Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
According to the meta data (Reuters) and the missing image information this is most likely a copyright violation. --32X (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution makes it doubtful to me that this is own work. russavia (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete: here is the unretouched original → all rights reserved. --El Grafo (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Good enough for me to close this and speedy delete it as a copyvio russavia (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Found often in the web (http://www.fotolog.com/1bsodetuboca/9465727/), original author unclear. Funfood ␌ 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As a hoax, it falls outside of Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As a hoax, it falls outside of Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As a hoax, it falls outside of Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As a hoax, it falls outside of Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As a hoax, it falls outside of Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Closed by Fastily as out of scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image clearly establishes copyright status. Specifically mentions the copyright owner on 2007. Alexf (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: "All rights reserved" at the flickr source, and all other signs of non-free image. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality. Related to hoax article on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakynese language TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a professional/PR image, dubious of claim of uploader own-work and CC licensing (uploader history of misunderstanding of image-licensing and acceptability on commons) DMacks (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Most of uploaded by user files deleted as copyvio. Art-top (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User is part of a kk.wp workshop who copied free content articles to kk.wp, but who did a terrible job with illustrating the articles with unfree, stolen photos. In this case: this (photo 2/2) is the source Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
only use is for advertising this site on en.wp DMacks (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused bad quality photo, no details of subject Chesdovi (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
badly positioned image Chesdovi (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: scope, unused Denniss (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
useless unused image Chesdovi (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of 2006 sculpture in USA GrapedApe (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of sculpture. No FOP in USA. GrapedApe (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Took a pretty detailed look and followed this handy copyright flowchart so everyone can follow along: It was unveiled/published after 1/1/1923 so we go to the next step. It was published before 1978. It was Published before 1950. Was copyright renewed? Here's where the copyright fails--I reviewed all the registered copyrights involving sculptures (please note: pre-78 copyrights require going through this mass of documents, and that archive.org is where the US federal copyright site points users to go) and while I did find that USC filed a copyright for the "Trojan Head" (a 2D image based off the statue's head and used as a trademarked logo in non-athletic contexts; yes something can be both trademarked and copyrighted), there was no record of the Trojan Shrine, a Trojan statue, etc (in fact I found the other copyright by just searching "Trojan"). Thus, without registration (or renewal) at this stage of copyright law in the US, the statue falls into the public domain (but not the head logo, as seen in the earlier link). As an added bonus, nowhere on the shrine is there notice of copyright. --Bobak (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
File is a duplicate of file:Leucosidea sericea00 (1).jpg Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown status. Art-top (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo with dubious value. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 1.jpg
[edit]Text only can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 2.jpg
[edit]Text only can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 3.jpg
[edit]Text only can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. - “Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts - Page 4.jpg
[edit]Text only can be written to some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No proof on their website that the maps are in the public domain, and no OTRS ticket logged to verify the supposed public-domain status of KDOT's maps. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We need an OTRS license, not an uploader's statement. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
just a scan of copyrighted book, no evidence of permission rubin16 (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Source website doesn't exist, no evidence in the web that the shown tablet PC ever existed. Funfood ␌ 07:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The author of this drawing is apparently Fritz Gottfried Kirchbach who died in 1942 (see: http://www.museen-sh.de/ml/digi_einzBild.php?pi=146_56-1996&digiID=200.6886614&page=1&action=vonsuche&r=2) . This means that this and other images of him need to be deleted because the author has died 70 years ago BUT we are not yet in 2013 (the year after). But please put the image in Category:Undelete in 2013. ALE! ¿…? 09:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Redtigerxyz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof of date or the subject or the artists in the source. Sreejith K (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Redtigerxyz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof of date or the subject or the artists in the source. Great farmer (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It looks old, the uploader dates it to 1761. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
no proof of copyright, may be copyrighted Great farmer (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I understand Indian law (I am not a lawyer), this should be covered under freedom of panorama. I have added the appropriate template ({{FoP}}) to it. Hope this is enough to clarify its copyright status :) Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FOP in India covers 3D works, but not paintings. This image is, therefore, a DW of the painting and since the building was built in 1982, it is still under copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Who is the painter of this image? Is he already more than 70 years dead? ALE! ¿…? 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Artist is R. Ayoub and has consented to upload of photo of painting
COM:FOP#United Kingdom. 84.61.167.13 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- This matter has already been discussed Commons:Deletion_requests/Pub_signs_in_England_depicting_trains Oxyman (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
no permission to publish 109.195.17.254 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
i think he is not its author Great farmer (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
For change the name and version Alex972 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only logo of corporation with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a picture. No indication on who the original photographer is and what license it is under. Badzil (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a picture. No indication on who the original photographer is and what license it is under. Badzil (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a picture. No indication on who the original photographer is and what license it is under. Badzil (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private picture - out of project scope. Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Mala calidad Withoutmessage (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not made by the uploader, and logo probably too complex to qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. InverseHypercube 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unusable. Unidentifiable. Personal art photo, out of scope. P199 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Too tiny to be of any use! P199 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Denniss FASTILY (TALK) 04:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If the Dominican coat of arms has been changed, it should be updated on File:Coat of arms of the Dominican Republic.svg, not uploaded separately. Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bobsagget89 as Speedy (this is not charlie buhler) FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - bad faith speedy tag by someone trying to install his copyvio images. Searchin the net resulted in images looking very similar. --Denniss (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Denniss PierreSelim (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No scope, useless. Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want upload this file any more, and I have more Quartly file(File:Korail Emu 351000 3rd.jpg) DangSunM (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
this is a duplicate of File:Schülerzahlen Luitpold Gymnasium Wasserburg am Inn.jpg -- Webmaster LGW (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The updated coat of arms should be added to our existing File:Flag of the Dominican Republic.svg, not uploaded separetly. Fry1989 eh? 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No source specified Vssun (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps he might have developed the file.There maybe possibility 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Images (most with bad quality), whose educational value is questionable. Probably uploaded as advertising, see en:User:Zaugme, pt:Usuário(a) Discussão:Zaugme.
