated in an act of bad faith. But this "move" of the discussion was not done with enough care. I found Carl Lindberg's comments there particularly convincing. I recommend interested parties read the last version before the excision there, as found at this link. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I did not remove any of the comments during the move, as far as I know, only flatted the threading and added the keep/delete templates. Carl Lindberg's comments ("Removing stuff simply because...") are copied above. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -- If you ignore the name the second image, File:Suicide bag.jpg, could be illustrating the practice of auto-erotic asphysication -- where individuals starve their brains of oxygen, while masturbating, on the theory they will have more intense orgasms. It is a dangerous practice. Some practioners do die. But when they do it is an accident, not suicide.
I know there are some contributors who would argue for deletion on the grounds they want to prune from the commons any image that has an association with human sexuality. The other extreme from that view is that commons should be wide=open to all images with an association with human sexuality. I believe, most of us agree that some images associated with human sexuality belong, provided an argument can be made that the image has educational value, and provided it is duplicative of earlier sexuality related images. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Suicide-bag.png -- The death, by suicide, of an otherwise healthy individual who is suffering from a temporary mental imbalance is sad, regretable. However, many of us do not regard the death, by suicide, of those facing a lingering, painful, less dignified death, due to a terminal disease as any kind of a tragedy at all. My father died of cancer. He had been a long time believer in the right for those with terminal diseases to pick their moment of departure. But when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer none of his medications were potentially fatal. He was forced to live through additional months of painful, and undignified life, when he and everyone who loved him knew he would have chosen his moment, if only he had known a relatively painless method to pick his moment. So far as I am concerned images like File:Suicide-bag.png are educational, and are a valuable public service. Geo Swan (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep these images disturb me, but so do many others here, that they are disturbing is not a valid reason for their removal. Given that we are not censored I wish there was someway of letting a would be viewer know what to expect before being confronted with the images.--KTo288 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright's OK. Clearly an informative, educational diagram, and thus in scope. This could easily be used legitimately on a number of different Wikimedia articles. Buddy431 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The png-image appears as a manual on how to commit suicide, which is highly inappropriate.
- Moreover, the content is also ridiculous. Every little detail is described meticulously, while this is unnecessary: Why does it have to be an "oven" bag? Why is a cord lock needed? I could go on with almost everything that is described in the figure. Any plastic bag that is somehow fastened tight around ones neck will suffice. This image brags with professionalism that is neither required nor appropriate. Tomeasy (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. We understand you don't like the image. But could you please make a good faith effort to explain why you consider it "highly inappropriate"? Do you think the image is out of scope? If so how is out of scope?
With regard to your concerns over the level of detail, can you cite a policy that says this level of detail is inappropriate? If the intended audience for this drawing are individuals like my father who were diagnosed with a terminal disease and can only look forward to months of increasingly painful, and debiltating symptoms, increasing weakness, possible dementia, who would prefer to pick their moment, then details are not "ridiculous", they are appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. We understand you don't like the image. But could you please make a good faith effort to explain why you consider it "highly inappropriate"? Do you think the image is out of scope? If so how is out of scope?
- Keep The jpeg-image is nothing that I would add to an article, but I would not censor this one. It is neither a manual for suicide nor does the other criticism apply that I raised above. Tomeasy (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We cannot censor pictures only because they are disturbing. Wikipedia already contains pictures that are even more disturbing than this one because they show people dying violent deaths: example one; example two. Viewer discomfort is an inadmissable criterion for censorship. Odea 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that is not a reason to delete these images. My concerns are scope (instructional content) and propriety (exhibitionism). Powers 16:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- From their initial comment it seems that LtPowers's position is that there can be no legitimate reason for good faith readers to require instruction of a suicide bag. In my keep I explained why I thought there was a legitimate reason for instructios for a suicide bag. Good faith contributors can take differing positions on this question. This could be seen as essentiall a political question. But, from LtPowers comments here he or she seems to think they can treat this as a non-question, that it is obvious, and does not require explanation why we should not offer instruction on suicide bags.
- LtPowers, with regard to "propriety" and exhibitionism. I've uploaded about five thousand images. I believe some contributors have uploaded an order or magnitude more images, with a very low error rate. But would anyone argue, "Joe Bloggs has uploaded 30,000 good images, so we should allow this image to remain, even if some contributors have voiced some meaningful concerns about this one"? Do I know for s certain fact that the second image wasn't uploaded with an exhibitionist intent? No, I don't. But, just as we don't keep images just because a long-term, valued contributor, whose judgment is usually reliable, uploaded a questionable image with good faith, we shouldn't delete an image evem of we (somehow) knew it was uploaded for exhibitionism, if it actually is useful and in scope. It is the value the image holds for the project that counts, not the uploader's intent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that is not a reason to delete these images. My concerns are scope (instructional content) and propriety (exhibitionism). Powers 16:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I appreciate the principle that we shouldn't censor images, but this policy, like any, can be superseded by consensus. I also agree that the file is "not realistically useful for an educational purpose".-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the first, Deleted. the second, first is informative and in use in articles, second is disturbing and could be dangerous Jcb (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Because I have uploaded the new version of this file. So, this file is no more needed Nodar kherkheulidze (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Because I have uploaded the new version of this file. So, this file is not more needed
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Convert from copyvio: copied from http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Armoriaux/Saint_Esprit/1724.htm --ZooFari 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note there is no author information to verify license. See also File:Blason Beauvau-Craon.svg. --ZooFari 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- J'ai créé le fichier avec une license correcte (File:Blason Beauvau-Craon.svg).--Jimmy44 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Convert from copyvio: copied from http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/France/Montmorency.htm. --ZooFari 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note there is no author information to verify the license. --ZooFari 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Source specify (translated from norwegian) Logo is not included in Creative Commons-license used on on all other content on this site. Laaknor (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality. ComputerHotline (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
apparent copyvio Sroc (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The file description page lists the source as the "own work" of Tos. However, an almost identical image is available from http://www.exclave.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=10 (specifically, this image) which suggests that the image may in case have been copied (or at least adapted), unless perhaps the UN has copied the image from Wikimedia (which seems less likely). Although the image is a map (and therefore it may be conceived that there is no other way to draw them without remaining accurate), it is notable that the image uses the same colours, features an almost identical "legend" (with country names translated into English), and identical numbering. The relevance of the numbering is not explained in the image description page nor in the Wikipedia articles Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog where it is used, so it is not clear why the regions are numbered at all. The only discernible difference between the images is a change in the font used for the numbers.
