Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I cannot find this file on Flickr, or this file has a wrong filename extension and need to rename Mys 721tx (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ogustz said that there is the correct file File:Lugoj church.png, is it possible to speedily delete this file since there is a replacement?--Mys 721tx (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. 84.61.170.180 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep I notice that mister "duralex" still hasn't understand what COM:DM means. Clear case of de minimis, of course! You're making us waste our time... Jeriby (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. 84.61.170.180 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM clear case of de minimis. Jeriby (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason for this nomination. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Good example of de minimis, the picture does not allow to see anything but location and dimensions of the tower — NickK (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above, but rename to "View from the Tour Eiffel 2010" or similar. --ELEKHHT 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this request is justified, somebody should down- and upload a big png. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this request is justified, somebody should down- and upload a big png. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this request is justified, somebody should down- and upload a big png. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this request is justified, somebody should down- and upload a big png. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Many better alternatives in Category:Ethane. Leyo 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Yikes--kill it! Per nom--unclear connectivity, poor geometry, and low-quality vs numerous others. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted NEURO ⇌ 15:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Incorrectly named, low quality, better alternatives in Category:Cyclohexylamine. Leyo 15:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The title compound also has existing alternatives Category:Aniline. DMacks (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 16:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:2-Methylpentane.svg. Leyo 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 16:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
From the dispute template: Unfavored conformation (keto-OH H-bond), buggy animation. Leyo 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This photo is missing evidence of permission and is overdue for deletion based on that. Aaaccc (talk), 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-descriptive file-redirect pagename. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Altostratus (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The file was uploaded in 2007, it's quite possible that there are external links to this name. --Trycatch (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Contains an image deleted for lack of permission evidence (Andy Gibb, the bottom right) Lpdrew (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The license tag cays copyright is released, yet the image itself has the ® trademark sign on it and the website it is taken from is clearly copyrighted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is not Public Domain. see: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/rules/legal.html "The property rights to the information provided on the NISA website ( http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp ; “this website”) and the software utilized for the provision of that information (the “Information and Software”) belong to NISA or to the person(s) who provided the Information and Software to NISA. [...] Except with the prior approval of NISA and the providers of Information and Software to NISA, users have no right to copy, make public, transmit, distribute, assign, rent, license, reprint or reuse all or any part of the Information and Software or the contents thereof."
Maybe the agency is no direct gov't agency? Is their work not treated as anything which is exempted from Japanese copyright law? Saibo (Δ) 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, Japanese government works are more complicated to license than US govt work and this was probably uploaded with misplaced beliefs about of the usability of their products. Theanphibian (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for statues in the US MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment @ Jocian: You can upload it (from the flickr source) to de.wp (see de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Schutzlandprinzip for the templates). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)- Comment Sorry for the extra work. Thanks to @ Saibo! I've uploaded the file now in de.WP. For the record: As soon as Wikipedia has taken over this world, we should democratize and unify the copyrights and other rules for the mapping of public space. Cheers, --Jocian (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also ftr: It is now at de:Datei:Donald_Duck_Bronzeplastik-2008-01.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as of Morgankevinj. No chance to keep. --Quedel (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom no FOP in US for statues russavia (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"from Mike Watt's Hoot Page http://www.hootpage.com. (c)2002 Collection of Mike Watt." - where is the permission by the photographer for this license? I read only "(c)". Who is the photographer? COM:L not obeyed. Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of any permission released under free licence russavia (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software NDepend and Windows Hashproduct (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused file, no evidence this group exists. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that the unloader of this image took this photograph. It appears to be an official Australian Labor Party image, or similar. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. The source is obviously the Commonwealth of Australia's gazette, which is a non-public domain publication. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
