From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 November 1.1 November 1 1.1.1 Images of Carpkazu 1.1.2 comment of Carpkazu 1.2 November 2 1.2.1 File:Spare ribs back uncooked.jpg 1.2.2 File:Foto0684.jpg 1.2.3 File:Disney_Channel_wordmark.svg 1.2.4 File:AmazonRiverDolpinleaping.jpg 1.2.5 File:Tõnismäe_monument_1999.jpg 1.2.6 File:Glossop_War_Memorial.jpg 1.2.7 File:Kate_DeAraugo_-_Kmart.jpg 1.2.8 File:Kim_Il-sung.jpg 1.2.9 Category:Not build space probes 1.2.10 File:The_Little_Mermaid-tourists.jpg 1.2.11 File:La_takedown.jpg 1.2.12 File:StanaKatic3.jpg 1.2.13 File:Flag_of_Ghaznavid_Empire.svg 1.2.14 File:HoofdkantoorMeeùs.jpg 1.2.15 File:Bundesliga-Anstoßzeiten 2009–10.jpg 1.2.16 File:Virtual_Earth_Prattenburg_(4).jpg 1.2.17 Category:Not built space probes 1.2.18 File:Pino.ogg 1.2.19 File:Aoa101.jpg 1.2.20 File:Betty Page in Bizarre Magazine.jpg 1.2.21 File:Orospuhabib.png 1.2.22 File:Tyhypko_Billboard_2009.jpg 1.2.23 File:Anthony_Grooms.jpg 1.2.24 File:First_Light_Veistospuistossa.jpg 1.2.25 File:Salma_Malik.jpg 1.2.26 File:Salma_Malik.jpg 1.2.27 File:Proms-albert-hall-04.jpg 1.2.28 File:Rushka_Bergman.jpg 1.2.29 File:Ludgrove.jpg 1.2.30 Automobile manufacturer logos 1.2.31 File:Business.png 1.2.32 File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-B.jpg 1.2.33 File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-B.jpg 1.2.34 File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-A.png 1.2.35 File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-A.png 1.2.36 File:Panobanluk.jpg 1.2.37 File:Karl schaper.JPG 1.2.38 File:Una chingana, siglo XIX.jpg 1.2.39 File:Galvarino.jpg 1.2.40 File:Paulini_Curuenavuli_-_Eastland.jpg 1.2.41 File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg 1.2.42 Train/Czech 1.2.43 File:Geschändetehostie.jpg 1.2.44 File:Vstup_do_súdnej_sály_Bordeaux.jpg 1.2.45 File:Vstup_sudny_dvor_Bordeaux.jpg 1.2.46 File:KazanKremlin.gif 1.3 November 3 1.3.1 File:Discworld-librarian.jpg 1.3.2 File:Death_01_provia_17.jpg 1.3.3 File:Death_02_provia_17.jpg 1.3.4 File:Greaves_hall.jpg 1.3.5 File:Bonnie_SG.jpg 1.3.5.1 Update 1.3.6 File:Southern_Cassowary.jpg 1.3.7 File:Emily_Williams_-_Kmart.jpg 1.3.8 File:Kate_DeAraugo_-_Kmart_Crop.jpg 1.3.9 File:Hod_Hasharon_COA.png 1.3.10 File:Administración_Pública_Nacional-2009.png 1.3.11 File:Latin.gif 1.3.12 File:Christie.gif 1.3.13 File:GDUT.png 1.3.14 File:Tatjana_Batinic_3.jpg 1.3.15 File:Tatjana_Batinic_4.JPG 1.3.16 File:Tatjana_Batinic_2.jpg 1.3.17 File:Tatjana_Batinic_1.JPG 1.3.18 File:Location_big.jpg 1.3.19 File:Saida_International_Stadium_stand.jpg 1.3.20 File:MC_Joe_004.jpg 1.3.21 File:Alois_Hudal.JPG 1.3.22 File:Colo Colo Campeón 2006.jpg 1.3.23 Category:Eugène Fredrik Jansson 1.3.24 File:OgAAAKUuca2adS8MxMTE-tK4SqDlGLrR9QbCTZgXFURySDvssyUV1GpPzS5JlLgAgyr61T8Dah6xqkImG9lq-5kHv3MAm1T1UAyHpt4FacGbmeiLv9MGCJ3Tge1I.jpg 1.3.25 File:Matías Fernández.jpg 1.3.26 File:Areholek.png 1.3.27 File:Volvol90d.jpg 1.3.28 File:Aichi.jpg 1.3.29 File:Voldograd_City_(Den).jpg 1.3.30 File:Lansana_Conte_VOA.jpg 1.3.31 File:Lebanon_prime_minister_siniora_10may08_eng_175.jpg 1.3.32 File:ShanicaKnowles.jpg 1.3.33 File:Unnow_Butterfly.jpg 1.3.34 File:Khadr_Medic.png 1.3.35 File:Khadr_in_Rubble_2.png 1.3.36 File:Khadr_in_Rubble_1.png 1.3.37 File:HighRezButNeedsWork_-_Khadr_AA_Care.jpg 1.3.38 File:Remains_of_Ab_Kheyl_Compound,_July_2002.JPG 1.3.39 File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section-test version-1.jpg 1.3.40 File:Williams_and_Yaz.jpg 1.3.41 File:Khadr40.png 1.3.42 File:Khadr30.png 1.3.43 File:Khadr20.png 1.3.44 File:Khadr's_Colleague.png 1.3.45 File:Khadr_receiveing_AA_care.PNG 1.3.46 File:Khadr_medic_2.png 1.3.47 File:KHadr5.png 1.3.48 File:Keepitlauth.jpg 1.3.49 category:Nelida Lobato 1.3.50 File:Speer_at_Bagram_being_unloaded_by_the_396th_Medical.jpg 1.3.51 File:Speer_being_Unloaded_at_Bagram.jpg 1.3.52 File:Uncropped_Medical_Treatment_of_Omar_Khadr.JPG 1.3.53 File:Leo_Singers_Midgets_-_1902_Poster.jpg 1.3.54 File:Sofia-by-ramaio.jpg 1.3.55 File:Gili trawangan mm cidomo.jpg 1.4 November 4 1.4.1 File:Taniyama.jpg 1.4.2 Images of Laurita19 1.4.3 File:Walker_Family_Crest.jpg 1.4.4 Montage of Columbus station logos 1.4.5 File:Satyricon_download2.jpg 1.4.6 File:Agnetha_Immergeil_Card.jpg etc. 1.4.7 File:Euchloe-tagisEM.JPG 1.4.8 File:Ss_neue_reichskanzlei.jpg 1.4.9 File:Stadion_Miejski_w_Krakowwie_stary5.jpg 1.5 November 5 1.5.1 Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 1.5.2 Images of Kowloon Walled City 1.5.3 Images of Magpiek 1.6 November 6 1.6.1 File:Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2009_in_Besetzung_gueltig_ab_2009-11-01.jpg 1.6.2 File:Nancytstricklin.JPG 1.6.3 File:Ramones1996.jpg 1.6.4 File:ElvinJones-triple.jpg 1.6.5 File:N421408_36920675_31.jpg 1.6.6 Photos of Monument to the Conquerors of Space 1.6.7 KUKA images 1.6.8 File:3D_animated_flag_Ukraine.gif 1.6.9 Images of Flag of the Kingman Reef 1.6.10 File:CapaExperienciaReligiosa.png 1.6.11 Images of Marrovi 1.6.12 File:Irdenware_von_Max_Laeuger_1900.jpg 1.6.13 File:Meine_Drei_Cousinen_von_Ignacio_Zuloaga.jpg 1.7 November 7 1.7.1 File:Pterarchos_Ioannis_Giagkos.jpg 1.7.2 File:CYP in EU location.jpg 1.7.3 File:Flugangst.jpg 1.7.4 File:En-Wikinews-Google_planning_PayPal_rival.ogg 1.7.5 File:En-us-wood.ogg 1.7.6 File:FullReport2-07-2005.ogg 1.7.7 File:Carol_II.jpg 1.7.8 File:Spanked_room_maid2.jpg 1.7.9 File:MajaePapingut.jpg 1.7.10 File:British_Army_Crest.jpg 1.7.11 File:ElissaKhoury2006.jpg 1.7.12 Category:Pottery colorants 1.7.13 File:Sea0311l.jpg 1.7.14 File:Compiz_Fusion_Gutsy.png 1.7.15 File:Exerzierplatzes.jpg 1.7.16 Dancer dressed only in butterfly wings 1.7.17 File:Pink-elephant-s.jpg 1.7.18 File:Sketch_Botschaftsviertel.JPG 1.7.19 File:Dejavu.jpg 1.7.20 File:Mylene Demongeot in Gold for the Caesars trailer 2.jpg 1.7.21 File:Gold for the Caesars trailer.jpg 1.7.22 File:Detail_of_facade_01.JPG 1.7.23 File:KemeriNagyImre_kicsi.tif 1.7.24 File:Facade_detail_at_night.jpg 1.7.25 File:Img244_Lorincz_Gy.tif 1.7.26 File:New_facade_nightview_01.jpg 1.7.27 File:PondMeadowFront.jpg 1.7.28 File:SaulandSentrum.jpeg 1.7.29 File:Steven_Gerrard_(adidas).jpg 1.7.30 File:3rdalley.jpg 1.7.31 File:Opha3343.png 1.8 November 8 1.8.1 File:Railway Cy map.jpg 1.8.2 File:Cyprus_geomorphologic.jpg 1.8.3 Images of User:Quahadi 1.8.4 File:Brugge_-_tram_2,_1920.jpg 1.8.5 File:Bix_beiderbecke.jpg 1.8.6 File:Provincia_di_Palermo-Stemma.png 1.8.7 File:LUNA_German_UAV.jpg 1.8.8 File:Maquisards_-_Glières.JPG 1.8.9 File:Salute.jpg 1.8.10 File:Leonardo Milan.JPG 1.8.11 File:Rega_logo.png 1.8.12 File:THW-Jugend_Logo.svg 1.8.13 File:Reagan_National_Airport_Station_in_2009.jpg 1.8.14 File:Fort_Totten_Station_in_2009.jpg 1.8.15 File:South_Dakota_state_flag.png 1.8.16 File:White_people_variety.jpg 1.8.17 File:Paris_landscape.JPG 1.8.18 File:Wappen Österreich-Ungarn 1915 (Mittel).png 1.8.19 File:Logweb.gif 1.8.20 Not clear, because intellectual property http://machosperu.pe.kz 1.8.21 File:Spinosaurina_2.jpg 1.9 November 9 1.9.1 File:Chinese horoscope.jpg 1.9.2 File:Chinese_horoscope.jpg 1.9.3 File:Chinese_horoscope.jpg 1.9.4 File:Martin_model_130_China_Clipper_class_passenger-carrying_flying.jpg