Copyright infringement in some jurisdictions requires a "substantial reproduction" of an original work (although the test may vary in other jurisdictions, such as in Florida, USA, where I believe the Wikimedia servers are based). It would seem that a map with regions highlighted in particular colours and numbered in a particular way may be an artistic work, and that the copying of the image with a slight change in the font would amount to a "substantial reproduction" or otherwise potentially at risk of copyright infringement under the relevant jurisdiction's laws. However, I have insufficient information based on the above to draw the conclusion that it is a clear copyright violation (e.g., the image may have been copied from Wikimedia, or used under licence or fair use without proper credit on the image page). Therefore, I consider that this situation warrants closer inspection.
I also note that the Tos is no stranger to image deletions, as shown at User_talk:Tos.
—Sroc (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy. However Switzerland does have FOP. Oh the horror of conflicting laws. 84.62.193.214 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: though the nomination reason contains nonsense, only Italian law applies here Jcb (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy. However Switzerland does have FOP. Oh the horror of conflicting laws. 84.62.193.214 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: though the nomination reason contains nonsense, only Italian law applies here Jcb (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy. However Switzerland does have FOP. Oh the horror of conflicting laws. 84.62.193.214 19:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: though the nomination reason contains nonsense, only Italian law applies here Jcb (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't know the date of the arrangement or anything about the arranger (von Schmidt-Köthen). Not particularly valulable, but worth keeping if anybody can find out about publication. —innotata 22:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: correctly licensed Jcb (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted after some additional discussion at my talk page. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personal artwork, not in scope : this is not a drawing of the real Arab Liberation Army flag. Sources are not provided.
- Not used : it has been removed from different articles on wp:he, wp:en, wp:fr for 2 months now because it was a fake
- Abuse : googling images for "Arab Liberation Army" gives this picture in the top results. It acquired a false notoriaty on the topic of the Arab Liberation Army due to the name it was given in commons. It is propaganda : a dagger stabbing the Magen David brings the false message that Arab Liberation Army (read Arabs) would have entered in war in 36-39 and 48 to kill/stab the Jews.
- Fake : all in all, this is not a the real flag of the en:Arab Liberation Army and it should be at least renamed and at best deleted as a "fake". Noisetier (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noisetier -- "Special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted from Commons merely for being special or fictional or proposed or hypothetical, and we have many hundreds of them here on Commons. However, malicious and intentionally deceptive hoaxes are something quite different, and generally are deleted, so you should try to present evidence that this is a deliberate hoax. And one of your statements is completely and utterly false -- if the Arabs had won the 1948-1949 Israeli-Arab war, the treatment of the Jews would almost certainly have been quite harsh -- at an absolute minimum, there would have been several additional incidents comparable to the Etzion massacre, and the vast majority of Jews would have been expelled, other than a few old Sephardi Jerusalem families kept for purposes of making a public display and parading show for international consumption which would supposedly demonstrate how "tolerant" the Arabs were... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't know the history of that period and you just report here propaganda too.
- I cannot help you. Just read books about that period. There are too many information to tell you. I would suggest you start with en:Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948.
- This flag is not real and there is not a single source to attest this. Anybody who would not agree to change this name is just a progandist. Commons now have the information.
- Noisetier (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noisetier -- "Special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted from Commons merely for being special or fictional or proposed or hypothetical, and we have many hundreds of them here on Commons. However, malicious and intentionally deceptive hoaxes are something quite different, and generally are deleted, so you should try to present evidence that this is a deliberate hoax. And one of your statements is completely and utterly false -- if the Arabs had won the 1948-1949 Israeli-Arab war, the treatment of the Jews would almost certainly have been quite harsh -- at an absolute minimum, there would have been several additional incidents comparable to the Etzion massacre, and the vast majority of Jews would have been expelled, other than a few old Sephardi Jerusalem families kept for purposes of making a public display and parading show for international consumption which would supposedly demonstrate how "tolerant" the Arabs were... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would really be better all around if you would refrain from officiously telling me what my motives are, when I know what you say to be false, and to refrain from telling me I'm doing something, when I know I'm not doing it. Considering that around January 1948, the two main contenders to be ruler of an Arab state created from British Palestine were Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who had distinguished himself chiefly by a 25-year career of ideological extremism and calls to violence against Jews, capped by a shameless collaboration with Adolf Hitler (none of which prevented him from remaining the single undisputed leading Palestinian political personality down to 1964, of course), and Abdullah of (Trans)Jordan -- a country which had a constitutional provision preventing any Jews being citizens, and which supervised the destruction of all the synagogues in Jerusalem which had not already been destroyed in the 1948-1949 fighting -- my speculations were reasonable and realistic.
