Commons:Deletion requests/2009/06/28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] June 28

[edit] File:Lazhar_Chraïti_-_Avis_de_recherche_-_Le_Monde_1954.jpg

Le Monde is published in France, so French copyright should apply too. Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Country of origin is Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I limited the file to the photo of Lazhar Chraïti, which was taken in Tunisia, so the Tunisian Law must be applied to it. Thank you. --DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The place of publication is important, the place where something was created is not so important. Is it the well known Le Monde? So it is quite obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course a search warrant for this person was first published in Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, more clear: Can you prove this claim and give it a source? The burden of proof is with the uploader. At the moment the image is sourced to Le Monde -> unfree because of French copyright. In 1954 there was no Tunesia, it was French -> maybe unfree as long as no reason is given why french copyright should not apply.
So what is needed: A source that proofs that the image was first published in Tunesia and a proof that it is not under french copyright because of 1) teritorial belonging and/or 2) possible simultaneous publication in France. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that Le Monde has the copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Le Monde is the (given) source. The copyright is with someone unknown - person or institution, a better source is not given. Back to the request: The image is published in France, the source Le Monde proves this, so French copyright should apply. The country of origin is France. So why should French copyright not apply? Some law, a bilateral agreement or a unilateral law declaring post-independet works under tunisian law? That needs clearification. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Mr Martin H., there was Tunisia at that time. And the occupation of Tunisia by France was only a protectorate on legal papers, so legally it was not belonging to France. For that reason, the photo was shot in Tunisia, not on a French soil. So, the copyright should be TUNISIAN. Thank you.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Only if the author is of Tunisian nationality or has permanent residence in Tunisia. Otherwise, the applicable copyright law is determined by the country of first publication. It does not matter (in the standard case) where a work was created. --Latebird (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] File:Titanic_southhampton.jpg

No first-party sourcing to verify licensing, image was since deleted from the English Wikipedia for the same lack of sourcing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom, also absurd and insulting misinformation in date, author, and source fields. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Pre-WWI photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • But apparently a UK photo, so that age does not assure PD status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • But this image of the Titanic dressed is well known. It is used on book covers. Yet the only attribution that I can find is to a Michael Pocock (source), who is certain not the photographer and unlikely to be the copyright holder; {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepThis photo is one of historical significance and cannot be replaced because the ship is no longer viewable in such condition. To show a photo of the wreck would not convey the same message that this photo does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevermark92 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is completely irrelevent to Wikimedia Commons. While English Wikipedia allows limited "fair use" of non-free licensed media, here at Wikimedia Commons only free licensed images are allowed. Additionally, alternative images such as File:RMS Titanic sea trials April 2, 1912.jpg with better source and copyright info are availible. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why the NARA shoebox would be a better source than book covers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Apology for overlooking the "do not delete" instruction in the box. Photographer's name added, taken from here: I thought it was a fix for the "No first-party sourcing to verify licensing" reason for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! However, now the problem is of finding the death year of the photographer H. Symes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. No evidence that image is PD outside United States.--Trixt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] Commons:Transwiki & related pages

I'm not really sure of the usefulness of this page is. The few Transwiki: pages created because of this system are either deleted or redirected to a real namespace. We should not be using this procedure most of the time (and I don't think anyone does anymore). According to the meta page: If the import feature is enabled between the originating and remote wiki (and you have access to the restricted feature), see Help:Import. Otherwise, use this procedure to transwiki the page. Well, most transwikis come from en.wp and should only be transferred by importing (same with meta and de.wp). And that creates it's own log. Usually all we use that for is templates since the history of a list of images (i.e. galleries) isn't really important nor conveniently imported (because they're normally a small part of a larger article or need most language specific links/text removed). Files have their own system (although I wish more people would import the actual history instead of having a bot reproduce it somewhere and clutter the page). I guess this still could be used for logging transwikis from projects that don't have import set up yet, but why? What's wrong with saying where something came from in the edit summary? Same result. A link to a deleted page that is completely useless to most people. Rocket000 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages noted probably predate the log. That info should be moved to the appropriate talk page. Then we can nuke it.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: Per nom. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06/28"