[edit] November

[edit] November 1

[edit] Images of Carpkazu

1. File:Opening of hokuriku Railway Tunnel.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
2. File:Round the world air route by JAL.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
3. File:Launching of first Japanese Nicler ship "Mutsu".jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
4. File:Specimen Jpapanese stamp of Empress visit to Europe.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
5. File:Kasaoka Okayama 18.2.1977.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
6. File:Tachypleus tridentatus Japanese stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
7. File:50th Annive. of Nationap Park of Japan stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
8. File:Sawamura Eiji Stamp.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
9. File:Japanese FDC in 1989.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
10. File:Nagano Monkeys stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
11. File:Stamp of 89 Sea and Island Exposition Hiroshima.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
12. File:Stamp of YOKOHAMA EXOTIC SHOWCASE '89 .jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
13. File:Nijisseik Pyrus pyrifolia 62yen Japanese postal stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
14. File:Kabuki Onoe Baykou 7.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
15. File:Konohazuku and Houraijiyama stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
16. File:Konohazuku stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
17. File:Owl Japan.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
18. File:Fast Breeder Reacter Monju.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
19. File:International year of the family on Japan postal stamp 50yen No2.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
20. File:Kouda Rohan Stamp.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
21. File:Hiyoshi Dam Stamp.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
22. File:Mikan no hana saku oka.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

These are all postage stamps of Japan that are less than 50 years old and I believe all these pre-1959 Japanese stamps uploaded by User:Carpkazu are copyvios because there is no evidence that the template used {{PD-Japan-exempt}} applies to postage stamps. The only template that should be used is {{PD-Japan}}. In fact the same editor added the details about the {{PD-Japan-exempt}} template to Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Japan with this edit but this has been questioned and should be removed. He was warned about using stamps newer than 50 years here but has failed to respond in English even though I asked for a translation of his response. Ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

日本語で失礼します。日本語コモンズのなかCommons:井戸端#日本切手の画像アップについての議論で、日本国著作権法13条に違反しないと言うコンセンサスが得られています。その中で『Commons:Stamps/Public domainによれば、日本で発行された切手については”Stamps more than 50 years old are in the public domain, per Template:PD-Japan”とあり、発行後50年が経過した切手については掲載できるとあります。しかし日本の著作権法第13条によれば国の法令や国の機関による告示・通達類は、著作権保護の対象外とされていますが、切手の図案が官報で郵政省令として告示されていたことから、政府刊行物として著作権の保護の対象にならないそうです。ただ、、郵便切手類模造等取締法（郵模法）（昭和四十七年六月一日法律第五十号）で日本を含め世界の郵便切手と見間違えるような外観を有するものを製造と配布が禁止されているうえ、掲載には郵便切手類模造等の許可に関する省令（昭和47年10月30日 郵政省令第31号）で、郵政大臣（現在は総務大臣）の許可が必要で、書面もしくはオンラインで申請しないといけないとあります。ただ、これらは紙媒体についてのみであり、インターネットやテレビの画像については法的制限がないという解釈を切手収集家の団体である日本郵趣協会が主張していますし、テレビ番組も問題なく放映しているので、当方は一部50年を経過していない切手画像をTemplate:Copyrighted free useとしてアップしたのですが、現行のものであり利用されるリスクがあるため、郵政省が出した「郵便切手類模造等取締法第1条第2項の許可を受けたものとみなされるもの」（昭和47年10月30日郵政省告示第881号）という省令に則って切手に「見本」の文字を入れた場合には許可は不要とする加工を行うか使用済切手をアップしました。以上のような解釈したのですが、そもそも問題ない措置なのか、また英語で以上の事をコモンズに説明する事が出来ないため、このままでは不備であるため適切な措置が出来ないかという相談です。またコモンズではロシア、ドイツ、カザフスタンといった国々では法令上問題がないとしてアップできるようにタグがあるのですが、日本切手にも同様なタグは作成できないでしょうか。ただし、近年多く出されているアニメーション作品の切手については二次創作物に当たるといえるので、アップは避けるべきであるとは思います。長文かつ散漫な文章ですいませんが、ご教示よろしくおねがいいたします。』と発言したのですが、日本の法律で違反にならないと結論付いています。--Carpkazu (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The copyright of the image of Japan will allow the stamps are used as government publications. However, some limited by law. Are described in detail in the Japanese Wikipedia entry stamp（切手） in my talk page.But,animation is of a postage stamp, so the secondary pipeline network creation, and not up, as long as the law not up care. The following is the law of Japan was helpful