- What is more relevant for the current discussion is that "special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted merely for being "special or fictional", unless there's some additional aggravating factor, as explained in my previous comments above. So what's the aggravating factor here? AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't try to give your motivations. I wrote that you didn't know this topic and what you reported was the propaganda that you believe in because you don't know the topie of the '48 war. You mix everything : Al-Husseini, Abdallah of Jordan and hte Arab Liberation Army are not the same entities ; the alleged motivations that you report for the Arab here above have nothing to deal with your concern and they are not reported by historians but by propaganda only.
- I answered to your argument even before you gave it : there is no source for the origin of this flag and it is a fake but given the name this image have received, it comes immediately in google researches and therefore it should be deleted or, if people thinks this fictious picture should be kept, it should be renamed.
- Noisetier (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
PROBLEM: Original image uploader User talk:Valleyofdawn has not been informed of this deletion discussion. -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not aware of the process. Sorry for this. Where was this explained. I assume you informed him now. Noisetier (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you didn't inform him. So I did. Noisetier (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was really solely and exclusively your obligation to do so, if you wanted your deletion nomination to be valid -- as was explained in the following text on page Template:Delete, which would have been displayed as you went through the deletion process: Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page by placing the following code on the user's talk page:
{{subst:idw|Template:Delete|}} ~~~~. And you did not ask for help in any meaningful or specific way on Commons:Village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You require the respect of netetiquette and you harash me as if I was a slave and even more you write that I would be a liar ! What is your problem ? Game over.
- Netetiquette means that you could have informed him even if it was my task to do so. I asked support here, and before here and after here again. I also informed the user here when I noticed you had not.
- Instead of focusing on procedures to keep a fake image that was used to try to make pov-pushing in articles, you should focus on the topic. Whatever my quality of my mistakes, we discuss here about the image and the reasons why it should be kept, removed or renamed.
- Noisetier (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was really solely and exclusively your obligation to do so, if you wanted your deletion nomination to be valid -- as was explained in the following text on page Template:Delete, which would have been displayed as you went through the deletion process: Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page by placing the following code on the user's talk page:
{{subst:idw|Template:Delete|}} ~~~~. And you did not ask for help in any meaningful or specific way on Commons:Village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you didn't inform him. So I did. Noisetier (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
With the big Star of David in this flag, it look like the main or only concern of this "Arab Liberation Army" were to liberate from the Jews; as if the Ottoman, the British, the Mubarak, the Al Khalifa etc. did not exist. Or maybe they are all jewish puppets? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the history of the period, or are confusing the "Palestine Liberation Army" with the "Arab Liberation Army". In 1948 and the second half of 1947, the British were already clearly withdrawing (and were therefore not the main enemy), the Ottomans were defunct for 30 years, and the coming war was clearly to be Arabs vs. Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do not know the topic. The en:Arab Liberation Army, known as the Jaish al-Inqad al-Arabi and under the leadership of en:Fawzi al-Qawuqji fought the British during the en:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine too.
- But this is not the issue : this picture is a fake and without source. This personnal work should not receive any credit by wikipédia by the name it is given because that makes this image come immediately in google reseraches on the words "Arab Liberation Army".
- Noisetier (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: Apparently a false flag or hoax. Reason presented to keep in last deletion request is invalid: It is not in use (the instance shown as "in use" is merely someone showing to the uploader in his talk page that the file was successfully uploaded last October. Darwin Ahoy! 04:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I am still trying to find information about this flag (or at least any flag during this conflict), the symbol is real. If you look at http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02022009/2084252/12-Zklarts_043_a.jpg (or at http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/App/Thumbnails/CdaThumbnails_OpenWin/1,9788,L-2084251-2084252,00.html?CapField=article_images.name&TabSelect=article_images,images&WhereCls=article_images.image_id=2084252 and article_images.article_id=3749700 and article_images.image_id=images.id&DescField=images.credits) this is the marking used on the ALA trucks and tanks. So that part is right. As for the flag itself, really not sure yet, but I don't feel comfortable having this deleted at all. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For the reasons outlined in the last deletion nomination above (which would be sufficient in themselves), but greatly strengthened by what Zscout370 has turned up... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Zscout370 has turned out a faked picture (and a bad fake at that). The symbol was digitally pasted over the original picture of the truck, covering shadows and all. This looks more and more like some obscure propaganda operation, and Commons is dully cooperating in that, unfortunately. If this has no credible source and is not in use it should be deleted as out of scope, it's not Commons role to serve as a whitewash for this kind of stuff.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The handle of the knife in the photograph does not have the detail of the handle we have in our image. I will have to look at the website again to see where even these photographs come from, since the link I provided does not mention an author of the image, other than just All Rights Reserved. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs came from an album of a certain Eliezer Sklartz (the complete article is here. That particular picture represents a Canadian C15TA of British production - you can see a nice picture of it here. The big shadow below certainly is from the high rear mirror mounted at the front of the vehicle (out of the picture), and the shadow above seems to derive from the mechanism used to hold the front cover, immensely deformed due to the Sun position. Both shadows are superimposed by this symbol, showing that the photo was doctored. The symbol is also in a whiter tonality, and does not show signs of wearing, as opposed to the rest of the picture. The detail in the dagger handle is also utterly quaint, looks like a 3d image painted in the truck. As for the truck itself, those models were left behind when the British left their former possessions and mandates, and were used both by the Zionists and by the Arabs, it's impossible to tell from this model to which army it belonged to, though one thing is certain: This rather awkward symbol was not originally in the photograph.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just refound the link right as you were writing that. I have no reason to believe that Sklartz would have faked the image at all. We know he was in the area because he was awarded by King George with a British Empire Medal in 1937 and Sklartz was used before in history books for information about this time period. I see no reason why we should believe these photographs are photoshopped. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, when armies take over vehicles during combat, some armies will paint over the vehicles. If not giving it a new paint job, they will erase old markings and put new ones, so that can explain the white paint. Take a look at http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/sherman-76-02.html to show an example of what I am talking about. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never said Sklartz faked the picture (he died in 1994, by the way), even more as this seems to be some lame fake made by digital software rather recently, probably using as a base a legit photograph by Sklartz of the C15TA truck. However, there can be no doubt that it is faked, as the symbol covers the shadows of parts of the vehicle, defying the laws of physics. I'll rather believe my eyes than any source that would say that this photo with the symbol is legit. If the British Museum shows a picture of Moscow with the Kremlin and says it's Berlin 1933, what would you believe, the BM or your own eyes? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image captions can be wrong (just like with the Bundesarchiv). But until we know for sure this image is faked (like if we have the negatives to Sklartz) I don't feel comfortable calling this a fake (though it is a silly question to ask why an Israeli paper would fake an image, but there has been several instances with issues related to Israel that photos were doctored on both sides). Plus, as mentioned before, having "fake" images is something that we on the Commons. We do not need to follow any sort of NPOV requirement and many people have done images (logos, flags, maps, anything) that are faked. In this case, we know that a flag for the ALA is speculation, yet this is not named as a flag. This is just a graphic symbol from the images that are found. With the last DR, there was concerns about this being a flag (I would ask a person who is well versed in this topic, but he is deceased). I personally think sources within Syria and Israel should at least be looked it, and perhaps photographs, since we just can't go with what is just online. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's see if I can be more clearer. I cast no doubts over the good faith of the newsite who published it nor over Sklartz. However, whoever supplied the photos to Ynet newsite supplied among them this particular faked/doctored photo. I fail to understand why you do not feel "comfortable" calling it a fake when it is such an egregious one. Would you rather believe that it is possible to paint things over sunlight-cast shadows in real life? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have no total proof that it is a fake. Sure, we can say something is shopped, but maybe the lighting was bad, maybe it was a new paint job, maybe the vehicle is in piss poor shape, maybe there was a shade or some other thing we just don't know. We know it is a not a flag, but we know it is a marking. We do not know what circumstances the photo was taken, so everything now it just an academic exercise. The logo should be kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Academic exercise"? For heavens sake, just look at the picture. If it was not enough that it is the unique instance of that symbol ever appearing, it's rather obvious that it was painted or pasted over the original photograph. If this spurious symbol is to be kept here, at the very least it should be renamed to something else. In any case, I do not see why it should be kept, as it's not in use and does not represents anything meaningful or with any educational use, therefore is out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is a marking used on a vehicle, so it can be used as as that in articles about this conflict (so in scope, but everyone keeps removing the image because people think it is a flag, even though we both agree that it is not a flag of any kind). It is already named Arab Liberation Army.svg, so I think it does not need to be renamed at all (because you and others might think it is fake, me and others don't think so, and who knows what is floating around offline). But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Academic exercise"? For heavens sake, just look at the picture. If it was not enough that it is the unique instance of that symbol ever appearing, it's rather obvious that it was painted or pasted over the original photograph. If this spurious symbol is to be kept here, at the very least it should be renamed to something else. In any case, I do not see why it should be kept, as it's not in use and does not represents anything meaningful or with any educational use, therefore is out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have no total proof that it is a fake. Sure, we can say something is shopped, but maybe the lighting was bad, maybe it was a new paint job, maybe the vehicle is in piss poor shape, maybe there was a shade or some other thing we just don't know. We know it is a not a flag, but we know it is a marking. We do not know what circumstances the photo was taken, so everything now it just an academic exercise. The logo should be kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's see if I can be more clearer. I cast no doubts over the good faith of the newsite who published it nor over Sklartz. However, whoever supplied the photos to Ynet newsite supplied among them this particular faked/doctored photo. I fail to understand why you do not feel "comfortable" calling it a fake when it is such an egregious one. Would you rather believe that it is possible to paint things over sunlight-cast shadows in real life? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image captions can be wrong (just like with the Bundesarchiv). But until we know for sure this image is faked (like if we have the negatives to Sklartz) I don't feel comfortable calling this a fake (though it is a silly question to ask why an Israeli paper would fake an image, but there has been several instances with issues related to Israel that photos were doctored on both sides). Plus, as mentioned before, having "fake" images is something that we on the Commons. We do not need to follow any sort of NPOV requirement and many people have done images (logos, flags, maps, anything) that are faked. In this case, we know that a flag for the ALA is speculation, yet this is not named as a flag. This is just a graphic symbol from the images that are found. With the last DR, there was concerns about this being a flag (I would ask a person who is well versed in this topic, but he is deceased). I personally think sources within Syria and Israel should at least be looked it, and perhaps photographs, since we just can't go with what is just online. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never said Sklartz faked the picture (he died in 1994, by the way), even more as this seems to be some lame fake made by digital software rather recently, probably using as a base a legit photograph by Sklartz of the C15TA truck. However, there can be no doubt that it is faked, as the symbol covers the shadows of parts of the vehicle, defying the laws of physics. I'll rather believe my eyes than any source that would say that this photo with the symbol is legit. If the British Museum shows a picture of Moscow with the Kremlin and says it's Berlin 1933, what would you believe, the BM or your own eyes? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, when armies take over vehicles during combat, some armies will paint over the vehicles. If not giving it a new paint job, they will erase old markings and put new ones, so that can explain the white paint. Take a look at http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/sherman-76-02.html to show an example of what I am talking about. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just refound the link right as you were writing that. I have no reason to believe that Sklartz would have faked the image at all. We know he was in the area because he was awarded by King George with a British Empire Medal in 1937 and Sklartz was used before in history books for information about this time period. I see no reason why we should believe these photographs are photoshopped. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs came from an album of a certain Eliezer Sklartz (the complete article is here. That particular picture represents a Canadian C15TA of British production - you can see a nice picture of it here. The big shadow below certainly is from the high rear mirror mounted at the front of the vehicle (out of the picture), and the shadow above seems to derive from the mechanism used to hold the front cover, immensely deformed due to the Sun position. Both shadows are superimposed by this symbol, showing that the photo was doctored. The symbol is also in a whiter tonality, and does not show signs of wearing, as opposed to the rest of the picture. The detail in the dagger handle is also utterly quaint, looks like a 3d image painted in the truck. As for the truck itself, those models were left behind when the British left their former possessions and mandates, and were used both by the Zionists and by the Arabs, it's impossible to tell from this model to which army it belonged to, though one thing is certain: This rather awkward symbol was not originally in the photograph.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The handle of the knife in the photograph does not have the detail of the handle we have in our image. I will have to look at the website again to see where even these photographs come from, since the link I provided does not mention an author of the image, other than just All Rights Reserved. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Zscout370 has turned out a faked picture (and a bad fake at that). The symbol was digitally pasted over the original picture of the truck, covering shadows and all. This looks more and more like some obscure propaganda operation, and Commons is dully cooperating in that, unfortunately. If this has no credible source and is not in use it should be deleted as out of scope, it's not Commons role to serve as a whitewash for this kind of stuff.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The question is that it do not seem at all to be a "marking used on a vehicle", but rather a marking that some revisionist pasted over an historical picture of a vehicle to advance some obscure point. I wouldn't die if this thing remains here on Commons, though I still think it's out of scope. In any case, I've already advised about the fake "source" on the talk of the file, so people will use it at their own risk, in case it remains here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Zscout370 said: "But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy." - It's not in use, see my opening sentence. It's out of scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is still used on a Hebrew userpage, so still in scope, even if it is just for pure decoration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not decorating anything, and it's not even in an userpage. It's a tiny thumbnail placed by someone on the talk page of the uploader last October to notify him that his upload of that very image to Commons was successful. I don't believe that it qualifies as "in use".-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience as Commons admin, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If it does, it's an utterly stupid habit, I must say. How come something like "See, your file
was uploaded at Commons" qualifies as "in use"? It's impossible to get rid of garbage if such quaint interpretations of "in use" come to prevail.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ain't my rules. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are they written somewhere or is this more of an habit?-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use is what is written down. Yet, if I look at this from an admin point of view, it says files that could not realistically could be used at all on one or other Wikimedia projects. I see what you are getting at, but if I take this case and put it to the link I just showed, this does not meet it (it is not a LQ image, it has a realistic use and there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel). I am more of the symbolic guy (in a literal sense) because I usually get involved (or get asked about) fake flags and symbols. We know this is not a flag, the main reason for the first DR. Now since we know it is not a flag, but a marking/logo, we sidestepped the main issue of the first DR. The file name does not mention anything about a specific symbol, so I think rename is not needed. I think we just need more outside opinions either way, because the three of us should not really decide this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that more opinions are needed. However, I'm not willing to make this case into a true dispute in order to get them, and it can be revisited in the future in case the file is kept. I didn't understand, however, your affirmation: "there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel". This is not a representation of the C15TA armored vehicle (which would be very desirable, even with the fake symbol and all), but rather a reproduction of what seems to be a forgery made upon an historical photograph, reproducing only the forgery bit, unfortunately - if that was indeed a reproduction based on that photograph, that is, we don't know that, really, despite the link someone added to the image source quite recently.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of emblems of units or armies from this conflict. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's circular logic. What seems to be a doctored photo can't serve as source for a symbol of an army. Even more, the caption of the Ynet photo doesn't even clearly states that the symbol has anything to do with the Arab Liberation Army, it says something like "Armored rescue car (Qawukji)". All the rest is original research.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out. I am not a military buff, and when I focus on history and politics, it is not related towards Israeli issues (mostly towards Soviet and Japanese). My library at my school does not have much that I saw on Israel, but this is also final exam time for my classmates, so I am not sure what even is going to be there. I would try Google Books, but not sure exactly what can be found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's circular logic. What seems to be a doctored photo can't serve as source for a symbol of an army. Even more, the caption of the Ynet photo doesn't even clearly states that the symbol has anything to do with the Arab Liberation Army, it says something like "Armored rescue car (Qawukji)". All the rest is original research.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of emblems of units or armies from this conflict. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that more opinions are needed. However, I'm not willing to make this case into a true dispute in order to get them, and it can be revisited in the future in case the file is kept. I didn't understand, however, your affirmation: "there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel". This is not a representation of the C15TA armored vehicle (which would be very desirable, even with the fake symbol and all), but rather a reproduction of what seems to be a forgery made upon an historical photograph, reproducing only the forgery bit, unfortunately - if that was indeed a reproduction based on that photograph, that is, we don't know that, really, despite the link someone added to the image source quite recently.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use is what is written down. Yet, if I look at this from an admin point of view, it says files that could not realistically could be used at all on one or other Wikimedia projects. I see what you are getting at, but if I take this case and put it to the link I just showed, this does not meet it (it is not a LQ image, it has a realistic use and there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel). I am more of the symbolic guy (in a literal sense) because I usually get involved (or get asked about) fake flags and symbols. We know this is not a flag, the main reason for the first DR. Now since we know it is not a flag, but a marking/logo, we sidestepped the main issue of the first DR. The file name does not mention anything about a specific symbol, so I think rename is not needed. I think we just need more outside opinions either way, because the three of us should not really decide this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are they written somewhere or is this more of an habit?-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ain't my rules. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If it does, it's an utterly stupid habit, I must say. How come something like "See, your file