the artist died in 1953, how this could be in public domain? Catfisheye (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- As a U.S. artist, this meets {{PD-US}} I think. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only if it is proved that it has been published before 1923, but at the moment it is not even sure, if it has been painted before. Catfisheye (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I personally own all of the Cordelia Wilson paintings in the article (and at WikiCommons), I personally took all of the photos, and personally uploaded them. All of the paintings that Cordelia Wilson made of the American Southwest that I own were painted before 1920 and exhibited (published). I did not include any painting by Cordelia Wilson owned by museums, or those painted after 1920 that I possess. --- By the way, after her only daughter died, there were, and are, no heirs and there is no estate. --- The paintings by Cordelia Wilson came to me from an aunt, who lived with her at the end. --- Please tell me what kind of proof you need other than my word. (I guarantee nothing else exists.) Please let me know. Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- KeepThis appears to be a careful editor who understands the rules. I am inclined to believe him. By the way, the fact that she left no heirs is not relevant to the discussion. There still could be copyright, which would have escheated to the state. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
the artist died in 1973, so this need further explication Catfisheye (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The artist worked per 90 years as young! See my article about him in ru-wiki (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Митрохин,_Дмитрий_Исидорович) interesting artist — best works in his last years, he could not write a direct line in letter, but his hand gave beautiful and stringent line in pencil's and pen's graphic in drawings. He had no heirs: first wife, ceramist Alice Bruschette died in 1942 in blocade of Leningrad, his second wife sculptor Lidia Chaga died (maybe killed) in Amsterdam 1995, November 7 (http://www.stengazeta.net/article.for.printing.html?id=3836). All Mitrohin's works repeatedly published in USSR and regular — in Russia; all as a national treasure. Serge Lachinov (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! I said this for understanding: that was small pictures in size of postcards, which was no need nobody... He had no heirs — now all his works in public domain, but requires indication of autor, as I made. Serge Lachinov (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think we must delete this. The fact that he had no heirs is not important to this discussion -- there is still a copyright, which, in most countries would escheat to the state. Of course, I don't know Russian law in this particular respect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! I said this for understanding: that was small pictures in size of postcards, which was no need nobody... He had no heirs — now all his works in public domain, but requires indication of autor, as I made. Serge Lachinov (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
the artist died in 1941, how could this be in public domain then? Catfisheye (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Will become public domain next year. Until then, upload locally to en-wp as it is PD-US. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
the artist died in 1973, so this need further explication Catfisheye (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The artist worked per 90 years as young! See my article about him in ru-wiki (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Митрохин,_Дмитрий_Исидорович) interesting artist — best works in his last years, he could not write a direct line in letter, but his hand gave beautiful and stringent line in pencil's and pen's graphic in drawings. He had no heirs: first wife, ceramist Alice Bruschette died in 1942 in blocade of Leningrad, his second wife sculptor Lidia Chaga died (maybe killed) in Amsterdam 1995, November 7 (http://www.stengazeta.net/article.for.printing.html?id=3836). All Mitrohin's works repeatedly published in USSR and regular — in Russia; all as a national treasure. Serge Lachinov Serge Lachinov (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, it is not about quality, but about the license, if it is free. You understand? Regards Catfisheye (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes of course, I understand; but I said this for understanding too: that was small pictures in size of postcards, which was no need nobody... He had no heirs — now all his works in public domain, but requires indication of autor, as I made. Serge Lachinov (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, it is not about quality, but about the license, if it is free. You understand? Regards Catfisheye (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitrohin Medicine Bottles and Jars1966.jpg Jcb (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful own work. Very low resolution. Uploader's only contribution. Likely an internet grab from somewhere. Wknight94 talk 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
same as it:File:Roma-Stemma.png, not eligible for Commons Gvnn (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense reason, also the upload at Commons was 3 years before the local upload Jcb (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Henri Matisse is not yet in Public Domain. - Zil (d) 09:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The source file authors are not named, image uses a wrong license violating copyright of the source file creators Denniss (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality - small picture of nothing in particular (Pizza Hut??) with no artistic or any other redeeming quality. Simonxag (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep leaving aside the fact that Category:Pizza Hut restaurants in England exists, this illustrates part of the Bedford Church Arcade - which is a shopping complex. Neither is notable in WP terms, but that's beside the point.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does it illustrate this arcade? Does it illustrate the Pizza Hut? --Simonxag (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes (the part that contains the Pizza Hut) and yes (the exterior from the arcade). Bear in mind one illustrative shot of any subject is rarely, if ever, sufficient to give a complete overview. Multiple angles can complement the "primary" viewpoint (if there is one).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that if a news photographer delivered their editor this as a picture of a Pizza Hut, that photographer would get fired. The supposed subject is lost in a confusion of low lighting, transparencies and reflections. The image does not work as a street scene (mainly through lack of pixels) and is just going to be noise in any category. It's a distraction and a choice that needs to be backtracked from on the path to finding the useful image you need; enough of such images and a category becomes useless. --Simonxag (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its not a photo of a generic Pizza Hut, its a photo of this specific Pizza Hut in the centre of Bedford. Yes, its a poor image; and presumably a picture from the high street of this same shop would be superior at illustrating this particular restaurant. But even then, this one is still a supplementary image to that one. That ignores any potential value as an image of the arcade.