• 郵便切手類模造等取締法（郵模法） Japanese law fake stamps (Act No. 15 of June 74 a day) or
• 郵便切手類模造等の許可に関する省令 Ministerial ordinance concerning permits and stamps and imitation (1972, October 30 MPT Ordinance No. 31)--Carpkazu (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I think these files　are not copyvio. Because these stamps are published by Japan's government (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications / Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications).　--Monaneko (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment

• 少なくとも郵便民営化以前（2008年10月以前）切手は郵政省・総務省から告示されていた。
• 日本国著作権法第13条によると法令や告示、通達等に著作権はない。
  • しかし切手が二次著作物の場合、原著作者が権利を主張することは可能だと思われる。
• 上記の切手は全て2008年10月以前のものである

• Before the postal service privatization (Oct, 2008), stamps are announced by Ministry.
• According to article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan, ministerial announcements are PD (Ministry can't claim copyrights of announcements).
  • However, if the stamp is derivative works, the author of the original work can claim copyrights.
• These files were published before 2008.--Monaneko (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Many countries have a provision that the texts of their laws and legal judgements are public domain or freely reusable, so that lawyers and law books can use them without getting entangled in copyright issues. It's a stretch to assume that such a provision also applies to government-commissioned artwork. If the artists haven't had even had to relinquish their copyrights, then stamps are not PD unless the artists specifically released their works that way. To compare with the clarity of the US situation, the USDA wanted to use File:Dates on date palm.jpg, and contacted me personally, asking if I would put it in the public domain so they could use it (I said yes). Do we have any information on what rights the artists of Japanese stamps have to give up? Stan Shebs (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment:日本では、多くの切手の図案作成者は郵政省技官、すなわち公務員であり、図案著作権は政府に帰属するとされています。例外的に芸術作品もしくはアニメーション作品を使用する場合は二次創作物になるので、その場合には使用は慎重にすべきであると言えます。 （In Japan, the ministry of technical officials in designing the stamps, and public servants, copyright and designs are attributable to the government. If use art or animation to be exceptionally creative works, so the secondary, if that is true should be used carefully.）--Carpkazu (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

コメント 依頼に挙げられた画像のうちの一部、以下のものは郵政省職員以外の手による原図を使用しており、二次創作物にあたると思われます。それぞれの原図著作者は以下の通り。

• File:Specimen Jpapanese stamp of Empress visit to Europe.jpg (#4) - 香淳皇后（2000年6月16日没）
• File:Nagano Monkeys stamp.jpg (#10) - 柳沢京子（1944年生）
• File:Stamp of 89 Sea and Island Exposition Hiroshima.JPG (#11) - 河野通男（2006年1月現在67歳）
• File:Japanese FDC in 1989.jpg (#9) - 堀井健美（1932年生）
• File:Nijisseik Pyrus pyrifolia 62yen Japanese postal stamp.jpg (#13) - 池本喜巳（1944年生）
• File:Kabuki Onoe Baykou 7.jpg (#14) - 林嘉吉（1999年没）
• File:Konohazuku and Houraijiyama stamp.jpg, File:Konohazuku stamp.jpg, File:Owl Japan.JPG (#15, 16, 17) - 岩原良仁（1937年生）
• File:International year of the family on Japan postal stamp 50yen No2.jpg (#19) - 永石繁信（2008年2月現在63歳）、公募に非ずコンペで採用
• File:Hiyoshi Dam Stamp.jpg (#21) - 岩澤重夫（1927年生）
• File:Mikan no hana saku oka.jpg (#22) - 蓬田やすひろ（1941年生）

これらの「原図の」著作権が郵政省に帰属する（著作権が著作者から移転されている）という根拠はございますでしょうか。特に香淳皇后の絵画については切手のための描き下ろしではないと考えられるため、存続は厳しいように個人的には思量します。 --Vantey (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(translated) Some of the images listed were used the original drawings drawn by the non-Postal employees. Especially #4, it is not considered that the original design drawn for the stamp, so I think that it is difficult to keep. --Vantey (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment とりあえず公募について。佳作以上の作品の著作権は郵政省に帰属していたようです

そのほか、これが大事な点でございますが、佳作以上の入賞作品の著作権は郵政省に帰属するということを明示してございます。～第52回国会衆議院逓信委員会1号（昭和41年07月19日開会）、曾山政府委員の発言より～

文献は国会会議事録検索システムにあるのですがリンク不能なので検索して確認してください。--Monaneko (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In case that the stamp is chosen from the public (and win a prize), the copyrights is reserved　by Ministry. --Monaneko (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC

 Comment I believe that the exact wording of the statute and the actual way of publishing the stamps means a lot. Finland seems to have somewhat similar legislation to the Japanese: official decisions and official authority statements are PD, but not all official works. Thus e.g. informational websites or leaflets are copyrighted. There, the Finnish coins and pre-1990 stamps (postal service turned into a corporation in 1990) have been considered PD, because the design images of coins and stamps have been published as relevant authority decisions. However, Finnish banknotes are not PD, because the decisions only give textual descriptions of the notes. So, I'd like our Japanese editors to tell (in English) whether the actual image of the stamp is a part of the authority decision or whether the decision instituting the stamp only includes some lesser description. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment::::内藤陽介著「沖縄・高松塚の時代：切手ブームの落日 1972-1979 」の中に切手の著作権についての記述があります。それによりますと1975年ごろに切手の原画になる絵画の使用料でトラブルになり、一時期著作権の問題にならない古い絵画を使用していた時期があったそうです。また切手収集誌の記事の中に、日本の切手で外部の人の手による作品については、デザインの買い上げという形で、その後二次使用されようが増刷されようが、追加で代金を支払うことはなかったようです。これは、切手にするために額面や切手名称や国名などの挿入を郵政省の技官が行うため、「郵政省」の著作物になったという解釈だと思います。実際に一般公募の時の入賞作品が切手になった時著しく改変をうけているのが、少なくないからです。また前述の内藤の著作によれば香淳皇后の作品の使用許諾は宮内庁から得たとの記述があります。これは肖像使用を不可にかわり「皇后に縁の品」として許可されたようです。--Carpkazu (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment:参考までに、発行後50年経過していないにもかかわらず、コモンズにアップされている国の法的根拠を列挙します。ほとんど旧ソ連から独立した諸国のものが多いのですが、ドイツは国内法で認められているようです。コモンズにアップしている切手画像が少ないのは、他言語のウィキペディアで切手画像のアップを個別にしているようです。そのため、日本切手もイタリア語版では日本語版では到底許されそうもないアニメーション作品の切手画像をアップしています。