- In my experience as Commons admin, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not decorating anything, and it's not even in an userpage. It's a tiny thumbnail placed by someone on the talk page of the uploader last October to notify him that his upload of that very image to Commons was successful. I don't believe that it qualifies as "in use".-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out." - Yes, indeed, and doing that I believe I finally have found the source for this awkward mysterious symbol. Apparently it dates from 1977 during Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, and represents the deformed vision of the Israeli party of an original drawing from a Palestinian participant, where the dagger was initially a cross. See here and also here ("s they saw it, the symbol represented Israel (the Star of David), encircled by the Arab world (the crescent), with a dagger (the cross) piercing its heart.") The Israeli vision of the symbol was made into a case study, and it was probably from there that it migrated to the status of "Arab Liberation Party symbol". With those sources I wouldn't oppose to keeping the image there, but it would have to be renamed, of course.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, spot on Darwin. I think the DR could be closed, and this discussion could be moved to figure out what to call this image and allow for more research and time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here, again, though it's impossible to know what was the context in which the image appeared. You may close it and move the discussion to an appropriated place (I don't know what), but the image should indeed be renamed, as it's association with the ALA seems to be all but a parasitic one.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since I voted keep, I won't close it. I will find someone who can, or we can just have it sit here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby fig groves, alone and in groups, and tried to fire back...Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" -- Darwin Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
DarwIn -- we have whole categories of Category:User images, Category:User logos, Category:Coats of arms of users , etc. which are considered to be in scope mainly because they're used on a user page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- This image is not in use in an userpage, as has already been said, therefore that rule can't apply.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said userspace (and that does include talk pages). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I asked to a specialist of this period from wp:en to come and give his mind about this flag/logo. Let's not close the discussion before he can come and give his mind.
- You made a great research job. Many thanks for this. The fact that we find a fake picture with this logo digitalized in it is really appealing but sources that are provided (such as Morris) are reliable.
- @Zscout370 : we are not linked to NPoV on commons we are linked to reliable work of quality. If somebody would upload flag of different countries (X) with blatant mistakes or propaganda in these we would not agree they would be names "flag of X" or even "X"
- Noisetier (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am a specialist on flags and from what I can tell and find, this is not a flag, but just either a logo or vehicle marking. But when it comes to images of flags that, lets say, might not look great, this is where I come in and fix them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said userspace (and that does include talk pages). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Although source has been presented showing that the sign is a dagger in a star, this SVG file is not following the source, there are clear differences, see for example the distance between the star and the circle and the design/color of the grip of the dagger and that there is no line on the blade and the differences in the thickness of the lines of the star here:[10] and there are no sources supporting the colors used, and based on that it should be deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Colors can be fixed, and since it is an SVG file, I can do that myself. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not only colors, but several other inaccuracy's as I have pointed out above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am working on it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not only colors, but several other inaccuracy's as I have pointed out above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier: If you were referring to me as the expert, I am flattered :) Here are some pictures:
Further commentary: The rationale for deletion was that the image is a hoax, which it clearly is not. If there are specific problems with the image, they can be fixed, including transforming it from a flag into an emblem. High-quality SVGs should not be deleted because of minor problems. Therefore keep and fix if necessary. —Ynhockey (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Ynhockey.
- I agree with your conclusion.
- Anyway, I have other concerns. Darwin here above proved with 100% confidence (whatever Zac thinks) that the image he had found was a fake and I think the second one you scanned (the armoured car) is a fake too (in the book). Could you check carefully in your book and confirm or not that the emblem is painted on two sides/faces of the armoured car : one part is next to the door and a another part of the emblem is on the front side of the armoured car.
- Noisetier (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the second is clearly a fake, the vehicle bends but the symbol and the writing below remains straight. I don't know what's going on with this symbol, but there's clearly something very fishy here, with all those forgeries.In any case, every picture provided as "source" fails to show the symbol as it is described in the reliable sources, a dagger dripping-blood.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the camouflage painting tricked me on this one. I've identified the vehicle and it does not bend, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know the details of the images are not great, but I could not recall or seeing in them dripping any sort of blood, but I know the book sources says so. I got finals coming up, so I will fix this image, but I just request time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the camouflage painting tricked me on this one. I've identified the vehicle and it does not bend, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just clarifying one point here—both pictures I provided were scanned from a book published in 1950, which I have a copy of (original, not any kind of reprint). Therefore, the chance of it being fake is practically non-existent, and of course Photoshop didn't exist in 1950. As for the blood issue, the original caption for the image does not mention blood, which probably means that there's no blood (seems like it would be an important thing to note). —Ynhockey (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which is a bit strange, since both sources I mentioned above detailed that part. One refers to buses carrying Syrian troops passing by and displaying that symbol, the context of the other is two Israeli vehicles captured by the ALA and then recaptured by the Zionist forces, which were found painted with that symbol. Both mention the dripping blood dagger piercing a shield of David.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Ynhockey : faking could have arouse in 1950 (in the book from which you took this). Anyway, I think we don't have enough facts to claim it is a fake. That is just suprising that historians claim the intents of the Arab armies are unknown. I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one.