Art-top (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Most are watermarked, none seems to be the uploader's own work
- File:Aéroport international de Tianjin Binhai 3.jpg
- File:Aéroport international de Tianjin Binhai.jpg
- File:Le bus ligne 518 aux BINHAI.jpg
- File:Le bus ligne 370 aux BINHAI.jpg
- File:Le bus ligne 842 à la ville centrale TIENTSIN.jpg
- File:Le bus ligne 47 à la ville centrale TIENTSIN.png
- File:Le bus ligne 632 à la ville centrale TIENTSIN.jpg
- File:Le bus ligne 5 à la ville centrale TIENTSIN.jpg
- File:Ligne 3 metro de tianjin.png
- File:Ligne 2 du métro de Tianjin.png
- File:Tram retraite en tianjin.jpg
- File:Tramway Translohr T1 de TIENTSIN.jpg
- File:Ligne B1 TIENTSIN.jpg
- File:Tientsin Riviere de mer.jpg
Zolo (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Nicolmiller
[edit]- File:Hide-belly-fat.jpeg → [1]
- File:About-losing-belly-fat.jpg → [2]
- File:Menopause-and-belly-fat.jpg → [3]
- File:Lose-belly-fat-quickly.jpg → [4]
All those files were taken from www.howlosebellyfat.com (see links above), the footer says © All Rights Reserved 2012. If the claim of Own work is true, we need a Commons:Permission via OTRS. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Its stockphotography used for promotion. Not only by Howlosebellyfat but by hundreds of companies and websites as a similiarity search shows. Stock photography, e.g. [5], can not be published under a free license by someone who only obtained a non-transferable license. Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Ortamir
[edit]- File:Or Tamir.jpg
- File:OrTamir.jpg
- File:OrTamir 2.jpg
- File:OrTamir 1.jpg
- File:Or Tamir Signature.png
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 13.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 19.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 18.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 17.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 16.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 15.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 14.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 12.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 11.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 10.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 9.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 8.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 7.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 6.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 5.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 4.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 3.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 2.JPG
- File:Or Tamir - Formula 1.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 24.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 23.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 22.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 21.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 20.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 19.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 18.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 17.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 16.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 15.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 14.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 12.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 11.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 10.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 9.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 8.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 7.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 5.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 6.JPG
- File:Or Tamir 1.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 3.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 2.jpg
- File:Or Tamir 4.jpg
Out of project scope: a private photo album. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- --// Chesdovi (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted additionally that it's hard to believe that the pictures are the uploader's own work, as stated: evidently, the pictures were not taken by the "model" himself, while the "model" is their sole uploader, and no evidence of the photographer's consent has been indicated. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- --// Chesdovi (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one, per P199. Deleted the balance as out of scope and without permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Images by User:Alcides86
[edit]- File:Ram Kishore Shukla1.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla11.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla13.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla5.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla8.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla2.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla6.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla10.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla3.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla9.jpg
- File:Ram Kishore Shukla4.jpg
Incorrect source information. The user has explained at my talk page on En Wikipedia that he took these images from family albums and does not know who actually took them. (He is User:Ballisticizer now, having lost his password to his former account.) As he possesses the images, but not the copyright, he does not have standing to license them. He has an admirable passion for documenting his relative's life, but I'm afraid it has already pushed him into some questionable practices with respect to our policies, as here, where he writes that he faked the date of publication of his own writing in order to be able to cite it as a reliable source. Even if he provides more complete source information, I worry that he may be similarly more motivated by a desire to see the material on the project than accuracy. He has already speculated on my user talk page that the photographer of these images "may be" an assistant of his grandfather's or a maternal relative. He doesn't seem to have any real information himself. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Boss Mabby (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subhrajit behera (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:598939 315565011863375 1432708592 a.jpg
- File:388124 201411333278744 629656325 n - Copy.jpg
- File:378994 196034440483100 492414102 n - Copym.jpg
- File:Ffff311258 157098387710039 906340830 n.jpg
- File:311258 157098387710039 906340830 ajit.jpg
- File:485319 282480111838532 68237629 njit.jpg
- File:Subhjit417239 234218429998034 831206505.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Paintings uploaded by Sara-Paceni (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art of some kind. Painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. Also may be out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:C hal jordan.jpg
- File:64-p cocacOLA Joe.jpg
- File:Flahhhh oder.jpg
- File:Cartoon02.jpg
- File:Camp03.jpg
- File:Lapiz26.jpg
- File:Bosquejos1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Photos uploaded by Sara-Paceni (talk · contribs)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Joel Montes.B&N Argentina.jpg
- File:Joel Montes Lopez.Sepia 200000.jpg
- File:Joel Montes Lopez 20000 B&N.jpg
- File:B.H finalizado Italia.jpg
- File:Dj10.jpg
- File:Book2009Jpg.jpg
- File:Bookk2010.jpg
- File:BOOk20100.jpg
- File:Book2010.jpg
- File:Joel Montes Lopez. Leyendas 2005 Rosario, Argentina.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, different cameras.
- File:Girik.JPG
- File:DS mama mia.JPG
- File:DS mnm.JPG
- File:Micki mouse.JPG
- File:Abraham Lincolnq.JPG
- File:Central park, NY.JPG
- File:Homeless.JPG
- File:Vicksburga.JPG
- File:Natchez Trace Parkway 1.JPG
- File:A Statue of New Orleans 3.JPG
- File:A Statue of New Orleans.JPG
- File:A Statue of New Orleans 2.JPG
- File:New Orl.JPG
- File:Bill GGates.JPG
- File:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.JPG
- File:James Smithson.JPG
- File:D Morocco.JPG
- File:Moon car.JPG
- File:Kolaa.JPG
- File:Cross ctg.JPG
- File:গরু.JPG
- File:SQI.JPG
- File:Emma 1849.JPG
- File:War Cemetery, Chittagong.JPG
- File:Statue of Liberty,NY.JPG
- File:Nilachol Rest House.JPG
- File:Nilachol Rest House,.JPG
- File:War Cemetry, Chittagong.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Codfillets (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Kuští.jpg
- File:Šiva.jpg
- File:Angampora.jpg
- File:Kaloň dlouhonosý.jpg
- File:Giorgi Markov.jpg
- File:Horní Lipka.jpg
- File:Pitárné.jpg
- File:Bothati.jpg
- File:Malyutham.jpg
- File:Tang-ta.jpg
- File:Kuttu varisai.jpg
- File:Aki kiti.jpg
- File:Silambam.jpg
- File:Guru Hargobind.jpg
- File:Kalarippajattu.jpg
- File:Mukhna.gif
- File:Images.jpg.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. Yann (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
- File:259 баксов.JPG
- File:567рриа и.JPG
- File:Женя и Атос.jpg
- File:Сынок.jpg
- File:Копия PICT0996.JPG
- File:C938d1e207aff662726de0b24c4d8dd5.jpg
- File:Изображение 107гшщ.jpg
Art-top (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: IMages are of an identifiable child in Russia. To keep them, we would need permission from a parent or guardian, see COM:IDENT . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Brest 2012 BD
[edit]- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (5).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (6).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (7).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (8).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (9).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (10).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (11).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (12).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (13).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (14).JPG
- File:Brest2012 BD et mer (15).JPG
Pictures of art by living authors. Not publishable under Creative Commons. --Badzil (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused, promo photos - out of project scope.
- File:הסבר - תא צילום לאירועים VIPix.jpg
- File:דוגמא לתמונה - תא צילום ליום הולדת - VIPix.jpg
- File:דוגמא לתמונה - תא צילום לאירוע חברה - VIPix.jpg
- File:דוגמא לתמונה - תא צילום לבר מצווה - VIPix.jpg
- File:דוגמא לתמונה - תא צילום לחתונה - VIPix.jpg
Art-top (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private images (photos and logos) - out of project scope. Low resolution photos without exif - doubtful authorship. Probably promo upload.
- File:Роман Николаевич Шамис.jpg
- File:Лукиян Андрей Михайлович.jpg
- File:Электронное Облако 2010.jpg
- File:Второй логотип - 2005 и по сей день.jpg
- File:Первый логотип -2003.jpg
- File:Первое выступление - бар манхеттен 2003.jpg
- File:Электронное Облако 2003.jpg
- File:Эл Облако.jpg
- File:ЭО 2005.jpg
- File:ЭО.jpg
- File:Электронное Облако (2010).jpg
- File:Электронное Облако.jpg
Art-top (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Татьяна Мартынова (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos, poor description - out of project scope.