アメリカ合衆国　合衆国の公務員による著作（1978年の郵政事業公社化まで）

ドイツ　ドイツ国内法によりパブリックドメイン{PD-German stamps

ロシア　ロシア連邦国内法

カザフスタン　(PD-KZ-exempt}}

キルギスタン　{PD-KG-exempt}}

リトアニア　同国著作権法

ウクライナ　 {PD-UA-exempt}}

アルメニア

アゼルバイジャン

ベラルーシ

モルドバ

フェロー諸島（デンマーク領）

上記の国で、もし日本切手の画像アップが認められるとしたら、郵政事業民営化されているドイツの例が参考になると思います。--Carpkazu (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)　

 Comment:

--Knua (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment:著作権放棄とは言っておりません、誤解なきように。日本の法律では、郵便切手類模造等取締法]（郵模法）（昭和四十七年六月一日法律第五十号）で切手に類似するものの製造を禁止し、郵便切手類模造等の許可に関する省令（昭和47年10月30日 郵政省令第31号）で、製造する場合には郵政大臣（現在は総務大臣）の許可が必要としている一方で、「郵便切手類模造等取締法第1条第2項の許可を受けたものとみなされるもの」（昭和47年10月30日郵政省告示第881号）という省令で一定条件で使用する場合には許可が不要、すなわち切手画像を使用するのは一定条件をクリアすれば、認められるとあります。よって著作権はあるが、一定範囲内であれば認められると解釈されるといいたいのです。一番いいのは郵便事業会社に質問すればいいとは思います。まあ、アニメーションの切手は、総務大臣の許可が得られたら模造は作れるのですが、キャラクター商品の権利者からは確実にクレームはつくでしょうね。--Carpkazu (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment:

--Knua (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

著作権放棄とはいってなく、著作権フリーだといったはずなのですが、--Carpkazu (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

著作権フリーなのに「著作権はあるが、一定範囲内で認められる」とはどういうことです？コモンズに投稿するということは商業利用含めあらゆる用途で許容されなければならないのですが（もちろん切手偽造は除く）。--Knua (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

法律の文言の解釈です。また著作権があるというのは一部のアニメーションの切手にコピーライトが明記された例があるためです。コモンズにアップする際には切手偽造されないように加工する必要があるはずです。そうすれば前述の「郵便切手類模造等取締法第1条第2項の許可を受けたものとみなされるもの」の条件をクリアできると言うものです。--Carpkazu (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please translate your all posts into English as well as Japanese, so a wider audience can understand the claims being made. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

私の主張の主旨ですが、後日英語に翻訳したものをアップします。翻訳の為に時間をください。 "Gist of my argument is to be up later translated into English. Please give time for translation."--Carpkazu (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the English version of the copyright law and it says nothing about stamps specifically, like the ones mentioned earlier, such as Kazakhstan, Germany, Russia. I also have located the postal law (Japanese) and it does not say about copyright of stamp, only how they can be used and sold. I have found nothing from the postal service of Japan to say the images are public domain. Until we have the assertion that stamps are indeed works from the government, we should not host the stamps here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

コメントお久しぶりです。英文は、けっこう端折ってます。あまり自信もないのですが。

切手の図版は著作物であるとしても、著作権法13条の目的とならない著作物としてコモンズで掲載できる可能性はありますが、告示などに掲載されているだけでは、告知すべきことの対象であって、告知そのものではないとも考えられますし、告示への掲載について著作権者の許諾を得ている、または郵便切手類模造等取締法第１条第２項の許可を受けたものとして掲載しているということも考えられます。13条の適用を受けるかどうかは、白書についての判例があるほかは、あまり言及されることもなく、今のところ、ちょっと判断しきれないと思います。

保護されるとしても、少なくともコモンズでの掲載は昭和47年郵政省告示第881号で列挙されていることで、昭和47年郵政省令第31号第２条２で郵便切手類模造等取締法第１条第２項の許可を受けたものとみなされるという点については理解しました。商用利用や改変が可能ですから、著作物性に欠けるが、商標としての使用は規制されるロゴの使用に類似したものと考えれば、タグなどで告示881号の概要を示すことで、紛らわしい概観での利用を避けることも認められるべきだとは思います。

ただ、気になることが二つあります。ひとつは、実質的にコピーライテッド・フリーユースに近い利用が可能だとしても、著作権法以外のところで許可が得られている場合に、コモンズに置くことができるのか、という問題です。これは、財団あるいはコモンズのコミュニティに受け入れられるかどうか、というところで判断されると思います。

もうひとつは、コモンズでは自由な改変が認められていなければなりませんが、郵便切手類模造等取締法および省令・告示では、本物の切手と区別できる切手の模造としての許可を行っていますが、切手の模造としての枠を超える改変について許可を得ていると受け取れるかどうか、です。つまり、郵便切手類模造等取締法が許可をする上では、本物の切手と誤認しないための改変がなされているものを許可するという考えになりますが、単に図像として切手の絵柄から自由に二次創作してもよいというところまで想定されているということが明らかだとはいえないように思いました。ここで、著作権法13条に確かに当てはまるということであれば、著作人格権も含めて行使できないということになりますから問題は生じないのですが、ぼくは、そこのところもあいまいさが残ると考えるので、コモンズでの利用は避けたほうがよいかもしれません。日本語版の「Wikipedia:屋外美術を被写体とする写真の利用方針」のような形で、EDP（wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy/Ja）として制度化すれば、日本語版での表示は可能だと思いますし、それぞれのコミュニティの判断にも拠りますが、他言語版でも同様の処置をとることもできると思います。

Works of the stamps are copyrighted and copyright holder is the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications at that time).

Carpkazu says that Works of postal stamps are notified on public notices issued by organs of the State, then works of postal stamps are copyrighted but "not protected" under Article 13 (ii). it says

Article 13. The following shall not form the subject matter of the rights provided for in this Chapter:

public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, independent administrative organs or local independent administrative organs;

He also says; At the case "public notice of Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications 881." provided, such as "material of imitation of postal stamp is not paper", or "there is some indication which apparently distinctive from true postal stamp on the imitation of postal stamp", it can treated as permitted by Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications（Ordinance of Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of 31. Article 2. Paragraph 2., "Act on Control of Imitation, etc. of Postal Stamps, etc". Article 1. Paragraph 2.）.

In my opinion, it is not clear the works is protected or not under the copyright law. In addition to that, it is also uncertain that derived work which is not intended to imitate postal stamp is permitted or not. --Ks aka 98 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Carpkazu has made a good case for the Japanese stamps being in PD by the virtue of Article 13 of the Japanes Copyright Act. However, the regulation you refer to seems to be a non-copyright limitation on the use of stamps, basically forbidding the forgery of stamps. The Commons policy is to disregard all non-copyright limitations. So, I say  Keep.--MPorciusCato (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] comment of Carpkazu

