Commons:Deletion requests/IPC Images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=IPC Images|year=2025|month=January|day=09}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||IPC Images|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/IPC Images}} at the end of today's log.

IPC Images

[edit]


This file was initially tagged by LauraHale as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: IPC has prohibited any images at Paralympic venues from being commercially licensed. If this option was available, I'd be uploading images. It cannot be licensed commercially. It voids the media organization's condition of entry, and they could lose accreditation. The copyright laws were changed in Brazil to allow this for the Paralympic and Olympic Games. Only non-commercial use allowed for content. There are signs around the Paralympic venues saying images taken by photos are for editorial purposes only and cannot be used commercially. This makes this a clear copyright since it has a commercial license. Check the IPC copyright rules for the Games if you have any doubt that this is a violation. It makes it impossible to develop relationships with good copyright practices when Commons is housing copyvio after copyvio. Only images taken outside the Paralympic venue locations in space not controlled by OCOG allow commercial use. The second you're behind OCOG control, commercial use ends

Keep all This is a reply to all the images of the 2016 Paralympics opening ceremony. To the person who makes all the deletion request, please make one central discussion!
  • 1) Images that are tagged by the media organizations with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 are allowed to be uploaded to Commons. The media organization has chosen this licence, so it is their problem if they are not allowed to do that. Not the problem of Commons.
  • 2) Several images from no media organization are also requested from deletion. Pictures from supporters not from media organizations, like File:Rio 2016 Paralympics opening ceremony (29430402532).jpg and File:Rio 2016 paralympic cauldron (29505414506).jpg
  • 3) There are signs around the Paralympic venues saying images taken by photos are for editorial purposes only and cannot be used commercially.: There are sentces saying that all images including from spectators of the Olympic Games are not allowed to use commercially. So should ALL the images of the 2016 Summer Paralympics, 2016 Summer Olympics, and all the other Games be deleted?
Note I might be good to make a template for the Olympics/Paralympics like Template:Personality rights (something starting with: Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the conent shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses....). and add it to the pictures. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep They may violate "Term of Services", like some museums has about "No photographing the art". The "rules" of the event does not affect copyright. If a musuem has such a rule, but I photogrpahed a public domain painting and cropped it, the musuem could not force me to delete it on copyright reasons, but they may get me on "did not follow our rules" therefore in breach of (entrence) contract. The photographers may get in trouble, but as copyright goes, it has no impact. The person depticted may claim "personality rights violations" though. Josve05a (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Josve05a on this - our previous stance on museum photography and the like has been that the copyright holder is the photographer: no matter what sort of rules are required as condition of entry, they don't override the country's copyright laws. However if there is some actual change of the law in Brazil, that may be relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LauraHale's statement that the legislation of Brazil was changed isn't confirmed with any links to documentary sources. There is even no photos signs around the Paralympic venues to which Laura Hale refers. All commercial media use photos of opening of Paralympic Games in Rio. Therefore there are doubts in reliability an argument of the initiator of mass deletion and accusations in copyvio.--KSK (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agência Brasil, from where this pictures are coming, is a public communication outlet directly affiliated to the Brazilian government, through the Brazilian Communications Agency. These pictures are, therefore, being produced by a public agency, that in accordance to its own terms of use and the licensing note on the picture download webpage appear to be free and in accordance to what the Commons require. Whatever rule of the IOC is not superior to the actual law in Brazil; just to add, the place where this pictures were taken is also a public venue, on which the "rules" of the IOC are irrelevant (so it is different from the case of a private museum). Let me just add that the request --and success-- for having the federal agency EBC use a free license was an advocacy work of the user group I am part of in Brazil, in December 2015. I am happy to see this work has been extremely useful for providing good resources on writing on the Olympics and Paralympics. --Joalpe (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, it was very, very helpful. ABr provided tons of high-quality images, which not only improved the existing articles, but also stimulated writing new ones. Thanks a lot! Materialscientist (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
 Comment I searched around when I saw all the speedies - I found https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/150914091257517_2015_09 Photography and Filming Policy at Rio 2016 for NPCs and IFs.pdf, but nothing for Brazil Gov stance. The file name suggests that was written well before the games. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no policy by IPC about photographs taken by non participants and as some have mentioned it could not change copyright. Chico Venancio (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep These are not photos of IPC, the copyright belongs to the photographer. Even if there are IPC rules to take photos on the paralympic events. --Warko (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Platonides (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Comment It is not a question of "to keep" or "delete", it is a question of to get in contact with IPC (en-WP:IPC-board) and negotiate an agreement for photos with Wikimedia! There are wonderful and very useful photos of Agência Brasil for Wikipedia articles or Commons pages, really! I have enjoyed the new photos of the opening ceremony and added some to 2016 Summer Paralympics, where are other photos, some taken by our photographer LauraHale in Rio (outside). For the moment you're right: There is a licence, I agree to Joalpe and others. But LauraHale made a statement in Category talk:2016 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony, and a link to a PDF (the second): "Wikis" are mentioned as a part of social media there, and IPC says in the PDF: 'It is not permitted to commercialise, sell or otherwise distribute these photographs'. What is in a few years, when (hypothetical!) a new Brazil government closes Agência Brasil, install a new media-agency and delete the old website? Is Wikimedia then responsible for Copyright violations? And what is about photos of the next summer Paralympics in Tokyo or 2020 Olympics if we violate their rules now? There is not Brazil, but Laura or other photographers will be there: Kept outside completely for ever? Better: Negotiate now! (Rio IPC Photography Policy). I hope for the best! --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Given that the IOC is just as strict (Actually that's an understatement. They are even more strict), these same polices were likely in play during the Olympics too, but they are just fine print on the tickets. They do not convey a transfer of copyright to Rio 2016 Organizing Committee or the IPC, but are mainly house rules. The only copyright concern I had was regarding the cauldron because it actually contains non-utilitarian aspects this year and I doubted whether not being on public display like the other cauldron (per the precedent of Vancouver, it'll probably stay there permanently, meaning FOP does count). ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus. --Jcb (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/IPC_Images&oldid=206739784"