- @Darwin : indeed - I was troubled too but that was due to the camouflage. What follows is wp:or but I can understand that soldiers after seeing this emblem (with the dagger inside the Magen David) remember this as bleeding even if it didn't. That is why historians should always use documents. This picture is the one of an Otter. The ALA should not have had such vehicules so I assume this is one of the armoured cars that was captured by the ALA when it attacked the Yechiam convoy. Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there was any "symbol of Palestine" convenient for that purpose at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice -- however, what specific "symbol" did you have in mind? (There's none given on the article you linked to.) The 1917 Arab revolt flag certainly would not have been too practical as a monochrome armored-car emblem, and I'm not sure that there was any other "symbol of Palestine" in use by Arabs at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then why did you say "I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one." when you in fact didn't actually have any such specific symbol in mind? AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because I was talking about a flag. I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The darkroom techniques of the 1940s could easily fake a photo like this, but I don't see a compelling reason to suspect it is fake. The apparent disappearance of the shadow when it hits the white paint looks odd, but it doesn't prove forgery. The paint is shiny, so it reflects ambient light such as the light of the sky more than the body of the vehicle. This means that the shadow should appear weaker on the white than on the vehicle. As well as this, photographs of the period compressed extreme brightness ranges, so anything more than a certain level of brightness would come out pure white (similarly for pure black). The combination of these two things might erase the shadow. So the proof of forgery is not convincing. However, I'm less convinced about the ALA connection. If this was an official emblem, why do I not find it mentioned at all in the book and several academic papers that I have about the ALA? Also, the emblem does not match the description of Morris. More importantly than the lack of blood, the dagger is not stuck into the Magen David, but sits in front of it as if the star is holding the dagger rather than being threatened by it. Zero0000 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your observations. Indeed, I've already noticed the incongruence of the drawing with respect to the "piercing" part, though my gasp of the English language was not enough to understand if there really was a difference between "piercing" and what the drawing shows. Indeed, my first thought while looking at the drawing was that it looked quite a lot like a symbol that the Zionists would use themselves (if I well recall the IDF used swords in front of the shield of David, this one has a dagger).-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- How would either of you propose to visually represent the concept of "stabbing a star of David" by means of a design which is to be painted with white paint onto slightly-curving metal surfaces by people who do not necessarily have great artistic talents? The design under discussion doesn't have any fancy perspective tricks like a 1970's corporate logo, but it shows the dagger going into the center of the star of David and coming back out, in keeping with the traditional conventions of artistic interlacing (see the majority of images in Category:Knots in art and decoration. AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't overwrite files!
editI gave repeatedly a standard notice {{Dont overwrite}} to Zscout370 at his discussion page but he repeatedly removed it instead of answering it and respecting standard conventions. New work (a derivative version which is not only a minor, uncontroversial correction) should be uploaded allways under a new name. A decision about delete request about the original file should be indepentent on the fact whether there exist some derivative versions at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- As this stage, I suggest :
- we keep the new black version of Zscout in a new file with the name "Arab Liberation Army Emblem"
- we delete all the green versions.
- Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The green version was probably intended to look like white paint on on a background color chosen to blend into vegetation (which may have been the predominant use, judging from the photographs). It's only wrong if someone interprets it as a flag, or Islamic green, or something like that. AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The green version was of course a political choice and it must be removed. Noisetier (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that it wasn't intended to represent WW2-era tank paint and/or military uniform dark green? AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to be green, since those vehicles were generally brown to blend with the landscape colours (Palestine is not exactly la Provence française to use green as camouflage). Survival vehicles in museums of the region generally are brown or caki to reflect it's original use. As Noiseter, I also believe that the choice of green was rather political. In any case, the background colour should be changed into something more factual or at least more neutral, such as black/white.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos : what evidence do you have that it was intended to this ? None. The charge of the proof is to the one who wants to add something. Noisetier (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to be green, since those vehicles were generally brown to blend with the landscape colours (Palestine is not exactly la Provence française to use green as camouflage). Survival vehicles in museums of the region generally are brown or caki to reflect it's original use. As Noiseter, I also believe that the choice of green was rather political. In any case, the background colour should be changed into something more factual or at least more neutral, such as black/white.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
New image
editHave a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE1YUNF2LTE . Doesn't that look like a real dagger? Look at the shadow of the dagger handle. I think the vehicle has a small loop of metal there. A circle and Magen David had been painted around it. Now a dagger has been placed there. Does that explain why the dagger in the first photo looked 3-dimensional as someone commented? I bet that the painting is of Jewish origin. Zero0000 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that image is pretty much identical to the one in the vehicle which I presumed to be faked, and it sure looks like something three-dimensional,either the real thing or an elaborate artwork, not something one would expect to find out painted in haste in the doors of vehicles by troops in the middle of a war. But that TV spot is Palestinian, and I really do not understand what that image is doing there. :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- If some variant of the logo is faked (or hypothetical), the image should be described as faked or hypothetical, not deleted. Btw., Commons is not Wikipedia, discussions about historical problems and proofs of falsification or historical authenticity belong rather to Wikipedias or to discussion page of the file than here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- When we are trying to understand what this image is, and if it has a place here in Commons, those discussions belong here. It is yet to be clearly shown what this thing is, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Zero0000, if I follow you well, you make the hypothesis that the ALA militiamen fixed a dagger of the armoured car that they captured. Am I right ? I think this is in contradiction with the 1st picture given by Ynhockey where it is on a motorcycle.