 Comment日本の著作権法には切手の著作権に関する規定はありません。日本の郵便法も切手は郵便料金の証票としか規定していません。"The provisions of copyright law in Japan is no copyright stamp. Stamps and postal laws and regulations in Japan is not only the postage voucher. "日本の官報には、2003年まで監督官庁によって切手の発行告示を発行のたびに公表していた為、政府による著作物という見解もある、しかし、絵画と同じように著作物とする見解もある。"Official Gazette of Japan, was published in 2003 for every stamp issued by the supervisory authorities to issue a public notice was also the view that government works, but also to view paintings and works as ."日本政府は1966年に日本の国会で、郵便切手の著作権は郵政省に属すると答弁している。そのため、郵政省もしくは日本郵便に切手の著作権がある見解もあるが、前述のように法律に明記していない。 "The Japanese government in the Diet of Japan in the year 1966, postage stamps are copyright and belong to the defense ministry. Therefore, there is some opinion postal stamp on the copyright or Japan Postal Service, not the law as stated above." 日本では郵便切手を紙幣と同じように偽造されないよう法律で規制されている。その法律は1972年に施行された郵便切手類模造等取締法である。しかし、これは偽造防止の法律であり、切手の著作権侵害に関する規定はない。 "In Japan, that is not regulated by the law to the forged bank notes and postage stamps like. Law Enforcement Act of 1972 and that kind counterfeit postage stamps was enacted. However, this is an anti-counterfeiting laws, the provisions of the stamp is not copyright infringement."日本で、郵便切手を原寸大かつ原色で紙に印刷する場合、許可を申請するように規定されている。これは『郵便切手類模造等の許可に関する省令』である。この省令は現在も有効であるが、申請先は日本郵便ではなく、日本国総務省である。なお、この申請は日本語のみであるが、オンラインで出来る"size postage stamps, which are specified to apply for a permit. This allowed for such an ordinance 『postage』 kind of imitation. This ordinance is still valid, which is not in Japan Post, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan.This application is a Japanese only, can Order."日本国内では、白黒印刷する場合や紙媒体以外に日本も含む世界中の郵便切手の図案を用いることを容認する省令がある。これは、1972年に郵政省が告示した「郵便切手類模造等取締法第1条第2項の許可を受けたものとみなされるもの」である。 "In Japan, there is an ordinance to authorize the use of a postage stamp designs for the world, including Japan and paper when printing other than black and white. This is announced by the ministry in 1972 was "kind of fake postage stamps 1 Control Law, Article 2 shall be deemed to have received the permission of the term" is."以上のことから、日本切手の図案をインターネットにアップロードする行為は著作権法上の許可を必要としないといえる。この見解は日本最大の切手収集家団体である、日本郵趣協会（JPS）も示唆している。"From the above, acts to upload to the Internet and say Japan is the design of the stamp does not need the permission of the copyright law. This view is Japan's largest organization of philatelists, Japan Philatelic Society, Foundation (JPS) have also suggested."ただし、アニメーション作品を題材とした郵便切手には、一次創作者の著作権留保を主張するコピーライト表示があるものがある。これらは、ウィキペディアにアップロードするべきではないといえる。However, animation, viruses and online postage, there is a view that there is a copyright claim copyright retained primary creator. They say you should not upload to Wikipedia."私は日本の法律及び切手収集家のアドバイスから、ウィキペディアに1960年以降に発行された日本切手の画像を投稿したが、理解を得られずとても残念である."I'm from the advice of legal and stamp collectors in Japan, Wikipedia posted a picture of a 1960 stamp issued since Japan is not able to understand shame."その原因としてタグの選択を間違ったからである。政府の著作物とする法的根拠が郵政省公示のみであり、日本以外では参照することが出来ない日本政府官報でしか確認できない。そのため、私は日本郵便ないし日本国総務省に許諾条件を問い合わせたいと思う。またCommons:OTRSも活用したいと思う。可能性としては、著作権はあるが画像を使用できるはずである。　"Tagged as the wrong choice because of its cause. MPT is the only official and legal basis for government work, can not be confirmed outside of Japan can not only see the Japanese government gazette. Therefore, I want to contact the license terms or to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Japan Post Japan. The Commons: OTRS I also want to use. As a possibility, should be able to use the copyrighted images there."私がアップロードした日本切手の画像は日本国政府の法令に違反しない。よって、正当な行為であったと主張します。英語が不得意なので、意味が通じていないかもしれませんが、皆様のご理解を得られることを希望します"Japanese stamp images I have uploaded does not violate the laws of the Government of Japan. Thus, the claim was legitimate.I so good at English, the meaning may not be through, I just want to get the understanding of everyone."--Carpkazu (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is this 2003 order talking about the stamps should be government works? Even if this order is true, works of the Japanese Government are not in the public domain automatically. Also, see this part of the copyright law:

Authorship of a work made by an employee in the course of his duties)

Article 15. (1) The authorship of a work (except a program work) which, on the initiative of a legal person or other employer (hereinafter in this Article referred to as "legal person, etc."), is made by his employee in the course of his duties and is made public under the name of such legal person, etc. as the author shall be attributed to that legal person, etc., unless otherwise stipulated in a contract, work regulation or the like in force at the time of the making of the work. (2) The authorship of a program work which, on the initiative of a legal person, etc. is made by his employee in the course of his duties, shall be attributed to that legal person, etc., unless otherwise stipulated in a contract, work regulation or the like in force at the time of the making of the work.

So not only the government has copyright, the author has copyright. Everything else you have mentioned, the Commons is not the place to hold images. You can have them on the English Wikipedia, because they are going to be fair use and we cannot take fair use here.  Delete User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

著作権法15条ですが、日本のウィキペディアでは航空写真のように出典の明記を条件に著作権のある画像の使用を容認されている。この画像のように。そのため切手について総務省及び日本郵便に著作権について問い合わせしている段階です。結論が出るまで可否の判断を待っていただきたい。"Copyright laws is Article 15, in the Japanese Wikipedia is acceptable to use copyrighted images of sources under the condition as stated in aerial photography. Like this picture. We're about to contact the copyright for the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Japan Post stamps for it. Let `s wait until the decision of whether or not the decision."--Carpkazu (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 2

[edit] File:The_Little_Mermaid-tourists.jpg

Following this deletion request, I'm nominating the original picture. Having more content around it doesn't change the fact that the statue is the main subject, so de minimis doesn't apply. –Tryphon^☂ 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but the statue really is not that many pixels across, especially compared to the picture width. so are you sure de minimis does not apply? Thue (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (image uploader, who reluctantly did agree with the other image deletions)

I'm pretty sure, yes. If you have a look at the example given in COM:DM, you'll see that if the [statue] forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [statue], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the [statue] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the [statue] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. Pixel counts are not a criteria here. –Tryphon^☂ 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete. The inclusion of the copyrighted work is not incidental. The file is used on 32 projects – in all of them to illustrate the statue rather than tourists, as far as I can tell. Basically, if one can use a photo to illustrate an article about a subject, the subject's inclusion in the photo isn't de minimis. The lack or limitation of freedom of panorama in some countries is unfortunate, but it's not something that we should try to circumvent through "clever" use of perceived loopholes. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Of course, you could upload a variant with the statue pixelated out. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete It's very usefulness as a picture of the statue on multiple Wikipedias shows that the statue is the picture's subject. --Simonxag (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I believe that this can be kept. Maybe could be renamed "tourism in Denmark". The description could focus on the architect of the ugly building in the background. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be a prime example of trying to circumvent lack of freedom of panorama through "clever" use of loopholes. It's obvious given the usage of the file that the purpose is to illustrate the copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One can call it "Langelinien pavillon" by Nils and Eva Koppel, built 1954. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if we crop it to change that to be the main subject. Again, as evidenced by how the image is used and described, the curret subject is a copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the description and I propose to rename this File:Langelinie.jpg; so  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you also remove it from articles about the statue? Or at least address the issue? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete anytime you have a photo where everyone is looking at something, the eye is going to drawn to that item. As long as you have the statue in the foreground of an image with a bunch of tourists looking at it, it can't be de minimis. Pixellating the statue, while horrible, would solve the problem, though not necessarily giving us a photo anyone wants to use. Of course, that last fact means that the statue isn't de minimis. If you actually want to claim the Langelinien pavillon as the subject, crop it so that we get all those distracting tourists gawking at something that isn't the pavillon out of the picture.
  I could argue in the context of a book on architecture or psychology of tourism or photography that the statue is de minimis; if we use it in articles on the Little Mermaid, any hope of that that goes out the window.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not sure about commons policy on this general issue, but as a non-profit organisation the Wikimedia foundation is free to use this image as much as we like, as Danish copyright very explicitly states that royalties only can be collected if the work is used commercially "Bestemmelsen i 1. pkt. finder ikke anvendelse, såfremt kunstværket er hovedmotivet og gengivelsen udnyttes erhvervsmæssigt. ". Frankly I don't see how that differs from the thousands of images we have under some fuzzy notion of fair use, we already have a situation where you cannot reuse images on commons indiscriminately, so why practice it here? Sertmann (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so not on commons, but can't we move the image to Wikipedia then? Sertmann (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. The statue was unveiled in 1913, so it should be just fine under US law (and life+50 in 2010), so en.Wiki will host it as a free image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flag_of_Ghaznavid_Empire.svg