- File:Популяризация краеведческой литературы.JPG
- File:С книжкой под мышкой.JPG
- File:Урок истории в библиотеке.JPG
- File:Кружок «Интернешка»..JPG
- File:Выставка символов Украины.JPG
- File:Читатели библиотеки.JPG
Art-top (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Replaced with superior SVG file. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe we delete things just because there's an SVG version. We link to it yes, but don't delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As Mattbuck says, being replaced by an SVG is no reason to delete. —Angr 07:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Date is incorrect. Depicted person died in 1933. Hence unlikely to be Own work. Leyo 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is the only upload of an unexperienced user, Undine Schaper. It appears to be a family photo and she may be the current right holder (or at least ask him). Therefore, better ask her and wait for an answer before deletion. --Bjs (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS pending --Bjs (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS pending --Bjs (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear that {{PD-Canada}} applies. The date appears to be the creation date, so we don't know whether point 1 applies (we need the publication date). Point 2 would apply if we knew it wasn't subject to Crown copyright, but it appears that it is. (NB - same issue of taking date of creation as date of publication affects most files in Category:Historical roads in Ontario, and maybe many more PD-Canada files.) Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- If a photo is taken by the government, and available for inspection to the general public (via freedom of information laws or something similar), wouldn't that be published? I'd lean
- If it can help (I'm not sure if it does), the relevant definition of "publication" in the Canadian Copyright Act, in its section 2.2, is "making copies of a work available to the public". Of course, this displaces the question to what is the exact meaning of "making copies available to the public". To take an optimistic interpretation, it might mean, as you suggested above, that the work is published when its copyright owner makes it available for inspection to the public (with or without a possibility to obtain reproductions?). If such availability did not occur at a previous time, perhaps it might be assumed that it occurs at least when the material becomes available at an archiving service open to the public, after the material has been transferred there by its copyright owner. This would displace the question again to knowing the year when the material became available at the archive. The date of the transfer is often documented in the archive notices, so it can be possible in many cases to know that date. About the Cameron lake photo, is the year of its transfer known, and, if so, and in the absence of more information, could it be considered the year of publication? However, that would probably not help much, because it is likely that the archiving occurred in the recent decades, and the archiving date may still miss the condition "published before 1962" (50 years) to be in the public domain in Canada, and it would be even more likely to miss the condition "published before 1946" (50 years before the URAA date) to be in the public domain in the United States. It is always a problem when archives do not document the first publication date of Crown photographs. To their defense, that's probably because they themselves don't know that information. I would be very happy if we could find a way to consider that photographs like this are in the public domain. I even think I wouldn't object if Commons simply decided that, in the case of Crown photographs, the year of creation, if known, would be assumed, by default, to be also the year of publication, unless there is some information or at least some good reason to believe that the publication year is different. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The URAA date does not apply to crown copyright. Full stop! Crown copyright is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXPLICITLY RELEASING ITS CONTENT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF 50 YEARS. - Floydian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A provision in a law of the federal Parliament of Canada about the duration of copyright in Canada can certainly not be interpreted as being a decision by the government of the province of Ontario to release the rights it has in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright is a single law that applies to both federal and provincial governments, so the rules apply the same to both. I can provide an email from the senior copyright advisor of Ontario (Carolyn Grey) to back this up. The Crown Copyright Act states that after 50 years, material becomes public domain, not after 50 years crown copyright expires. Nobody, including the almighty United States, can turn around and say "Well we've extended the copyright per URAA". No. The copyright expires, material becomes public domain worldwide, as per the conditions set out by the copyright holder. - Floydian (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- A provision in a law of the federal Parliament of Canada about the duration of copyright in Canada can certainly not be interpreted as being a decision by the government of the province of Ontario to release the rights it has in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The URAA date does not apply to crown copyright. Full stop! Crown copyright is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXPLICITLY RELEASING ITS CONTENT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF 50 YEARS. - Floydian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see FOI being relevant to publication. Even if there was an FOI at the time, and even if the photo was covered in theory, you never know whether an FOI exemption will be applied until you ask. Besides, half the time with FOI you don't know what's available to ask for it; if you don't know the photo exists to ask for it, I don't see how it can possibly be considered "published". Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it can help (I'm not sure if it does), the relevant definition of "publication" in the Canadian Copyright Act, in its section 2.2, is "making copies of a work available to the public". Of course, this displaces the question to what is the exact meaning of "making copies available to the public". To take an optimistic interpretation, it might mean, as you suggested above, that the work is published when its copyright owner makes it available for inspection to the public (with or without a possibility to obtain reproductions?). If such availability did not occur at a previous time, perhaps it might be assumed that it occurs at least when the material becomes available at an archiving service open to the public, after the material has been transferred there by its copyright owner. This would displace the question again to knowing the year when the material became available at the archive. The date of the transfer is often documented in the archive notices, so it can be possible in many cases to know that date. About the Cameron lake photo, is the year of its transfer known, and, if so, and in the absence of more information, could it be considered the year of publication? However, that would probably not help much, because it is likely that the archiving occurred in the recent decades, and the archiving date may still miss the condition "published before 1962" (50 years) to be in the public domain in Canada, and it would be even more likely to miss the condition "published before 1946" (50 years before the URAA date) to be in the public domain in the United States. It is always a problem when archives do not document the first publication date of Crown photographs. To their defense, that's probably because they themselves don't know that information. I would be very happy if we could find a way to consider that photographs like this are in the public domain. I even think I wouldn't object if Commons simply decided that, in the case of Crown photographs, the year of creation, if known, would be assumed, by default, to be also the year of publication, unless there is some information or at least some good reason to believe that the publication year is different. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The date would be based on what appears on the archive record, which I'd assume to be the publication date. Irregardless, the photo would have been published within a year of being taken (in the annual report) if it was ever published. Canadian government content up to 1961 is public domain, so this would be a rather upsetting and overzealous application of the precautionary principle. One of the principal reasons I continue to upload my content to en.wiki with keep local tags. - Floydian (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to assume the archive record date is the publication date; it is far more natural, without any further information, to take it as creation date. And if you don't know it was published earlier, then per COM:PRP we need to take the earliest date we're sure of (per Asclepias above, the archival date). There is nothing overzealous here - you can't go around assuming things were published without some evidence to support the assumption. Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then delete the friggen photo as a copyvio and delete my Commons account. I'm tired of this shitfest, giving photographers hell, giving archivists hell, giving people that want to... you know... document human history, hell. Pick pick pick, maybe 1 in 100,000 will actually be an actionable copyright infringement. We can't assume the date on the photo is the publication date nor that it was published within the first 25 years after it was made, but we can assume it is the creation date and that the photo was then published after 1961 to renew the copyright on it. I'll happily delete the several hundred photos that I have uploaded from the Department of Highways fonds, go to the library today to grab a citation for the publication in annual reports, and upload all of them to en.wiki where they will no longer be an issue. Works for me, gets more of the content I've uploaded off this barge. - Floydian (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the basic concept of COM:PRP: it is not to assume that the file is in copyright, it is to require a reasonable standard of evidence that the file is not (if it's claimed to be PD, as here). For instance, if you show that the relevant archives believe the date given to be the publication date and not the creation date, that would do as evidence. We can't go around making assumptions that may get us and re-users into legal trouble if the assumptions are not reasonable. It is not reasonable, absent further evidence, to assume that every government photo found in an archive was published within 25 years of creation - it was probably either published soon after creation (date?), or only when transferred to the archive (date?). I doubt English Wikipedia will be any happier making the assumption you want to make, BTW, but YMMW. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do understand it, especially that big honker at the beginning: "in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.; clearly the best of my semi-expertise knowledge is not good enough, nor is a good faith assumption (there's that word again) being made that the photo was published within a year of its creation as opposed to lying in a box for years before some official saw it and said "Hey these should be in an archive". In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. This is the reason why I've stopped uploading photos here (along with the broken OTRS system that harasses the people kind enough to donate their materials) and why I've gone through all the hoops to see to it that they never get uploaded to this hellhole. Yes, Wikipedia is far more relaxed, and worst comes to worst I can tag FUR on photos that are picked out by volunteers as perhaps, possibly, maybe, not being public domain because they weren't "published" until they were donated 40 years after being created. Do we have even a single example of a copyright holder pursuing a reuser of a photo from an archive because they believed the work to be public domain? Anywhere in the world? Thought not. Precautionary OCD principle, in my personal opinion. - Floydian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. - I find that slightly hard to believe (assuming you mean everything that got developed got published), but if you can back that up, that would help. Do we have even a single example.... is precisely covered by COM:PRP. BTW, "good faith" applies to intention, not facts. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was the end of the depression, and it was the middle of the war. Money did not get spent, even a cent, unless it was to be used for a worthy purpose. They halted construction of roads throughout the province, yet you are so precautionary that you're willing to believe they sent guys out to take pretty pictures, then developed them to stick them in a box and seal them in cold-storage? I don't see any facts from you, just precautionary principles being overextended to cover the fine strings of legality. I'm an editor, not a lawyer, so I suppose that's why I stand out at Commons. Delete, so I can go to the library when I next get a chance, get the page number it appears on, reupload it to en.wiki as the public domain image that it is, and never upload another file here. Problem solved. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I find it rather amusing that a discussion ongoing at the talk page of the policy you keep pointing out is getting at the legality creep that defines this nomination, and really this entire project. - Floydian (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page discussion, insofar as it's relevant, is about interpretation. This is different than the issue here, which is a lack of evidence as to fact (publication date). Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I find it rather amusing that a discussion ongoing at the talk page of the policy you keep pointing out is getting at the legality creep that defines this nomination, and really this entire project. - Floydian (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was the end of the depression, and it was the middle of the war. Money did not get spent, even a cent, unless it was to be used for a worthy purpose. They halted construction of roads throughout the province, yet you are so precautionary that you're willing to believe they sent guys out to take pretty pictures, then developed them to stick them in a box and seal them in cold-storage? I don't see any facts from you, just precautionary principles being overextended to cover the fine strings of legality. I'm an editor, not a lawyer, so I suppose that's why I stand out at Commons. Delete, so I can go to the library when I next get a chance, get the page number it appears on, reupload it to en.wiki as the public domain image that it is, and never upload another file here. Problem solved. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. - I find that slightly hard to believe (assuming you mean everything that got developed got published), but if you can back that up, that would help. Do we have even a single example.... is precisely covered by COM:PRP. BTW, "good faith" applies to intention, not facts. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do understand it, especially that big honker at the beginning: "in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.; clearly the best of my semi-expertise knowledge is not good enough, nor is a good faith assumption (there's that word again) being made that the photo was published within a year of its creation as opposed to lying in a box for years before some official saw it and said "Hey these should be in an archive". In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. This is the reason why I've stopped uploading photos here (along with the broken OTRS system that harasses the people kind enough to donate their materials) and why I've gone through all the hoops to see to it that they never get uploaded to this hellhole. Yes, Wikipedia is far more relaxed, and worst comes to worst I can tag FUR on photos that are picked out by volunteers as perhaps, possibly, maybe, not being public domain because they weren't "published" until they were donated 40 years after being created. Do we have even a single example of a copyright holder pursuing a reuser of a photo from an archive because they believed the work to be public domain? Anywhere in the world? Thought not. Precautionary OCD principle, in my personal opinion. - Floydian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the basic concept of COM:PRP: it is not to assume that the file is in copyright, it is to require a reasonable standard of evidence that the file is not (if it's claimed to be PD, as here). For instance, if you show that the relevant archives believe the date given to be the publication date and not the creation date, that would do as evidence. We can't go around making assumptions that may get us and re-users into legal trouble if the assumptions are not reasonable. It is not reasonable, absent further evidence, to assume that every government photo found in an archive was published within 25 years of creation - it was probably either published soon after creation (date?), or only when transferred to the archive (date?). I doubt English Wikipedia will be any happier making the assumption you want to make, BTW, but YMMW. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then delete the friggen photo as a copyvio and delete my Commons account. I'm tired of this shitfest, giving photographers hell, giving archivists hell, giving people that want to... you know... document human history, hell. Pick pick pick, maybe 1 in 100,000 will actually be an actionable copyright infringement. We can't assume the date on the photo is the publication date nor that it was published within the first 25 years after it was made, but we can assume it is the creation date and that the photo was then published after 1961 to renew the copyright on it. I'll happily delete the several hundred photos that I have uploaded from the Department of Highways fonds, go to the library today to grab a citation for the publication in annual reports, and upload all of them to en.wiki where they will no longer be an issue. Works for me, gets more of the content I've uploaded off this barge. - Floydian (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to assume the archive record date is the publication date; it is far more natural, without any further information, to take it as creation date. And if you don't know it was published earlier, then per COM:PRP we need to take the earliest date we're sure of (per Asclepias above, the archival date). There is nothing overzealous here - you can't go around assuming things were published without some evidence to support the assumption. Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem: Commons:L#Canada says all photos taken before 1949 are PD. {{PD-Canada}} disagrees, saying that only applies to non-Crown Copyright (and for Crown Copyright, requires 50 years after publication). Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend not to rely on Commons for legal advice. One page says this, another says that. CIPO deals with copyright and intellectual rights.[6] Bill C-32, which came into effect on January 1, 1999, changed the 50 years after creation rule to 50 years after death of the author. All non-crown Canadian-created materials created prior to that are public domain. Crown copyright has expired to PD on all images published before December 31, 1961. I wasn't aware of the publication rule for crown copyright before today, but its resting on the long shot that this image was not published for 25 years before being dug up and sent to an archive one day. I've gone through too many annual reports to be able to say with certainty that this appears in the report published March 31, 1941, but those are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise (ie historical collection of photos donated in 1971)... but I hardly see how donating that dusty box in the cold storage office constitutes publication. - Floydian (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- those [annual report photos] are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise - if it weren't for the qualifer "tend to" that would be getting us somewhere. Is there anything in writing on the subject (ideally on a website...)? Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I've looked through the entire archive, so I can't make such a certain statement that applies to the entire collection. I can only base it on the thousands of photos that I have personally seen. I guess that's not precautionary enough. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- So, if we strip away your attitude, you're saying that you've seen thousands of photos in the archive, and they were all photos from annual reports? (Annual reports of what entity? You never said.) That's a significant factual claim we can maybe work with. Putting it together with what you said before, we can assume that (i) the photos of this type were all published in annual reports of entity X (ii) the photos were published within a year of creation (the date given being the creation date). Is that what you're saying? If so, then we can construct a source template for all photos of this type, which will justify the application of the PD-Canada tag for all of them. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could work with this. If the template included year and page numbers, it would allow me to verify uploads by others as well. In the case of my uploads, they are all from the Ontario Department of Highways and a significant portion (it would be difficult for me to determine which exactly) are photographs I've taken of the annual report. - Floydian (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, how about {{Ontario Department of Highways annual report}}? If you don't know the year of publication, you can give an estimate, like "c. 1941". We need 50 years before 1996 (to escape URAA), so then images before 1946 will be OK - or say before 1944 if we're estimating publication to be a year or two after creation. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright isn't affected by URAA. See en:Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Copyright_confusion_on_the_Parliament_of_Canada_web_site. Otherwise, looks good! - Floydian (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good; I put a note at Template_talk:PD-Canada#Crown_Copyright_and_URAA. Then images before 1962 will be OK with definite publication year, and before 1960 for estimated publication. Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. I won't be at the library likely until September (once school resumes), but I'll make a mental note to look for these images and enter edition and page numbers. Thank you for putting up with my rather abrasive approach to commons. I've had a lot of trouble over the years with some of the systems in place here, so its a nice change of pace. - Floydian (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's OK; I know these issues can be very frustrating. I'm glad we were able to resolve this one with a Keep outcome. Rd232 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. I won't be at the library likely until September (once school resumes), but I'll make a mental note to look for these images and enter edition and page numbers. Thank you for putting up with my rather abrasive approach to commons. I've had a lot of trouble over the years with some of the systems in place here, so its a nice change of pace. - Floydian (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good; I put a note at Template_talk:PD-Canada#Crown_Copyright_and_URAA. Then images before 1962 will be OK with definite publication year, and before 1960 for estimated publication. Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright isn't affected by URAA. See en:Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Copyright_confusion_on_the_Parliament_of_Canada_web_site. Otherwise, looks good! - Floydian (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, how about {{Ontario Department of Highways annual report}}? If you don't know the year of publication, you can give an estimate, like "c. 1941". We need 50 years before 1996 (to escape URAA), so then images before 1946 will be OK - or say before 1944 if we're estimating publication to be a year or two after creation. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could work with this. If the template included year and page numbers, it would allow me to verify uploads by others as well. In the case of my uploads, they are all from the Ontario Department of Highways and a significant portion (it would be difficult for me to determine which exactly) are photographs I've taken of the annual report. - Floydian (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, if we strip away your attitude, you're saying that you've seen thousands of photos in the archive, and they were all photos from annual reports? (Annual reports of what entity? You never said.) That's a significant factual claim we can maybe work with. Putting it together with what you said before, we can assume that (i) the photos of this type were all published in annual reports of entity X (ii) the photos were published within a year of creation (the date given being the creation date). Is that what you're saying? If so, then we can construct a source template for all photos of this type, which will justify the application of the PD-Canada tag for all of them. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I've looked through the entire archive, so I can't make such a certain statement that applies to the entire collection. I can only base it on the thousands of photos that I have personally seen. I guess that's not precautionary enough. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- those [annual report photos] are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise - if it weren't for the qualifer "tend to" that would be getting us somewhere. Is there anything in writing on the subject (ideally on a website...)? Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend not to rely on Commons for legal advice. One page says this, another says that. CIPO deals with copyright and intellectual rights.[6] Bill C-32, which came into effect on January 1, 1999, changed the 50 years after creation rule to 50 years after death of the author. All non-crown Canadian-created materials created prior to that are public domain. Crown copyright has expired to PD on all images published before December 31, 1961. I wasn't aware of the publication rule for crown copyright before today, but its resting on the long shot that this image was not published for 25 years before being dug up and sent to an archive one day. I've gone through too many annual reports to be able to say with certainty that this appears in the report published March 31, 1941, but those are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise (ie historical collection of photos donated in 1971)... but I hardly see how donating that dusty box in the cold storage office constitutes publication. - Floydian (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The section Commons:Licensing#Canada mentions only a few things. For the rest, including the rule about Crown copyright of section 12 of the Copyright Act, Commons:Licensing links to the flowchart for the information. I suppose that details can be duplicated in the already long Commons:Licensing page, if it is thought to be really necessary, but then the problem is more to decide subjectively what elements of the Copyright Act to mention and what elements to leave out. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well I expanded COM:L very slightly to clarify that the situation is different for Crown Copyright. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
will not be used in any Wikimedia project. personal attack on en:Gilmar Mendes, associated with en:Daniel Dantas Kim richard (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Despite I tell the author to correct this fake coats of arms, he didn't lissen me. It's a own work. The author did a montage of cities coats of arms to portray a fictitious coat from a minister of the Supreme Court of Brazil, en:Gilmar Mendes, who edicted a Habeas Corpus to en:Daniel Dantas, supposed criminal. The image is political leafleting and has no enciclopedic utility. Kim richard (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Resposta 20120721
- E.g.