- And "it makes the category noisy" is a problem, which the Geograph upload has made acute across the UK. The solution to that is better categorisation, not deletion. Category:Bedford, Bedfordshire contains a few hundred files, it should contain very few - 99% of those images belong in subcategories such as Category:Restaurants in Bedford, England (or something), a much more suitable place for this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Subcategorization does not solve the noise problem, if out of a handful of images of the precise subject most are poor. We need to get rid of poor images, except in those cases where there is no alternative. --Simonxag (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Subcategorization does help with the noise problem (it isn't perfect), but that's a lot better than deleting useful pictures. The most precise subject here is "The Pizza Hut restaurant in The Arcade, Bedford". For that, very limited, scope, this picture cannot be replaced by anything else on Commons. Yes, better pictures are better, but in their absence the poor pics are valuable. And even if we do have superior pictures, the lower quality images may still be useful if they depict something not in the good ones - this cannot be replaced by a decent pic of the frontage of the restaurant.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually subcategorization may make the noise problem worse. Take a category of widgets with 3 decent images. This is then swamped by Geograph images. So the images are all placed in subcategories. Now the user must check through many subcategories (Widgets in Birmingham, Widgets in Bedford etc.) before they find a decent image and will probably never get to compare all 3. For a concrete example have look at Category:Narrowboats and think how breaking it down into smaller groups is going to help or not. --Simonxag (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Subcategorisation doesn't really hurt, if its done properly. To use the narrowboat example, "narrowboats by location" is one scheme - and if the reader wants a picture of narrowboat in Cheshire helps them a lot more than the root category. But you also have narrowboats by type, ...by use, ...by canal, ...by manufacturer etc. Good subcategorisation contains a heck of lot more metadata than no subcategory. If you want a historical picture of a boat carrying coal, wading through the millions of pics of tourist boats is just as annoying. And if you want to highlight an image in a category as the best - that what Commons:Valued images is for.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the subcategories are geographical or of any other kind is irrelevant. What's more, as a user of the Commons looking through the categories I never interact with the valued image system and I don't think a more casual user will be more skilled than me. I look through a range of usable images for the one that best suits my needs. A load of duds is just going to foul up the search. --Simonxag (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So why is Category:Ships devoid of imagery? I just want a picture of a ship dammit! Same principle applies to everything else(!) :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is an issue with our category system. But if you decide on a sort of picture, or sort of ship you can set about finding what you need. The issue becomes a problem if the pool of usable ship pictures is diluted by unusable ones and a serious problem if these outnumber useful images and look good as thumbnails. --Simonxag (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it looks good as thumbnail, its good enough for most Wikimedia projects, our primary "customer", as Wikipedia only ever displays thumbnails, typically ~200px wide. Irredemably bad pictures can and should be deleted, but a 640x480px image is not so poor as to be useless simply because of its resolution. For use on Wikimedia projects a 640x480 image can be much better than a 10MP image - if it provides better view of the subject. If a minimum resolution requirement is part of your selection criteria, that's something Commons probably should facilitate but that is not a reason to get rid of useful, low resolution content. That's probably worth investigating further to see if it can be done - but isn't relevant here.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia displays a thumbnail of the image on a page. A larger version is immediately available by clicking on this. And I'm not disputing that very small images are sometimes useful or that some of the Geograph images are so. I think there's an underlying problem that this is the first mass upload of a collection that was created without regard to any sort of quality. --Simonxag (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Complaints about the Geograph upload aren't relevant here, and most images from that project are useful despite the low resolution. Geograph is not the only batch upload done without regards to quality - for example, the Tropenmusem upload has a lot of low res imagery. What makes Geograph different is its scale. If an image works as a 200px thumb it illustrates the article about as well as a high resolution image and it may better than the higher resolution image depending on things like composition and technical quality. Therefore, WP users benefit from having the low res imagery there as an option to choose from - its not noise. If you, personally, want an image that is at least 5 megapixels, then you should filter the imagery accordingly. If you have any suggestions on how to improve that aspect of searching Commons, make it at the village pump. That's not a reason to get rid of images that don't meet your criteria, as someone else might prefer them for their needs.
- This image, is low resolution and a bad picture in other ways, but is still good enough to illustrate its subjects. It is potentially useful for an educationl purpose (I've said what it can be used for) - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Complaints about poor quality imagery generally are highly relevant here, as this is an example of a very poor quality image. I do not see that it even works as a thumbnail and I can't see it ever being useful on the Wikipedia, it is absolutely not an even passable illustration of its supposed subject. Such street scenes particularly need some detail to work;talk of 5Mb is just hyperbole. In the past we have always deleted low quality images (unless there was a particular need for them). The upload of many such images has been seen as a problem to be discouraged (the hordes of penis pictures). I've looked at the discussion of the Geograph upload: it's being done on the basis that there are many useful images included (such as the only image of a village) and the implicit understanding that the dross can be removed. --Simonxag (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its a picture of the Pizza Hut, as seen from The Arcade, and a picture of the piece of The Arcade containing the Pizza Hut. It is a poor picture, but it does illustrate both of those points. It is also the only picture on Commons of both of those subjects. A good picture of the front of the Pizza Hut (if it existed) would be a much better illustration of the Pizza Hut, but this one would still complement it and would therefore still be useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does it illustrate this arcade? Does it illustrate the Pizza Hut? --Simonxag (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
keep perfectly decent image, quality is easily sufficient and artistic quality is not needed for inclusion here, there is no real reason to delete this image Oxyman (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Well within scope.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Although I might ordinarily delete this, given the length of the debate and the zero cost of keeping it, I will. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Logo, not for Commons, transfered to wp:fr --MGuf (d) 10:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom it has some degree of artistic input russavia (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Outside of project scope, since it is no longer used as a {{Userpageimage}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertising for a web site, violates COM:ADVERT and PDF texts violate COM:SCOPE Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete send it to the appropriate pit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, spam. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that minifigs shouldn't be considered copyrightable. Powers (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No source for rendering Svgalbertian (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The seal is PD under US law, and we need to keep this seal because it's the only file of the SC seal we have. If someone can make an SVG of it, then I wouldn't mind it being deleted, but until then, it must be kept. Fry1989 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Without a source for this image, we cannot know when it was published or if it is PD-US by age. This image however was clearly created using a computer and was not published before January 1, 1923. However because I do think it is important that Commons host some form of the seal, I have uploaded File:Southcarolinaseal.png with is from a PD source. --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I see the best option is having this Seal put on the fast-track for SVGfication, if that's possible. Fry1989 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The seal is PD under US law, and we need to keep this seal because it's the only file of the SC seal we have. If someone can make an SVG of it, then I wouldn't mind it being deleted, but until then, it must be kept. Fry1989 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: at least for as long as it is in use, I see no significant creative difference between the two files Jcb (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Extremely small while there are already two similar images : File:Bus61.jpg and File:Bus61sitepropre.JPG Olybrius (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete. Per nomination. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