also:

• File:Flag of Göktürks.svg
• File:Hunnu flag.gif
• File:White Huns flag.png
• File:Flag of the Golden Horde.svg
• File:Flag of Golden Horde.gif
• File:EastKaraKhanidFlag.svg
• File:Flags of the Kara-Khanids.png
• File:Xiongnu flag.png
• File:Khazar flag.png
• File:Karahanlı devleti.png
• File:Uygur devleti.png
• File:Flag of the Seljuq Empire.gif
• File:WestKaraKhanidFlag.svg
• File:Gokturkler (581-603) 3.PNG

Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Seljuq Empire.svg: derivative work from [1], alleged to be historical but probably isn't, apparently a fantasy reconstruction ultimately going back to some (unknown) 20th-century author. Both unencyclopedic and likely a copyright problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep -strongly- They are historical flags and haven't copyright problem. A lot of old Turkish history books used these flags and they aren't reconstruction work. --.dsm. 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If these are historical flags, then why is it that nobody, ever, in years, while these images have been re-uploaded and re-discussed and re-deleted multiple times, has come up with a decent reference for them? Note: the reference must show not just some verbal description that such-and-such a state used some kind of flag somehow showing this or that motive. It must show the actual design in this precise form and colour in an historical medieval attestation; or alternatively it must show it as a modern reconstruction that is old enough (e.g. published pre-1923) to be PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: there is also File:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif, which is a re-creation of the file that was deleted in the previous deletion request referenced above and belongs to the same series. I tagged it for speedy deletion as recreation of validly deleted material, but Dsmurat removed the deletion tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment - Most of 16 flags (except for Ottoman's) is invented by Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) to use for Türk Tarihi Takvimi (The calendar of Turkish History) in 1969. They have niether historical nor encyclopedical value. One of the most prominent Turkish nationalist writers Nihal Atsız also made mention of this problem in his article named "16 Devlet Masalı ve Uydurma Bayraklar" (16 State tales and fake flags) and criticized their falsities. But these flags are popular today and I think helpful for Turkish children to be interested in history. Takabeg (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this background info. This is highly enlightening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You are welcome. What do you think about File:Hunnu flag.gif, File:White Huns flag.png, File:Flag of the Golden Horde.svg and File:EastKaraKhanidFlag.svg ? Takabeg (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh noes, I hadn't noticed those were all also here on Commons. Perhaps we should just add those to this nomination, if they are from the same set. Only the Golden Horde one might conceivably be PD-ineligible. Thanks for finding those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • In Turkish Wikipedia, we're using such kind of flag (example) under Fair use (example) with the note "1969 TRT Türk Tarihi Takvimine göre X'nin bayrağı" (According to TRT's calendar of Turkish History in 1969, X's flag). Most of members of Turkish Wikipedia who write articles about Turkish history know the falsities of flags. But they are too popular not to be ignore. It's our dilemma. Takabeg (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• File:Xiongnu flag.png and File:Khazar flag.png Takabeg (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - It appears then that all the TRT invented flags are still copyrighted. If any of them are to be kept (eg. for being trivial), then the source and their fictional nature must be clearly indicated. --Latebird (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - I searched again but I didnt find them in "old" Turkish books and materials printed before 1969. Takabeg (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment For example if you searched well enough, you would easily see Atatürk's idea about Flag of Göktürks. You mentioned 1969, but these flags were known before 1969. They aren't invented things. --.dsm. 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment If they exist, please cite academic sources. Takabeg (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• You know the truth, but you deny it. The flags are real. There are many academic sources in Turkish but i didn't find English article about it. I know you can understand some Turkish but most of users can't understand it. --.dsm. 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bring them on. I'm sure Takabeg can read then, and my own Turkish will be sufficient to figure out most of it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Murat, I understand Turkish language :) We discussed this issue with User:Lord Leatherface in Turkish Wikipedia. Yes, I know the truth. Most of them (except Ottoman's) were invented by TRT in 1969. If you want, you can show us academic articles whitten in Turkish language. I (We)'ll enjoy to read them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please read this article and see the truth. --.dsm. 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't refer Flag of Göktürks. I think you might confuse "Kurt başlı bayrakları" with Flag of Göktürks. That is not flag itself but flagpole = Kurt başlı tuğ (Chinese: 狼头纛 / 狼頭纛, pinyin: láng tóu dào). Atatürk knew Kurt başlı tuğ and used wolf (Bozkurt) as national symbol. In short, they are not same. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Murat, a verbal description stating that Turkic tribes used some sort of wolf head symbolism is not enough. We need the source for this precise design: this precise shape of the wolf head, this precise orientation, this precise shape of the flag, these precise colours. If a 20th-century designer "reconstructed" a Göktürk flag merely on the basis of there was something about a wolf head, then his graphic implementation was still original enough to create his own copyright. The only way you can demonstrate this is not copyrighted is if you can show a visual representation of this precise design in a source from before 1923. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Message of Slashme Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Virtual_Earth_Prattenburg_(4).jpg

"Source=Virtual Earth". Not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Okay, then use the appropriate license for Virtual Earth. Problem solved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-B.jpg

low quality Merrmaidmaker (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-B.jpg

low quality --Merrmaidmaker (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-A.png

low quality Merrmaidmaker (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-A.png

low quality --Merrmaidmaker (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Geschändetehostie.jpg