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all. Latuff is relevant and has his own article. You no. Images of Latuff are encyclopedic relevant and can be used to illustrate his work. Your not. Latuff and his works are recognized as artistic. Yours not. Greetings. Kim richard (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Resposta 20120722
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I am the person in this image and did not consent to this phot being taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There is another file, Karen Stollznow.jpg, with the same subject matter, that the subject herself feels is a better quality picture. This newer file Karen Stollznow 1.jpg is not referenced by anything. So we'd like to request it be deleted for those reasons, and perhaps under the rule it be superseded by the original file (though I am new at this and hope I am wording it correctly). I tried contacting the admin from an earlier delete request (via their talk page), but given the response I don't think my request was clear, and then the admin said they were taking a hiatus until August 6. So I am requesting it here. Rjmail (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Fastily and undeleted by me - no reason to delete a freely licensed image just because the depicted person doesn't like it. --Denniss (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
the person in this pic want this Tuxdiary (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's most certainly allowed to ask, no-one has said that he can't ask. Mind you, no-one has explained to him what irrevocable means either. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, i've checked FAQ and to my horror it's not there. So i was bold and created an entry Commons:FAQ#I_have_uploaded_an_image.2C_can_I_revoke_the_licence_later.3F VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't there because what you are saying is not true and you violated quite a bit of our rules in acting like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- So what is it we misunderstood by the "This donation is non-revocable." that appears on the upload form? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't there because what you are saying is not true and you violated quite a bit of our rules in acting like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, i've checked FAQ and to my horror it's not there. So i was bold and created an entry Commons:FAQ#I_have_uploaded_an_image.2C_can_I_revoke_the_licence_later.3F VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's most certainly allowed to ask, no-one has said that he can't ask. Mind you, no-one has explained to him what irrevocable means either. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand how things work or what "deletion" means. Otherwise, we wouldn't delete anything. Merely releasing something does not mean we have to host it or that something cannot be removed from existence. Licensing is not a suicide pact and the idea that the WMF projects all have respected self nom deletions show a legal precedence that we respect such requests and therefore makes the "irrevocably agree" non-applicable. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ever donated anything before? Yes? What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later? And don't forget that when an image is released under a free copyright then anyone can pretty much do as they like with the image... including maintaining a publicly accessible version of it on Commons. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later?" In the US, you have a legal right to get your donation back if you can demonstrate any kind of fraud or that the charity did not use the funds as was intended. Furthermore, we already donate plenty of pages and posts that were "donated" via clicking. Your comments are silly when looking at the reality of what goes on here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Silly? Yeah right. Most people wouldn't think of asking for a donation back, likewise this guy gives away a picture of his dick, then a month later changes his mind? Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it, likewise anyone else who does the same. In any case I would be quite within my rights to re-upload it after editing it in some way, attributing the original image to him, but me re-licensing it under my name and there's bugger all the guy could do. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it" - that isn't how the WMF operates. We allow people to delete content. It seems like your personal opinion and not policy are why you are suggesting the above, which is not how DR works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Total rubbish, the WMF doesn't operate on the principle that people can upload files then delete them later purely because the want to. The images are a donation, along with a statement that basically says anybody can now do as they like with them. This means that for all intents and purposes that image is no longer theirs, and as it is no longer theirs they no longer have the right to expect its deletion on a whim. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like this is something you are lobbying to achieve, not something that is already a de facto standard, which of course it isn't. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hate to disappoint, but I already put up cases verifying my statement. You however, have only put up a proposed policy and didn't recognize what our actual policies and standards are. Competence is required. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry wrong again. You haven't backed up any of your statements/demands with policy, in fact you even demonstrated yourself in the wrong when you said there is nothing specific in the speedy policy. The simple matter is that your demand for a speedy is based on nothing more than your wish that it were true. Oh, and going back to your "you people arriving" faux pas, I've been here longer than you sunshine. As for my competency, well I'm not the one demanding something that isn't backed up by policy then pleading that the lack of policy is why it should be handled this way. Duh! Ottava, your usual mental meanderings aren't getting any better with age you know. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hate to disappoint, but I already put up cases verifying my statement. You however, have only put up a proposed policy and didn't recognize what our actual policies and standards are. Competence is required. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like this is something you are lobbying to achieve, not something that is already a de facto standard, which of course it isn't. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Total rubbish, the WMF doesn't operate on the principle that people can upload files then delete them later purely because the want to. The images are a donation, along with a statement that basically says anybody can now do as they like with them. This means that for all intents and purposes that image is no longer theirs, and as it is no longer theirs they no longer have the right to expect its deletion on a whim. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it" - that isn't how the WMF operates. We allow people to delete content. It seems like your personal opinion and not policy are why you are suggesting the above, which is not how DR works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Silly? Yeah right. Most people wouldn't think of asking for a donation back, likewise this guy gives away a picture of his dick, then a month later changes his mind? Tough, he should have thought of that before uploading it, likewise anyone else who does the same. In any case I would be quite within my rights to re-upload it after editing it in some way, attributing the original image to him, but me re-licensing it under my name and there's bugger all the guy could do. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later?" In the US, you have a legal right to get your donation back if you can demonstrate any kind of fraud or that the charity did not use the funds as was intended. Furthermore, we already donate plenty of pages and posts that were "donated" via clicking. Your comments are silly when looking at the reality of what goes on here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ever donated anything before? Yes? What do you think would most likely happen if you asked for that donation back two months later? And don't forget that when an image is released under a free copyright then anyone can pretty much do as they like with the image... including maintaining a publicly accessible version of it on Commons. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand how things work or what "deletion" means. Otherwise, we wouldn't delete anything. Merely releasing something does not mean we have to host it or that something cannot be removed from existence. Licensing is not a suicide pact and the idea that the WMF projects all have respected self nom deletions show a legal precedence that we respect such requests and therefore makes the "irrevocably agree" non-applicable. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Outdent - "You haven't backed up any of your statements/demands with policy" You are quite mistaken in your view of what policy means. Policies are a limitation on activity. They are not an allowance on activity. If there is not a policy limiting it, then there is no stop to the matter. Admin have in the past speedy deleted these images. That goes against everything you have claimed. You continue to go on and on, but you have nothing. That is why you are in the minority here and your opinion wont matter. And you can claim to have been here longer than me, but on the above name and with a couple of the socks I know of yours, I have been around far longer. Furthermore, you already proved that you couldn't differentiate between proposed policy and policy, so you have failed to establish any reason for even reading what you have to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, not counting IP accesses my first account was WebHamster (talk · contribs) which started in 2007, whereas yours started in 2008. Now that's cleared up, onto policy. Policies are not a "limitation", they are a written down list of what is and what isn't acceptable. There is nothing written down anywhere that says an uploader request is a valid reason for a speedy. Therefore, in a similar way to the way copyright works, ie it doesn't have to be stated, it's automatic, anything which is stated to be a reason is a reason, anything else is accepted not to be a reason ergo you still cannot back up your demand with anything written down. However what is written down is that the uploader's declared license is irrevocable. This means that he cannot control, or insist, that anyone do anything with it that he doesn't like, e.g. delete it. Commons is quite legally entitle to keep the image on its server and host it to whomever wants it. As I said before, I could edit the file, eg crop it, alter the histogram etc and re-upload it thereby making this discussion moot. As the license states, I am (or anyone else is, including Commons) free "to copy, distribute and transmit the work". The uploader gave away his right to insist that the file no longer be distributed by Commons, which is in essence what is being asked. Now all that is written down, both in policy and in licensing. So barring the image being a copyvio or some other legal violation, which speedys were designed for, then a user request should go to a consensus decision such as this DR, not to the decision making skills of one admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "whereas yours started in 2008" Actually, this account started in 2007 but it was not my first Commons account but merely my first SUL account. And if you think policies are what is and isn't acceptable then you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise, there would be a policy that gives you the right to edit. You've obviously never been at Meta and helped create new projects. But we've already pointed out that you couldn't distinguish between policy and proposed policy, and your refusal to accept that disqualifies all other statements you could make. You have to overcome this major error before you can proceed. You are like someone trying to drive on four flat tires. Push down on the gas all you want - you aren't going anywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You do like to make things up to support your position dontchya? The WebHamster account started on 12-Sep-2007, not 2008. "We've"? You tried make to make out that I couldn't distinguish the difference. When there's a dirty great banner at the top of the page it's rather difficult to not notice the fact. The fact that codicil was written into the proposed policy shows that I am not on my own in this. Likewise the fact that the proposed policy adjustment is directly linked to from the official policy page also shows that someone 'upstairs' is unofficially supporting it. As for tyres, well at least I know how to spell them correctly. As for Meta, why would I want to go there? It's full of bullshit and lies and people like you. I have enough problems holding my nose when I take part in DRs like this. I don't do politics, primarily because it's full of people who think they can do politics and want to get something out of it, usually power of some sort. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume your inability to recognize your own quote about 2008 as from you and not me is the same as you being unable to recognize "proposed policy" as being different from "policy". It may also be related to you thinking that using two accounts at the same time is acceptable. You have a strange way of going against our policies and traditions. You don't have any ground for making any claims here and you have already lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, you make things up to support your position. Your current account started 29-Aug-2008, not "2007". I don't use 2 accounts at the same time. The WH account hasn't been used since Jan 2011, whereas FtO has been active quite a lot since then. In any case 1) having two accounts is not against the rules when they aren't being used abusively 2) what does it have to do with a picture of a bendy cock? So I see even more BS from OR, who seems to have unilaterally declared this to be a competition. "Our" policies and traditions? Since when did they belong to 'us'? See there you go with the tradition thing again, but why can't you realise that it was you who has gone all traditional? You do seem to confuse things between Commons and en.wiki. Now you can bluster and lie as much as you like, but the fact remains that your demands are not supported by policy, it's as simple as that. So can we get back to the DR instead of all this bullshit that has no reason in being here. Unless you'd like to type out some more falsehoods that can be shown to be what they are. Oh, whilst I remember, you mentioned earlier about the reason why there's no policy that supports my right to type here. Well I think you'll find that is covered by the Wikimedia mission statement. On another note, regarding my two accounts. To add hypocrisy to your seemingly ever-growing list of, errr, 'problems', you've also stated that you have more than one account here. Care to mention which one it is? After all I've been quite open about the names of my accounts. I invite you to do the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Your current account started 29-Aug-2008" No. My account started 30 September 2007 and many of my images were transferred over here. "I don't use 2 accounts at the same time." Already proven wrong - you had a solid few months of overlap and that automatically disqualifies you from making claims about acceptable actions. As for me, I had one previous account in undergrad, which lasted until 2005. There was a solid 2 years between that account and Ottava Rima and it was a well known situation of me not remembering my password nor having access to the email address because it was connected to the undergrad (and different from the alumni one). You are just digging your hole deeper now. The killer was claiming that the mission statement was some how policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the link that shows how mistaken you are and how correct I can be. Go back to your SUL Info page, scroll down to the commonswiki entry under "Local wikis" and you will see "commonswiki.......29 August 2008.......1357.........autopatrolled". As you should know, your SUL is only activated per wiki when you first login to a particular wiki, not at the date of when you went over to SUL. And now whose competency is in doubt when a so-called educated man cannot either remember a password and/or write it down somewhere in something like, errr, I don't know, how about a password database app, or even a spreadsheet? In any case, I didn't ask you why you chose to no longer use it, I asked you its name. I apologise for asking questions that obviously confuse you, but enquiring minds wish to know these things. The Mission statement is a policy from which all the others commenced. It doesn't have to have "policy" emblazoned at the top of the page to be a policy you know. This is getting mentally tiring for an old fart like me to keep having to teach your things. Maybe if you tone down the BS it'll take a load off me? If I'm digging, it can only be your grave sunshine, and I suspect that can never be deep enough. So what are the chances of getting back on topic now? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I find it interesting how you think my account began on Commons, especially when the SUL page shows that it began on en.wiki. And you do know that you haven't been on topic in a long time. It makes sense - you botched the claim about policy, evidence was shown that practice accepts such deletions as speedies, and now you are filling the page with off topic stuff. Well, I guess that is how you decide to get your way with things. It doesn't really work like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say your SUL account began on Commons. The date I gave was the first time you logged into Commons after you created your SUL, ie the date your activity as OR started on Commons. You do get confused easily dontchya? We are both filling the page with off topic stuff which is why I suggested a mutual cessation, but I see that won't happen. BTW please don't think I'm dumb enough to think that I can change your mind, you aren't the one my words are aimed at. Anyway, you may now have whatever last words you feel are necessary. I'm finished with toying with you, the amusement has now waned and I'm bored. Perhaps someone should put all this sub-thread bollocks into a collapsible box? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I pointed out, I had files transferred to Commons (this one is from 7 days before you claimed I started, and here is another if you think it was just a fluke. A huge portion of my uploads to Commons were transfers from Wikipedia). If you know anything about SUL at the time, you were quite able to look at Commons without having to log in. I find it a little odd how you feel that any of this helps your cause. I guess you like off topic rambles. But thank you for admitting that your whole reason here was to "toy with people" and that we no longer have to assume good faith about any of your contributions. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say your SUL account began on Commons. The date I gave was the first time you logged into Commons after you created your SUL, ie the date your activity as OR started on Commons. You do get confused easily dontchya? We are both filling the page with off topic stuff which is why I suggested a mutual cessation, but I see that won't happen. BTW please don't think I'm dumb enough to think that I can change your mind, you aren't the one my words are aimed at. Anyway, you may now have whatever last words you feel are necessary. I'm finished with toying with you, the amusement has now waned and I'm bored. Perhaps someone should put all this sub-thread bollocks into a collapsible box? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I find it interesting how you think my account began on Commons, especially when the SUL page shows that it began on en.wiki. And you do know that you haven't been on topic in a long time. It makes sense - you botched the claim about policy, evidence was shown that practice accepts such deletions as speedies, and now you are filling the page with off topic stuff. Well, I guess that is how you decide to get your way with things. It doesn't really work like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the link that shows how mistaken you are and how correct I can be. Go back to your SUL Info page, scroll down to the commonswiki entry under "Local wikis" and you will see "commonswiki.......29 August 2008.......1357.........autopatrolled". As you should know, your SUL is only activated per wiki when you first login to a particular wiki, not at the date of when you went over to SUL. And now whose competency is in doubt when a so-called educated man cannot either remember a password and/or write it down somewhere in something like, errr, I don't know, how about a password database app, or even a spreadsheet? In any case, I didn't ask you why you chose to no longer use it, I asked you its name. I apologise for asking questions that obviously confuse you, but enquiring minds wish to know these things. The Mission statement is a policy from which all the others commenced. It doesn't have to have "policy" emblazoned at the top of the page to be a policy you know. This is getting mentally tiring for an old fart like me to keep having to teach your things. Maybe if you tone down the BS it'll take a load off me? If I'm digging, it can only be your grave sunshine, and I suspect that can never be deep enough. So what are the chances of getting back on topic now? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Your current account started 29-Aug-2008" No. My account started 30 September 2007 and many of my images were transferred over here. "I don't use 2 accounts at the same time." Already proven wrong - you had a solid few months of overlap and that automatically disqualifies you from making claims about acceptable actions. As for me, I had one previous account in undergrad, which lasted until 2005. There was a solid 2 years between that account and Ottava Rima and it was a well known situation of me not remembering my password nor having access to the email address because it was connected to the undergrad (and different from the alumni one). You are just digging your hole deeper now. The killer was claiming that the mission statement was some how policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, you make things up to support your position. Your current account started 29-Aug-2008, not "2007". I don't use 2 accounts at the same time. The WH account hasn't been used since Jan 2011, whereas FtO has been active quite a lot since then. In any case 1) having two accounts is not against the rules when they aren't being used abusively 2) what does it have to do with a picture of a bendy cock? So I see even more BS from OR, who seems to have unilaterally declared this to be a competition. "Our" policies and traditions? Since when did they belong to 'us'? See there you go with the tradition thing again, but why can't you realise that it was you who has gone all traditional? You do seem to confuse things between Commons and en.wiki. Now you can bluster and lie as much as you like, but the fact remains that your demands are not supported by policy, it's as simple as that. So can we get back to the DR instead of all this bullshit that has no reason in being here. Unless you'd like to type out some more falsehoods that can be shown to be what they are. Oh, whilst I remember, you mentioned earlier about the reason why there's no policy that supports my right to type here. Well I think you'll find that is covered by the Wikimedia mission statement. On another note, regarding my two accounts. To add hypocrisy to your seemingly ever-growing list of, errr, 'problems', you've also stated that you have more than one account here. Care to mention which one it is? After all I've been quite open about the names of my accounts. I invite you to do the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume your inability to recognize your own quote about 2008 as from you and not me is the same as you being unable to recognize "proposed policy" as being different from "policy". It may also be related to you thinking that using two accounts at the same time is acceptable. You have a strange way of going against our policies and traditions. You don't have any ground for making any claims here and you have already lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You do like to make things up to support your position dontchya? The WebHamster account started on 12-Sep-2007, not 2008. "We've"? You tried make to make out that I couldn't distinguish the difference. When there's a dirty great banner at the top of the page it's rather difficult to not notice the fact. The fact that codicil was written into the proposed policy shows that I am not on my own in this. Likewise the fact that the proposed policy adjustment is directly linked to from the official policy page also shows that someone 'upstairs' is unofficially supporting it. As for tyres, well at least I know how to spell them correctly. As for Meta, why would I want to go there? It's full of bullshit and lies and people like you. I have enough problems holding my nose when I take part in DRs like this. I don't do politics, primarily because it's full of people who think they can do politics and want to get something out of it, usually power of some sort. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "whereas yours started in 2008" Actually, this account started in 2007 but it was not my first Commons account but merely my first SUL account. And if you think policies are what is and isn't acceptable then you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise, there would be a policy that gives you the right to edit. You've obviously never been at Meta and helped create new projects. But we've already pointed out that you couldn't distinguish between policy and proposed policy, and your refusal to accept that disqualifies all other statements you could make. You have to overcome this major error before you can proceed. You are like someone trying to drive on four flat tires. Push down on the gas all you want - you aren't going anywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, not counting IP accesses my first account was WebHamster (talk · contribs) which started in 2007, whereas yours started in 2008. Now that's cleared up, onto policy. Policies are not a "limitation", they are a written down list of what is and what isn't acceptable. There is nothing written down anywhere that says an uploader request is a valid reason for a speedy. Therefore, in a similar way to the way copyright works, ie it doesn't have to be stated, it's automatic, anything which is stated to be a reason is a reason, anything else is accepted not to be a reason ergo you still cannot back up your demand with anything written down. However what is written down is that the uploader's declared license is irrevocable. This means that he cannot control, or insist, that anyone do anything with it that he doesn't like, e.g. delete it. Commons is quite legally entitle to keep the image on its server and host it to whomever wants it. As I said before, I could edit the file, eg crop it, alter the histogram etc and re-upload it thereby making this discussion moot. As the license states, I am (or anyone else is, including Commons) free "to copy, distribute and transmit the work". The uploader gave away his right to insist that the file no longer be distributed by Commons, which is in essence what is being asked. Now all that is written down, both in policy and in licensing. So barring the image being a copyvio or some other legal violation, which speedys were designed for, then a user request should go to a consensus decision such as this DR, not to the decision making skills of one admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not acceptable to make random DRs a forum for you to lobby against me. Your comment is highly inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lobby against you? At no time did I say the speedy deletion was incorrect. You are making false claims about my comments yet again. Are you really looking to be blocked? Because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting my name here on a sex related deletion request that has nothing to do with me, I have not even commented on and with regard to an unrelated deletion that I have made no comment about on Commons is not appropriate. This appears to be deliberate and personal harassment. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sex related discussion? According to your other posts, these are just educational images. Odd how you create some sort of double standard. You were a recent case of a speedy deletion by user request. If you don't like that, why request it? It was your action and it is a public action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting my name here on a sex related deletion request that has nothing to do with me, I have not even commented on and with regard to an unrelated deletion that I have made no comment about on Commons is not appropriate. This appears to be deliberate and personal harassment. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lobby against you? At no time did I say the speedy deletion was incorrect. You are making false claims about my comments yet again. Are you really looking to be blocked? Because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not acceptable to make random DRs a forum for you to lobby against me. Your comment is highly inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - self request, this should be speedied. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since when has a "self request" been a part of the speedy rationale? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much forever. You have been around long enough to know that answer and it is disappointing that you would act in this way. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should re-read Commons:SPEEDY again, #7, bearing in mind that this image was originally uploaded in October of this year. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "#7" when regarding "Speedy Deletion" in our official speedy criteria, which is Commons:Deletion policy. Nor are there any numbers regarding Speedy Deletions. Now, we do allow for users to speedy delete their own work, which is "irrevocably agreed to", so allowing it in one area sets the legal precedence of an expectation of self nominated deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is indeed a #7 under General Reasons, to whit: "7. Author or uploader request deletion.
- Original uploader or author requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused page or file. Author/uploader requests for deletion of content that are in use should be filed at the Deletion Requests page. Older content (>7 days) may not be speedily deleted per author/uploader requests, as they may be used by external websites and would thus not show up in Special:GlobalUsage. Such content would also require a Deletion Request." --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not policy. That is from another page that was a proposal that failed. That was pointed out. DR requires you to understand our policies. Please reread how we operate and our policies before trying to make claims in the future. Otherwise, you are making claims of things that are patently not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- You do talk bollocks sunshine. There is absolutely nothing in the deletion policy to support your assertion that this file should be speedied simply because the uploader asked. If there were you'd have pointed me at it the first time you mentioned it. And yes what I quoted is indeed a proposal, but I see nothing on that page that says it was a failed proposal merely that it is still a work in progress and strangely it is still linked to from the deletion policy page. So the upshot is that you've made comments that you haven't backed up with evidence. You use the term "we" a lot when referring to various elements of WMF, and that you've got a pretty good handle on how to be patronising. But other than that you've got nothing but opinion yourself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "be speedied simply because the uploader asked" - Actually, it is the opposite. There is nothing preventing it. Right now, speedies do not have a clear limit, and the notion that we specifically allow for in practice these speedies in the past suggests a clear precedent, especially when combined with speedies of user pages and the rest. The only reason this is suddenly controversial is that there is nudity involved. Face pictures and the rest were cleared off without a problem. That shows a majorly inappropriate difference in standards which isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is preventing it is the lack of official policy that says it should be speedied allied with the license it was released under. There is no official policy, so you asking for it (demanding it even) to be speedied has no backing of policy. Additionally just because other files may have been deleted does not automatically become a precedent, in fact it's always been accepted that "other stuff etc" is an argument that shouldn't be brought to deletion requests. This is an individual case, as all deletion reviews should be. So ultimately you have no official backing to support your demand, simples. So do you have any reasons why this image should be deleted other than the request by the uploader? Incidentally, deleting a user page on request is a totally different matter to deleting an image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- A speedy policy would limit the use of speedy deletions, not increase it. Right now, there is nothing to prevent a user request. Most DRs are pointless and there should be far more speedies. The only problem is when people like you arrive and make statements about tradition and policy that are not grounded in the actuality. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "People like me arrive"? What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't invoked tradition, that was your response with regard to precedents etc. I have been referring to actual policy, it's you that can't come up with anything to support your demands. And yes a more defined speedy deletion policy would decrease the amount of speedies handed out, which, IMHO, can only be a good thing as a lot of speedys in the sexual arena are done as a knee jerk reaction rather than based on any policy backing. A bit like your demands above in fact. A deletion review is the proper arena for this, not one admin's take on an ill-defined policy. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I have been referring to actual policy" This was debunked. You were referring to a proposed policy and failed to recognize that. You still don't recognize it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- "People like me arrive"? What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't invoked tradition, that was your response with regard to precedents etc. I have been referring to actual policy, it's you that can't come up with anything to support your demands. And yes a more defined speedy deletion policy would decrease the amount of speedies handed out, which, IMHO, can only be a good thing as a lot of speedys in the sexual arena are done as a knee jerk reaction rather than based on any policy backing. A bit like your demands above in fact. A deletion review is the proper arena for this, not one admin's take on an ill-defined policy. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- A speedy policy would limit the use of speedy deletions, not increase it. Right now, there is nothing to prevent a user request. Most DRs are pointless and there should be far more speedies. The only problem is when people like you arrive and make statements about tradition and policy that are not grounded in the actuality. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is preventing it is the lack of official policy that says it should be speedied allied with the license it was released under. There is no official policy, so you asking for it (demanding it even) to be speedied has no backing of policy. Additionally just because other files may have been deleted does not automatically become a precedent, in fact it's always been accepted that "other stuff etc" is an argument that shouldn't be brought to deletion requests. This is an individual case, as all deletion reviews should be. So ultimately you have no official backing to support your demand, simples. So do you have any reasons why this image should be deleted other than the request by the uploader? Incidentally, deleting a user page on request is a totally different matter to deleting an image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "be speedied simply because the uploader asked" - Actually, it is the opposite. There is nothing preventing it. Right now, speedies do not have a clear limit, and the notion that we specifically allow for in practice these speedies in the past suggests a clear precedent, especially when combined with speedies of user pages and the rest. The only reason this is suddenly controversial is that there is nudity involved. Face pictures and the rest were cleared off without a problem. That shows a majorly inappropriate difference in standards which isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- You do talk bollocks sunshine. There is absolutely nothing in the deletion policy to support your assertion that this file should be speedied simply because the uploader asked. If there were you'd have pointed me at it the first time you mentioned it. And yes what I quoted is indeed a proposal, but I see nothing on that page that says it was a failed proposal merely that it is still a work in progress and strangely it is still linked to from the deletion policy page. So the upshot is that you've made comments that you haven't backed up with evidence. You use the term "we" a lot when referring to various elements of WMF, and that you've got a pretty good handle on how to be patronising. But other than that you've got nothing but opinion yourself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not policy. That is from another page that was a proposal that failed. That was pointed out. DR requires you to understand our policies. Please reread how we operate and our policies before trying to make claims in the future. Otherwise, you are making claims of things that are patently not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "#7" when regarding "Speedy Deletion" in our official speedy criteria, which is Commons:Deletion policy. Nor are there any numbers regarding Speedy Deletions. Now, we do allow for users to speedy delete their own work, which is "irrevocably agreed to", so allowing it in one area sets the legal precedence of an expectation of self nominated deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should re-read Commons:SPEEDY again, #7, bearing in mind that this image was originally uploaded in October of this year. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much forever. You have been around long enough to know that answer and it is disappointing that you would act in this way. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since when has a "self request" been a part of the speedy rationale? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[content redacted Rd232 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)]
Kept: Per Fred the Oyster. Leyo 00:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The uploader asked kindly to get this file deleted c. five weeks after it was uploaded. Even if the free license is unrevokable we should be more lenient to our contributors in case of second thoughts after such a short time period. This is also true if the uploader cannot be identified as we can never be sure who else knows about this upload and to which extent the nickname of the uploader is known to his personal environment. This picture is still unused and I think that we shall delete it out of courtesy. We have handled it in other cases similarly. AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- But why do you bring it up now, over half a year after the original DR? The more time elapsed the more it is likely that third parties are using the image (and with that comes commons obligation to keep it as a proof of its copyright status). Also, there is no substitute available (Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis).
On the other hand I can understand the uploader's wish (personal environment).
I guess I would have voted "delete" in the original DR, but now, I go with neutral due to the time passed. Also we don't know if the deletion still matters to the uploader. --Isderion (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I got aware of this case through this discussion at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We should never host images of this type without the consent of the person depicted, whether their face is shown or not. There are many other ways to be recognisable: through an account name, or simply due to gossip about the image. --JN466 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- We are here to provide educational resources. People who write medical textbooks outwith Wikimedia are, too. They are subject to ethical standards regarding the identification of patients. See, for example Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Privacy and Confidentiality by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (There is much discussion of the ethics of medical publications in the literature, including things such as doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460200100043.) Such standards include informed consent given in writing, and the elimination of names and other forms of identification.
We, who are supporting textbooks at Wikibooks, an encyclopaedia at Wikipedia, a dictionary at Wiktionary, and providing educational resources in our own right, should have no lower an ethical standard, when it comes to images of people's medical problems. We should pay particular attention to the facts that our mechanisms for enforcing free content copyright licencing require identifiable sources and thus in part force identification, that the upload histories publicly link user accounts to images, and that the act of uploading does not necessarily denote informed consent upon the part of the potentially naïve uploader.
If someone requests that an image of his penis and his medical problems not be splashed all over the World Wide Web by Wikimedia projects, then we should accede to that request, and not try to weasel out of it with all sorts of hair-splitting arguments about how user accounts might lend unidentifiability and about how there are "no backsies". We should aim for no lower a standard of professionalism than that of those professionals who write the non-free-content textbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopaedias. That includes respect for medical confidentiality, acknowledgement of when consent might not have been informed, and no forcing people to be public about their medical problems against their will.
Delete.
- Delete. The ethical problems of wikis and images of genitalia and medical conditions will take longer to solve, but this one is easy as it falls into the simple scenario of uploader requesting deletion of all their images, essentially asking for the meta:Right to vanish. I think we should follow the decisions made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jhgthghj.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating by gripping and sliding the back and forth 1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbating by gripping and sliding the back and forth 2.jpg, which were all delete for various reasons. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Interpreting the "right to vanish" in this way is too harsh. Do you really expect Commons to retroactively delete everything someone uploads if (when) they get voted off the island and banned from the project? (Mbz1, for example?) Wnt (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Just because something has been validly licensed doesn't mean we have to keep it. If we can't ethically use it then is it truly still in scope? WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Compromise - Flickr-wash this thing. Delete this image, but upload a perhaps slightly more cropped version to Flickr under a new account there, use a brand new Commons account to upload it after some delay, and certify it is CC-licensed image by this means. Use, of course, a new filename, and don't attribute it to the original author (CC licensing permits this when the author so chooses, AFAIR). Ordinarily Flickr-washing is a no-no, but in this case the purpose would only be to make sure that the image would be impossible to track back to the original Commons account. I think that should be permitted, under these special circumstances, and I think it would at least nominally satisfy the ethics requirements described above (presuming that informed consent was originally given, in written form, when the image was uploaded). Wnt (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wnt, I know you are aware of other images that have been deleted from Commons because the uploader found them embarassing. Do you think that it would be ok to re-upload those images to Commons via Flickr as you suggest for this image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- The point of this exercise is to ensure that the image is not personally identifiable. This could be done in other situations where the image is not personally identifiable, provided that the uploader has chosen to repudiate association with the image beforehand so that it can be distributed without attribution to him in accordance with the CC license. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Whilst this should be a perfectly valid route for an uploader to choose to take, I think we've gone past the point where one could reasonably suggest this to this uploader in this instance. Also they are as you are aware still vulnerable to being tracked down by certain websites..... WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- If someone is that determined to track down the image, they can simply use the copy they already have or find of this one. We're not losing anything if someone does this. In fact, I suppose that consensus is not needed for this - any one person can upload the image to Flickr without attribution, as the uploader has repudiated it, and anyone finding that image can upload it here. (Though yes, stripping the EXIF data and recropping might generally be good precautions) Wnt (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I may be missing something here, but I don't see asking for something to be deleted as quite the same as releasing an image as PD. I agree that if someone did want an image to still be available, just not associated with them then your route could work, though I'd have thought that we would need an OTRS ticket to confirm the PD release. But I wouldn't want to pressurise someone into doing that when they've told us they want it deleted. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- If someone is that determined to track down the image, they can simply use the copy they already have or find of this one. We're not losing anything if someone does this. In fact, I suppose that consensus is not needed for this - any one person can upload the image to Flickr without attribution, as the uploader has repudiated it, and anyone finding that image can upload it here. (Though yes, stripping the EXIF data and recropping might generally be good precautions) Wnt (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wnt, your suggestion would not be possible under the terms of the CC licence, as the copyright holder needs to be attributed. russavia (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The CC license is anything but clear [7]. Note 4(a):" If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested." and 4(c): "You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing..." To me, this sounds like the Licensor has requested not to be credited in our Collection (Commons), and so we must not credit him, but still have a CC-license to reproduce the material, as does anyone else downloading. True, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet (like anything) a court would say OK to that 50% of the time... Wnt (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wnt, I know you are aware of other images that have been deleted from Commons because the uploader found them embarassing. Do you think that it would be ok to re-upload those images to Commons via Flickr as you suggest for this image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per request of subject/uploader. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as is typically done for wikimedia insiders when they request deletion of distressing pictures.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