already have a photo, this pic not have permission 190.39.137.7 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW screenshot 78.55.121.128 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've asked many times about hypothetical problems of most of the files in Category:Video displays and I've had never read any answer about that ! It seems that live video displays in public places are an exception in terms of derivative worls... Especially when the video in question is not broadcast elsewhere than the concerned event (concert...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: If the video was recorded, it has a copyright and this infringes. In this age of cheap recording, it is hard to imagine that it was not recorded -- but in any event, it is up to the uploader to prove that the image is copyright free. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- To my knowledge it has not been recorded but unfortunately I cannot prove it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
and File:Jornal+nacional.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Screamer8888 (talk · contribs). Modern art. I think identity of artist should be confirmed via Commons:OTRS. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused near-dup of File:Aniline-3D-balls.png. That latter has source for 3D geometry of actual compound rather than only as analog of other unsourced-geometry compounds. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is the structure shown here planar? In this case, it might represent a MM2 optimization of aniline. --Leyo 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- N does look possibly planar, but rotated a bit vs the aromatic-ring plane. I agree it could possibly be useful to have the all-planar ("first-principles resonance"-esque) structure with description describing how the coordinates were determined for the diagam. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral (the file's creator). I created this image so I could make other images from it (Such as these ones) so I wouldn't really mind if it got deleted. The other image shows aniline better. However it would be a bit masochistic voting to delete my own image, so I'll stay neutral. Ephemeronium (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This file is nearly the same as File:Miley Cyrus @ MMVA Soundcheck 01 (cropped).jpg. It's not necessary to keep this file--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Image is in use, as well there are significant differences between the two images (cropping is not the same and one image has had more extensive tweaking done to it). Tabercil (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Tabercil, file is in use. russavia (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, self promotional Ezarateesteban 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
COPIA DE MAIL a 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org'
Hola Esteban, buenas noches. Primero que nada, gracias por contestar. Inicialmente cuando subí mi imagen, evidentemente no sabía qué tipo de derecho de autor poner o el tipo de copyright. Si bien la imagen está registrada para Más Electro Urquiza S.A., cualquiera puede bajarla a su computadora. Editarla. Modificarla. Y aunque esté usando un producto de Microsoft para mandar este mail, soy un ferviente defensor de software libre y el copyleft. Lo que no puedo permitir es que mi marca "ELECTRO URQUIZA Materiales Eléctricos", la usen para el mismo rubro sin la debida autorización o pago de franquicia, porque estaría contradiciendo los pasos del Registro de Marca que estamos llevando a cabo en la Argentina. Sin otro particular, y esperando que mi imagen sea parte de sus "logos", te saludo atentamente.
Andrés Cusimano. Más Electro Urquiza S.A.
El problema no es el copyright, Ud cedió los derechos via OTRS, el problema es el intento promocional de esa acción Ezarateesteban 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Entonces cómo hay que hacer para agregar un logo a su base de datos?, Hay que ser COCA-COLA para que no te borren? Espero su respuesta, gracias!
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No permission. 84.61.170.180 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the FOP issues, on which I disagree with Jcb, this image appears to be a copyvio with no permission from its creator. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No usable quality, not used. We have plenty better images in Category:Medical ultrasound Avron (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Buggy SVG, not used anywhere. Leyo 18:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
no usable quality, not used Avron (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Amada44 talk to me 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Upload-only account that claims own-work on every image (including those downloaded from the internet like File:Gedeon_G._Quijano_with_President_Roxas.jpg) Damiens.rf 19:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio russavia (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Upload-only account that claims own-work on every image (including those downloaded from the internet like is this case here) Damiens.rf 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio russavia (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Upload-only account that claims own-work on every image (including those downloaded from the internet like File:Gedeon_G._Quijano_with_President_Roxas.jpg). Damiens.rf 19:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio russavia (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Upload-only account that claims own-work on every image (including those downloaded from the internet like this one). Damiens.rf 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio russavia (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Upload-only account that claims own-work on every image (including those downloaded from the internet like is the case here). Damiens.rf 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio russavia (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also nominated: File:Armenian Empire3.png
Even at its peak, during the reign of Tigranes the Great, the Kingdom of Armenia never was anywhere near as large as it is depicted in these maps; see here for a more realistic map of the Armenian Empire. The maps are inaccurate and their source information is not identified; therefore, they are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Combined with the fact that they are not legitimately in use, they fall outside Commons' scope. File:MapSlide.jpg, on which both maps seem to be based, was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:MapSlide.jpg. --Black Falcon (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete as unencyclopedic (not realistically useful for any kind of educational purpose). --Dbachmann (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If you have the permission, please send it to COM:OTRS. If it is really self-created, please upload png or svg version. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Appropriate wikipedia article is nominated for speedy deletion due to possible copyright violation from http://www.hopeonthemove.org/index.html . --RE RILLKE Questions? 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Not "own work" but taken from some website, e.g. a September 2007 blog entry. See TinEye. Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
PD-Argentina? 1979?? According to the tags on flickr - the uploader gaves a bad source link, better is this - the photo was taken with a Canon 400D and is a recent digital photo, it is not an old photo, it is not public domain, thed date of the photo is not 1979, the author is not "IME". Copyright infringement. Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
We have exactly the same photo here: File:Hypsiboas crepitans01a.jpg We don't need this one. Vearthy (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I User:Pluta0 removed the watermark from the photo. It is not the same photo.