Delete per reason "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - I don't see an educational purpose which this picture serves. --Saint-Louis (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep i do see a purpose to illustrate the fact, that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads. useful to illustrate on paganism, satanism, etc. (bad photo though) Schmelzle (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Nobody can really guess what's has happen with it. You can't illustrate that procedure. Also the result could be fake etc. Not very useful and necessary for understanding the thread/article. It is only a discussion influenced by ideology... nothing else -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep It would be very helpful to know where this came from, but I agree with Schmelzle; the very illustration of the fact that someone has a framed item labeled Geschändete Hostie is by itself interesting and educational.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Quality is terrible --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Probably illegal photo according to § 167 German criminal code. No encyclopädic value. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The act of descrecation might be illegal under §167 (if done in a manner likely to disturb the service). The depiction may be illegal if considered likekly to offend religous practices. Neither of the two question should be considered here, as most images here are illegal somewhere on Earth. On the basis of the poor quality of the image and questions surronding the intentions of the author, which presumably are not educational, I suggest to delete the image. --Arcudaki (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - § 167 German criminal code has absolutely no relevancy for Wikimedia Commons -- thankfully! --Melanom (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete - Not useful for encyclopedial use, possible fake, tasteless - most of the arguments are already mentioned. Picture of poor quality and no educational use of intentionally offending picture, so no value for any article in wikipedia. --Tarantelle (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - otherwise reupload to German Wikipedia. Some guys just want to get rid of this picture out of no reason, nor the possibility given by the rules there. Problems there should be cleared there before moved and bloated in Commons. Oh... and Wikipedia/Commons is a divine service? Defchris (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete commons is not the private image hoster for admins on de.wp. No encyclopaedic value, because the result of desecration - the desecrated host - and in this quality isn't illustrating anything. It's tasteless, too. And, if it is a fake, it'd be even more irrelevant. --Hullorio (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I welcome all the new editors from the German Wikipedia, and hope you'll stick around and makes some contributions to Wikimedia Commons beyond this Deletion Request. May I note that Commons does not solely collect images for Wikipedia; strictly speaking, encyclopedic value is not the standard for Commons. Nor is "tasteless" a deletion reason. If there are questions surrounding the intentions of the author, it would be nice to have them mentioned here, as it's clear to us Commons users that we're getting the tail end of a larger argument and nobody is bothering to explain just what the hell has already gone on with this. As it is, I think claiming that it's "intentionally offending" is unproven.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: The original discussion can be found here, where you also can find the information that the user who uploaded the image on the German Wikipedia intends to offend. Anyway, my reason to delete is not the (subjective) offensiveness of the image but the fact that the images serves no educational purpose. There are a lot of things which can be put into frames and it cannot be deduced from the image "that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads". The picture is therefore only of private interest. --Saint-Louis (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep "Qualitiy" is no reason except the image's content would be absolute unrecognisable. "Tasteless" or any moral or religious outrage is no reason as there is no "Faugh!" in an encyclopedic context. §§ 166 or 167 StGB (German Criminal Code) is no reason as this image is a kind of artwork, however good or bad in quality, and therefore covered by freedom of art and opinion. In addition Commons is not a courtyard. Furthermore it is absolutely okay to upload private images for serveral reasons e.g. illustrating user pages. Finally there is no proof that the image's author uploaded the image in order to offend someone. That is a mere allegation. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The image is just fuzzy and blurred, it is difficult to identify it. There is no evidence for an educational purpose, the intention of the uploader was to offend in a discussion about secession from the church: [2] at 00:53, 17. Jul. 2009 (CEST). During the discussion of deletion request on de.wp the image was suddendly moved to commons without any consensus. This is why we are discussiong this deletion request. For catholics the image is very offending (vide [3] and [4]) but I assume this alone would not justify a deletion on Commons. But the image is also an act of intolerance and disrespect. I do not think that an image of a desecrated qur'an would be accepted - at least I do not find any images of defiled copies of the holy book of the muslim world on Commons. For catholics the consecrated host has - at least - equal importance. As already mentioned an educational purpose isn't there, so please delete it. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While we're going on about intolerance and disrespect, can we remove all copies of images that imply that non-believers will suffer an eternity of torment? As a sign of the great tolerance and respect here, in, one commenter says "Der Künstler wird, meines Erachtens nach, sowieso brennen." ("The artist will, in my opinion anyway, burn.")--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I stated above, quality is no reason for deletion. Even if the image is not of the best quality, I can identify the object quite well.
• Please dont's argue with the Quran. Any image that displays Mohammed is very offending for muslims. However, that is no reason to delete such images from Commons. I consider such arguments simply as an unholy coalition between religions to suppress uncomfortable and unwanted opinions, and afterwards they continue to bash each other's heads in.
• Also there's no concensus necessary to move images from a local project to Commons.
• --Eva K. ^{is evil} 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree to your last point, but your other statements are incorrect. If you want to, I could buy a qur'an and defile it. Let's expect the reactions. Of course I would call it art, too. I do think the thing with: IMO the artist will burn is simply used in a facetious way. incorrect, v.i.--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) The intention of uploading the image was not to illustrate, simply to provocate. I was not talking about images of Mohammed, but about defiled qur'ans. I know you like to quote others incorrectly to substantiate your statements, but anyhow this isn't fair. On commons, an educational purpose must be visible. Where is this purpose? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment It was in fact uploaded to illustrate and has been used in de:Hostienfrevel. It was placed in the article on December 8, 2008 and was removed again on February 16th, 2009 with this [5] edit. So the image has been in article use for over 2 months and was not uploaded for provocation issues primarily. Schmelzle (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for devalueing my statements as incorrect. I think it's a kind of religious arrogance to claim the image's author will burn. And of course considering the burning of heretics at the stake in former times your statement is an unacceptable threat. So don't be blasphemic in the meaning of your own belief and leave that decision to the god which you believe in. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say attacking and devalueating the belief of one's oppenent is not the finest way to handle contentual controverersies. But it's not infrequent when someone isn't able to contribute to discussions in a normal and appropriate way. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Let's expect the reactions" is not an argument. We should not give to threats of any sort. Frankly, the fact that "tolerance and respect" tends to come after physical and legal threats doesn't convince me of the reality of tolerance here. (Yes, physical threats; what exactly do you think it means to be set on fire? Whether you wait to the afterlife or not, it's still a hideous event, and the fact that you can consider it facetious, or "cleverly amusing", I find somewhat disturbing.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did not constate that Martin-vogel will burn, I only said that IMO the one saying "I think he'll burn" said this in jest. Nothing else. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) incorrect, v.i. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, before you continue to nag about other photographer's blurred images: File:2 Apple blossoms.JPG, File:Faded tulip.JPG. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, deletion requests: done. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On de: or en:wp this would have been a violation of en:WP:POINT. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think? It was just a broad hint because you insisted on the image's low quality: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Finally it was your deletion request on your own photos, not mine. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Argumentiere und agiere nicht für etwas, das du eigentlich nicht willst." "Do not argue and act for sth you don't want." --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to teach me? --Eva K. ^{is evil} 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• As the author of the "he'll burn statement" I would like to point out that the a) the suposed threat is not physical but metaphysical and the fire is methaphorical. b) Martin-vogel does state, quite clearly, that be does not share the belief in a afterlife. Therefore to threaten to him with damnation in afterlife is as threathening as telling me that aliens are going to kidnap me if I leave the window open: Not very threathening at all. c) It was not said in jest.
  With regard to the image I would point out that if image quality is not a reason for deletion on commons (as stated above) then it should be kept, as the other reason "offensive" is not applicable: The act of desecrating a host (which is the body of christ) is pretty much the ultimate sin in catholic belief. The depiction of any sinfull act is not offensive however. (Otherwise gothic churches would need a lot of whitewash). In other words: Impaling a kitten is not o.k. A clear, sharp and well lit image of someone impaling a kitten should be kept under these criteria.--Arcudaki (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I'd like to point out that I never cited "offensiveness" as the reason for deletion but the lack of a "realistic educational purpose". This picture doesn't serve such a purpose and therefore falls out of the project scope. --Saint-Louis (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." In the section "Examples" of Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use. Correct ? --Arcudaki (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - in other cases this was no reason for deletion. -- smial (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep This seems to be the extension of some personal ideological feuds on the German Wikipedia. It is the only file of its kind in its category which shows an actual host, rather than a 16th century woodcut illustration. While the means by which the host was allegedly desecrated is unclear, and the photo is somewhat blurred, deleting it without adequate substitutes seems to me to be more a case of ideological restriction of an illustration of an artwork because of objections to the content. If the photo is not used at all by any language Wikipedia, perhaps one can argue that it serves no legitimate educational purpose, but if the file is used to illustrate one or more Wikipedia articles, that is in itself a legitimate educational purpose.--Bhuck (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• It does not show anything. Since the process isn't depicted it illustrates nothing. I could also take a cracker or wafer and crumble it and would get the same result. Educational purpose isn't given, because the image solely shows some framed crumbs. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not illustrating the desecration of a host, but purports to show a desecrated host (i.e. illustrate what a host looks like after having been desecrated). If crumbling is a form of desecration and you crumble a consecrated wafer, you have a desecrated host. That an unconsecrated wafer and a consecrated wafer have the same outward and physical form (and differ only in their inward and spiritual grace) is not the fault of the photographer, but lies in the nature of the host itself.--Bhuck (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete. The very specific claims about what this image pretends to show cannot be verified. (For starters, crumbling a non-consecrated wafer doesn’t translate to desecration of an eucharistic host.) By hosting this image with its current filename and description, Commons would propagate unsubstantiated claims that may mislead the public and may even damage Commons' own credibility.
In addition, there is no information about location and other circumstances such as the absolutely strange (not to say, insane) kind of presentation. The photo seems to show a sort of exhibit. But in what institution it might have been exhibited, in a stalinist era dungeon, the grand orient freemason temple of Paris, or Fred Phelps’ church? Of course, due to the german-language caption none of that would fit. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: This is a two dimensional artwork, is it not? Is it a free image? Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a 3-dimensional "artwork", as the frame as well as the shadows below the wafer/host particles show. --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Like "Eva K. 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)" and "Bhuck 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" --Fg68at de:Disk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete. There is absolutely no educational purpose in it. It has just been made in order to insult people's feelings. As nobody knows if this is a consecrated host it is also not useful to "to illustrate the fact, that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads", as someone stated above.----Turris Davidica (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Convaincu par les discussions précédentes. Amqui (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Translation: Convinced through the precedent discussions --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  DeleteOffensive, possibly criminally and without any educational value. --Avemundi (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Offensive" is your POV and therefore no reason for deletion, you might find much more "offensive" images on Commons. "Possibly criminally" is simply an allegation, the image is covered by freedom of expression. We can only discuss the image's educational values --Eva K. ^{is evil} 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless to say that Avemundi is one of the leaders of the project:catholicism on it.wiki, a project well known for defending christian related POV in many articles. Note that a call to arms was submitted on the talk of the project, so expect more POV (and uninformed) votes --Jollyroger (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the image has no educational value. It is prohibited by some national laws. In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that (freedom of expression is not unlimited). That might lead to a partial obscuration by postal police and I think this could diminish the reputation of wikimedia projects. Useless to say that Progetto:Cattolicesimo does not defend any POV (otherwise it would be banned) and anybody can contribute to the project. The aim of the project is to develope and coordinate articles about Catholicism. Italian wikipedia has about 100 projects covering many subjects.--Avemundi (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that: pure bullshit. Even blasphemy isn't a crime any more, just a minor infraction.