- I am still convinced the 1st picture found by Darwin is a fake. I deduce this from the disparition of the shadow that we should find on the Magen David.
- Whatever, I suggest we remove the green color from the picture and that we rename this.
- Noisetier (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- When we are trying to understand what this image is, and if it has a place here in Commons, those discussions belong here. It is yet to be clearly shown what this thing is, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- If some variant of the logo is faked (or hypothetical), the image should be described as faked or hypothetical, not deleted. Btw., Commons is not Wikipedia, discussions about historical problems and proofs of falsification or historical authenticity belong rather to Wikipedias or to discussion page of the file than here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing this new image is on Palestinian TV because they consider it to be Zionist. I agree that the motorcycle picture complicates the issue. Obviously there is some story behind all of this that we did not yet uncover. 220.253.67.199 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please translate what the caption of the motorcycle picture says? My Arabic is very basic and doesn't allow for that, if no one here can translate it, perhaps I could fetch someone in the wiki-ar Village Pump.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's rather blurry... I recognize قي هذه towards the end.
-- AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The caption of the motorcycle picture says: «شعار مدرعات جيش الإنقاذ .. النجمة الصهيونية يطعنها خنجر عربي .. كما ترى في هذه الصورة». Literal translation: «The logo of the armored vehicles of Salvage Army [إنقاذ literally means salvage not liberation] .. the Zionist star is stabbed with an Arabic dagger .. as seen in this picture». For me it looks that the logo both in this and the other picture is of a superior quality compared to the newspaper photo overall. It looks superimposed over the 'original' picture by a non-professional: the logo is in one plane, it does not fold according to the armored vehicle nor according to the motorcycle. Well, the next photoshop-treated image will probably be better, thus hoax will be harder to detect :) --Abanima (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation! You mean that an Egyptian newspaper supposedly misprinted the name of the ALA? And such a detailed (and rather emotional) description in the caption for something so elusive as this logo, which seem to have been used very seldom, if at all? If it was fishy, it is now fishier. I also agree with your observations on the logo quality compared to the rest of the image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- My Arabic dictionary defines the word in question as "deliverance, salvation, saving, rescue; salvaging, recovery; relief". It's not the word most commonly equated with English "Liberation" since Nasser's day (which may have surprised Abanima), but the use of Nasserite terminology in 1948 would actually make things more suspicious, not less... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation! You mean that an Egyptian newspaper supposedly misprinted the name of the ALA? And such a detailed (and rather emotional) description in the caption for something so elusive as this logo, which seem to have been used very seldom, if at all? If it was fishy, it is now fishier. I also agree with your observations on the logo quality compared to the rest of the image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- The caption of the motorcycle picture says: «شعار مدرعات جيش الإنقاذ .. النجمة الصهيونية يطعنها خنجر عربي .. كما ترى في هذه الصورة». Literal translation: «The logo of the armored vehicles of Salvage Army [إنقاذ literally means salvage not liberation] .. the Zionist star is stabbed with an Arabic dagger .. as seen in this picture». For me it looks that the logo both in this and the other picture is of a superior quality compared to the newspaper photo overall. It looks superimposed over the 'original' picture by a non-professional: the logo is in one plane, it does not fold according to the armored vehicle nor according to the motorcycle. Well, the next photoshop-treated image will probably be better, thus hoax will be harder to detect :) --Abanima (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
_3.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_3.JPG){kind=link}
_3.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_GE2006.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- In any case, I think we're losing sight of our legitimate role here. It's generally not the place of people participating in Wikimedia Commons deletion discussions to become historical document sleuths, in cases where such sleuthing has no possible implications for copyright status. If this is a hoax, it's a hoax of many decades standing which has seen publication in a number of print sources -- it is definitely NOT a hoax on the part of the image uploader, or a meme recently originating on the Internet (things which would actually be relevant for a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion). Therefore its ultimate historical veracity is somewhat irrelevant here -- we provide the image, and it's then up to each individual language Wikipedia to weigh the historical evidence and decide whether or not to use the image on articles there. It's really not the role of Wikimedia Commons to come down on one side of legitimate historical controversies, or act as some kind of advance filter to pre-decide issues which should be settled on the various Wikipedias. REITERATE MY KEEP VOTE ABOVE -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would happily vote for keep as well, though I really would like to know what it is before doing that. I understand, however, that most probably it's not relevant to know what something is to decide that it should be kept here. Darwin Ahoy! 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept per discussion above. Even if this is a hoax, it is old enough that we may now want to discuss the hoax in an educational context. If the description or filename can be improved through further research, go for it. If the colours are in dispute, we should keep all variants of the files until we are confident that one is wrong. If the shape can be proved to be wrong, feel free to change it, but remember that some symbols are only roughly proscribed, and there may be many variants in exactly how it was expressed historically. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)