- I know. But there's no need to keep a photo with watermark. And we want to have the source of the photo with all information so I uploaded a watermark-free version over the original photo and asked this one to be deleted. Do you understand now? Vearthy (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand but now you are taking credit for my work to remove the watermark. -Also, the picture you used still has the watermark.
- Sorry, it wasn't on purpose. I always remember to put the authors nickname and this time I forgot to. I'm sorry. The photo I uploaded hasn't got a watermark, just purge and check it. Please, do the same with this photo yourself so you can avoid me making mistakes. Vearthy (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this was first published in Argentina. Brazilian website, Brazilian car, if it is a Test car it was in Brazil.... The public domain status in Argentina is unimportant, country of origin is most likely Brazil which has a copyright term of 70 years. Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplomata '80.JPG. Not first published in Argentina, Argentina is not the country of origin of the photo. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplomata '80.JPG. Not first published in Argentina, Argentina is not the country of origin of the photo. Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplomata '80.JPG. Not first published in Argentina, Argentina is not the country of origin of the photo. Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplomata '80.JPG. Not first published in Argentina, Argentina is not the country of origin of the photo. Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diplomata '80.JPG. Not first published in Argentina, Argentina is not the country of origin of the photo. Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this was first published in Argentina. Event in Brazil, taken not from an Argentinian website. Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
vandalism Anton008 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to policy and longstanding practice regarding watermarks. An image that prohibits removal of visible watermarks effectively rules out a large range of potential derivative works (pretty much any derivative work using a portion of the image), and so is effectively a no-derivatives license, which we forbid. I also disagree with the interpretation of the Creative Commons license in which it is claimed that authors can require attribution be given in any manner they choose, citing section 4a:
- "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. When You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested."[1]
My interpretation of the bolded language is that some kind of notice must be retained, but not necessarily in its precise original form, as long as the required information is included somewhere (like on the image description page and/or in EXIF metadata). If we were to accept the stricter interpretation, any author could demand to be credited in image captions, which is again against long-standing practice. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Removing the watermark and making sure the same information is given in the description page is certainly allowed by the cc-by-sa; removing the information entirely is forbidden, but moving it is okay. –Tryphon☂ 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the direct german translation of the license tells us, that the author has to be mentioned in the way he decides. But this just referrers to the naming and not to place of the mentioning. In detail it states that the name of the author and the licensing has to be kept as it is, and it has to be accessible in a appropriate manner. In short: Total bullshit template. --Niabot (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in publish my photos without the watermark. I've got similar problems with webzines or other users out of Wiki in the past, who still ignored attributing license and manner, so i labled all my pictures in this way.
- Maybe there are two ways of interpration, but this is my way to interprated it. No one is stirring on signs on paintings or come up with the idea to touch it.
- I know, there is a other longstanding practice here on WP, but thats not my way. If you dont want to accept my condition, i will not longer release my pics under cc - but i dont think, thats the idea of it...
- BTW: In the highlited cite of the licence above you can see You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. ALL NOTICES - Thats what i mean. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- "All Notices" refers to the simple fact that the license, source and naming of the author has to be kept intact. There not a word about on how or in which way they have to be kept. The only restricting rule is: The mentioning has to be found at an appropriate place. If this happens one time on the description page or a hundred times (inside picture, watermark, exif, ...) doesn't matter. --Niabot (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - incompatible with all of the licenses we accept - Jcb (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, I think the template is misinterpreting that section of the license. The textual content of the notices must be preserved, but the location can be changed to where it makes the most sense for the context in which the work is used. To interpret otherwise makes a mockery of the ability to create derivative works. The author can use a CC-BY-ND license if that is what they truly want (but those can't be on Commons). It's fine to have stuff in the EXIF, but please also put the information on the image page too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The entire point of forbidding non-derivative licenses is to prevent people from attaching all sorts of random conditions to image re-use. Commons is for free (libre) images, not sort-of free images. If people are misusing your images, you should either take legal action against them or report them at the Village Pump. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, cc-by-nd is NOT what i want. Anyone can edit the pictures - but he has to leave the WM untouched. What about paintings. Did you remome the signs there too??? -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it is an original, that is now in public domain, then it is in the best interest to keep the hand drawn tag of the artist. But anyone would be free to remove it or to modify the image. The template states the opposite. On the other hand you would be free to remove my tag from this image if it had one. --Niabot (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that it needs to be perfectly possible to make a crop of the image, say focusing in one one person in the photo, and that crop would not include the watermark. There are many forms of "derivative"; you appear to only allow some basic edits to the entire picture but not other forms. In looking, I do not see a watermark on most of the pictures which have this tag... if you are referring to a digital watermark of some kind, that would not be possible on say a printed version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously, per nom. Moros y Cristianos 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, the older images has no visible WM - thats only on my new once. And you're right too, that cropping images may crop the WM. The idea is, to include the license and the manner and make sure, that both were published, if the image would be used anywhere else. I have two ways, what i can do with my images. Publishing under a free license or sale my pictures. I chose the first way, cause i think, it's an good idea to share them with the public. The licence say, You must keep intact all notices - not You must keep intact any notices. So, where is the problem?? -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly this is your misunderstanding of the wording or English language.
- In Deutsch/in German: Es ist von allen Hinweisen auf die Lizenz und den Urheber die Rede. Eben nicht von jedem Hinweis der irgendwo angebracht ist. Letzteres wäre schon rein von der Logik ein Unding. Nicht alle Programme unterstützen EXIF. So könnte man also mit diesen Programmen keine Bilder bearbeiten wo die Lizenz im Bildanhang vermerkt ist. Genau aus diesem Grund wurde eine solche Formulierung verwendet die besagt, dass der Hinweis in originaler Form erhalten werden muss (also im Wort) und nicht wie das zu geschehen hat. --Niabot (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, the older images has no visible WM - thats only on my new once. And you're right too, that cropping images may crop the WM. The idea is, to include the license and the manner and make sure, that both were published, if the image would be used anywhere else. I have two ways, what i can do with my images. Publishing under a free license or sale my pictures. I chose the first way, cause i think, it's an good idea to share them with the public. The licence say, You must keep intact all notices - not You must keep intact any notices. So, where is the problem?? -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I placed the deletion notice on the template's page in <noinclude> tags - otherwise it seems that the images the template is included are pproposed for deletion which they are not - right? ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or else redirect to {{Nonderivative}} and speedy delete all images tagged as such. Option 1 is that such a restriction is not allowed under a CC license which allows derivatives, which makes this useless and unenforceable and it should be deleted. Option 2 is that is is in fact an allowable legal loophole in which case any image with such restrictions is outside of COM:SCOPE. I'm actually inclined to believe that it is an allowable loophole, but we shouldn't allow images with such restrictions in either case. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's the consequence. If you don't like images witch are watermarked, you have to delete them. On the other side you accept files licensed under cc-by-sa - so you have to accept the rules too. If theres no loophole in the license, i've also to accecpt it. Same rules to booth parties. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep until better license text of CC-4.0-forms and (at this time) only for CC-by-sa/3.0/de-relating files. In my opinion, there is an difference between the /unported and the /de-version of the CC-by-sa/3.0. The /unported says in 4c keep intact all copyright notices (meaning, that the informations must be present as given) and the /de says alle dazu gehörenden Rechtevermerke unberührt lassen (my translation: keep all copyrights notices belongs to it unaffected, meaning that the copyright notices are to be left as they are stated). I think, that is the problem, that could only be affected to the german-sublicense. I strongly disagree to nomination in this way, that WM-policies and longstanding practices stands over law. And it affects not the right to modify the picture. As someone has watermarks in it, you have to reintegrated this in the manner like the original. In Deutsch aus meiner Sicht ist da wirklich ein Unterschied zwischen der Unported-Version und der deutschen Sprachversion, während ich den anderen zustimme, dass laut Abschnitt 4c alle Rechtevermerke erhalten bleiben müssen in der Unported-Lizenz steht in der deutschen Lizenz drin, dass die Vermerke an sich unberührt bleiben müssen. Mag es eine Sache sein, die durch die Fassung der deutschen Version der Lizenz ungenügend berücksichtigt wurde, aber da steht drin, dass die Rechte-Vermerke unberührt bleiben müssen, nicht dass die Rechtevermerke erhalten bleiben müssen. Selbst ein Verändern der Datei bleibt möglich, man braucht ja nur das Wasserzeichen (in der Art und Weise des Originalwerkes) erneut in das bearbeitete Werk einzufügen. Daher bin ich für behalten. --Quedel (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nachtrag aufgrund Saibo's Nachfrage: bei seiner Lizenzwahl (CC-by-sa-3.0-de) hat er mit dem WM-erhalten Recht, bei einer anderen Lizenz wie CC-by-sa-3.0 wiederum nicht. Ich bezog mich dabei auf das im Admin-Noticeboard verlinkte Bild File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg. --Quedel (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If truly CC-by-sa-3.0-de is legally capable of preventing the removal of watermarks, I think we should resolve to make it an invalid license for Commons material. I'd want to see other German speakers' interpretations though. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I compared the CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE and CC-BY-SA-3.0 multiple times. The german variation is even little bit less restrictive, since some aspects are shortened. It only speaks about a proper mentioning of the author and license. It does no prevent you from modifying the image or to remove watermarks. This would be sick indeed and contrary to anything else stated inside the license. But this is just an misinterpretation. --Niabot (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- If truly CC-by-sa-3.0-de is legally capable of preventing the removal of watermarks, I think we should resolve to make it an invalid license for Commons material. I'd want to see other German speakers' interpretations though. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that what i mean. Maybe i misunderstood the english licence agreement (my english is really worse). Isn't there a difference between all notices, any notices and some notices?? Furthermore in the human-readable summary they say You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's part of why I'm inclined to say that it really is allowable legally, but then it falls afoul of commons project scope which does not allow any "restrictions on the creation of derivative works (except for copyleft)". Requiring that any derivative work retains the watermark certainly qualifies as a restriction, at least as I understand it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Another misunderstanding. That just refers to the naming/wording, not the way how this words are attached. --Niabot (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not want to initiate a conflict :( Its just my interpretation of the license. Maybe we have to talk about a ruleset handling this problem. Please don't misunderstood my ambitions: I'm interested in finding a solution - i do not want my head against a wall!! I just want to save my rights and find a better working solution for handling cc-by-sa licendes files in an out of wiki... -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As I proposed in an earlier discussion, we really should ask Creative-Commons, as the creator of this license, what they meant by the above cited statement. Thereafter we can think about conclusions for Commons, if necessary. Simply to conclude, as we wouldn't like such a restriction, it can't be meant that way, is wishful thinking. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I would agree Dcoetzee interpretation. We have been removing watermarks for a principle and an ethic to ensure the quality of the image, so a requirement that we would have to have images uploaded tagged with whichever watermark that the uploader wishes to add could make for some butt ugliness and a stream of deletion requests. If this deletions restricts us with licences, so be it.
Delete. The licensee shall have the right to create and reproduce adaptations (closely paraphrasing Section 3 b). "Adaptation" means a work based upon the licensed work, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, or other alterations. It includes any form in which the work may be recast, transformed, or adapted (Section 1). It follows that for a photo, it should be possible to crop it or recast it as a pencil drawing, for example. You may not impose any terms or technological measures on the work that restrict the terms of the license or the ability of the recipient to exercise the rights granted under the terms of the license (Section 4 a–c). The license constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the licensed work (Section 8 e). Keeping copyright notices intact (Section 4 a–c) simply means preserving the wording and distributing it with the work. It does not mean preserving the exact location, color, typeface or other attributes of the notices, because that would contradict the freedoms given in Section 3 b and impose restrictions prohibited by Section 4 a–c. It also contradicts http://freedomdefined.org/Definition, to which all works on Commons must conform. See also Commons:Watermarks. Thus, it contradicts the license itself as well as Commons' licensing requirements, and both contradictions are grounds for deletion, even when regarded separately. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete This templates text is a wrong interpretation of the license text. That doesn't say that the attribution of the author has to be kept as a watermark. Otherwise the author could easily make a CC-BY-SA-ND out of the CC-BY-SA. If the license would allow such a condition it would be a contradiction in terms and in order that be null and void. Chaddy (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: regardless of whether or not the licence text permits the imposition of copyright notices in the form of watermarks on images, we are justified in developing a policy of not having images marked in this manner in the Commons. Such watermarks reduce the utility of the images, and can occasionally be misleading – for example, the watermark may contain the © symbol, and while there is nothing inaccurate about this (the copyright holder does not give up his or her copyright when licensing an image to the Commons), it may give the impression that the image has not been licensed under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I know you want to use images w/o a watermark cause of better quality and usability. But so you will not be able to use my images furthermore, cause i want to keep it inside. Maybe the best idea is to delete all the watermarked files and give up using my files. If you want to use them in the future, you have to accept my discreet visible license tag. And you have to keep this template too - as u can see above, there are too many interpretations of the license. (sorry bout my english, hope you still understand me) -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- At first you will have to know, that you can't revoke a given license. At second you have to know, that you can't pressure the community with the simple fact, that you aren't willing to participate anymore. Everyone has the right to go and everyone that is willing to accept the license and all it's implications can contribute as usual. In short: It would be nice if you can accept this facts. If not, then this is you personal decision. --Niabot (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I know you want to use images w/o a watermark cause of better quality and usability. But so you will not be able to use my images furthermore, cause i want to keep it inside. Maybe the best idea is to delete all the watermarked files and give up using my files. If you want to use them in the future, you have to accept my discreet visible license tag. And you have to keep this template too - as u can see above, there are too many interpretations of the license. (sorry bout my english, hope you still understand me) -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained above, keeping copyright notices intact cannot be interpreted as a requirement to preserve watermarks, because that contradicts the rest of the license, so there really aren't "too many interpretations" (not valid ones anyway). If you have misunderstood the license, the licensing of your files may be void, and they may have to be deleted. But we are not going to start accepting licenses that don't allow photos to be cropped or recast as drawings, because we only accept freely licensed content. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Deleting his files is not a good option - too much work from others was put in and some are quite valuable for us which I do not want to see wasted. If he does not understand a license he grants it is his problem. He, according to his dewp talk page, even has consulted a lawyer about the license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained above, keeping copyright notices intact cannot be interpreted as a requirement to preserve watermarks, because that contradicts the rest of the license, so there really aren't "too many interpretations" (not valid ones anyway). If you have misunderstood the license, the licensing of your files may be void, and they may have to be deleted. But we are not going to start accepting licenses that don't allow photos to be cropped or recast as drawings, because we only accept freely licensed content. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that other people put in work was explicitly dismissed as a reason for keeping in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Kalon macau, and in that case, there were actually several indications that the uploader had understood the license and simply changed their mind later on. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a violation of the principles of Commons, as the images must be modifiable in any way. And while I would of course like to see the images kept, if the author refuses the idea of removing the watermarks and the license used supports that concept, then delete all images so licensed. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because the wording of the template is as innacurate as the not legally binding "human readable summary" of the CC license itself. I think that you can keep a notice of authorship in the kind of a watermark intact by simply cutting out that portion of the image and transposing it to another place in the derivative work, other games of splitting hairs are imaginable. Albeit I hope/think that the interpretation of that the phrasing of the CC-by-SA allows an author to state the way of how he wants to be attributed is valid, this strict interpretation made by L3XLoGiC is overshooting the aim of the license, making it a kind of "ND" and is thus not legit. Tryphon said it smart and simply in the first voting statement on this page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete For all the reasons so ably made above. At its most basic, it runs counter to a fundamental principle here on the Commons. Moreover, the potential proliferation of unnecessary watermarks on Commons images is a negative impact that should be avoided at all costs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably copyvio - appears to be part of a mural. Jujutacular talk 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This image does not display properly at all sizes. The image also includes dashed and wedged bonds that are ambiguous in this situation. Alternate, better image is File:Borneol with H.svg and others in Category:Borneol. ChemNerd (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete SVG bug, replaced. --Leyo 18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonstandard coloring/layout, unused, replaceable by File:Aniline-3D-vdW.png. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete} per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Leyo 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Military object. Gegik (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say the photo should be removed because it shows a 'secret' or 'designated/prohibited place' within the meanings of the jurisdiction it was taken in? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so.Gegik (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Sincle Google maps shows a very detailed satellite image of this location, I can't imagine that there is a problem. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama for architectural works, This is a recent (1992) architecural work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am afraid this is true. Tukka (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. no FOP in France russavia (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
France does not have FoP for architectrual works, The Architectural works shown in this image are compartivly recent (1992). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. no FOP in France russavia (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
France does not have FoP for architectural works, The architectural works shown are comparitivly recent (1992) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. no FOP in France russavia (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
France has no FoP for architecural works, the architectural work shown is comparitivly recent (1992) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. no FOP in France russavia (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Prominent Architectural work, No FoP for such in France. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Author wants to delete it now, as he fears his watermark will be removed from the image. (Converted from speedy deletion) --Niabot (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Picture from a public performance, no reason to delete it due to personal rights. --Niabot (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No public performance - private club. Contract disallowed photographer to use this pic out of actually reporting. Futuremore sickly about permantly removing watermark while disc is ongoing. Please delete this file immediately. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep licenses are not revokable. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment according metadata and file discussion page the author isnt the uploader but Marcel Kragt, which doesn't sound like a female name like stated on the discussion page (in german). This does not realy increase my trust in the uploader. --JuTa (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- And - of course - the source is "selbst fotografiert" (transl: self photographed). ... --Saibo (Δ) 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm aksing why "the fotografer" will "kill" him like stated on the File talk:Benni Cellini Matrix Bochum 2010 1.jpg if he publish this image under another license than CC-by-sa-3.0-de. This implements a different author. Only one of the statements on the description page and the one on the discussion page can be true, not both. This is very confusing (to keep AGF to the uploader and maybe maybe not author). --JuTa (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seams to me like an simple excuse to remove the license once given. As the current discussion (watermark template) moved forward in one direction, he is now very unhappy about the project and wants to destroy as much as he can currently do. In other words. Removing anything that he uploaded, breaking the license, ... --Niabot (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm aksing why "the fotografer" will "kill" him like stated on the File talk:Benni Cellini Matrix Bochum 2010 1.jpg if he publish this image under another license than CC-by-sa-3.0-de. This implements a different author. Only one of the statements on the description page and the one on the discussion page can be true, not both. This is very confusing (to keep AGF to the uploader and maybe maybe not author). --JuTa (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- And - of course - the source is "selbst fotografiert" (transl: self photographed). ... --Saibo (Δ) 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I take my toys and leave! Except, you irrevocably licensed your toys to the public. --Dschwen (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