There is absolutely no legal means for the Postal Police to obscurate a website for that "crime", you are just trying to scare people with false statements.

Even if an image like this would be illegal in italy (it isn't and you are lying), it wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. --Jollyroger (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep of course, no other reason to delete except christian POV. --Jollyroger (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep i really don't understand the reason of this deletion request. --Hal8999 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you vote here? --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

because *somebody* has created the page and *somebody else* was so kind to advise it.wikipedia (and es.wikipeda, and en.wikipedia, and pt.wikipedia...). Thank you 92.74.122.220--Hal8999 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the infomation. This sort of cross-wiki messaging isn't really very constructive. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree --Hal8999 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the notifications. I didn't know they were so unpopular. I'm sorry for any inconvienience. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment. Just as a reminder to all and especially to those who may have become aware of this discussion by messages on their local project: deletion discussions on Commons, similar to other Wikimedia projects, are not like political elections and are not decided by simple vote counting, but by the strength or validity of presented arguments. Therefore it doesn't make much sense, just add more plain Keep or Delete votes.
An additional hint: if you want to weaken your own position, then you should heavily and personally attack those who have a different opinion than you. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

that's not a matter of personal attack, that's a matter of knowing the motivations behind some votes, and counting the whole "call to arms" deal into the equation. --Jollyroger (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I forgot that you are a pure or abstract human being who has no personal motivations at all; ever heard about w:WP:AGF? Anyway, by reading my first comment you might have concluded that (alleged) "motivations" are rather irrelevant for the outcome of an rfd. And, though I don't welcome cross-wiki notifications of that type, calling this comment-less link "a call to arms" is rather POV, only it's yours. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

understood, mr. I feel like a pure or abstract human being but I accuse you to be one so no one notices my POV. Anyway, I see you did not get the message, please feel free to continue your rant alone. Other users have been warned of what's going on. --Jollyroger (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Imagine that someone puts on commons an image of your mother and names it: "A prostitute": the woman's son must feel offended and must ask for removing of that image. The same way we christian are offended if anyone load on common a dissacrant image of something we love very much. I cannot understand why should we keep images and other contributions whose only reason is to offend the sensibility of those who believe in Christ and in his presence in the Eucarist. DonPaolo (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete It's offensive, and not useful per Wikipedia and other project. --Dongio (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Is not useful for Wikipedia. Not explicative. Any other offense to any religion, political leader, worldwide accepted political idea or even to atheism, should be avoided, to maintain a relaxed environment and peace of minds. --Giancarlo Rossi (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete This picture ia a clear derivative work of somebody-else work (I mean the person who decided to put this "thing" inside the small picture), till now it's real author is unknown, lacking informations, without permission, clear copyright violation and of course of a questionable purpose. Nicola Romani (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I agree with Dongio. --HAL9000 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As foreseen, the call to arms got an effect. --Jollyroger (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has'nt been a call to arms, just an information. Even for you. Did you know about this DelReq before having read the notice? A call to arms would have been sth like: "The infidels attack us. Fight back." IIRC I didn't wrote this ...

--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Luckily there are people, like JollyRoger, who don't even need call to arms for defending our freedom of opinion; thank you for your taking care of it. But I'd still like to express my personal opinion by myself. And yes: of course is only my opinion, and I can assure that I don't consider it more important or better than the other's one; I just hope someone will find it useful for discussion or interesting to think on. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICS an unholy alliance of religious warriors and djihadists from serveral local projects have been drummed to launch Wikimedia's Holy Inquisition and to fight free thinkers. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I actually saw the RfD before the message on the project talk, but became interested in it after seeing the abuse. the message was sent selectively to catholicism-related projects, so I can't really believe it was "just an information". The effect was to bring here the votes you see above, and you can see their motivations: we christian are offended . So what? --Jollyroger (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an information intended to inform Users interested in catholicism-related topics, if you are interested in such the information reached you, didn't it? :-)

Why should one post information to projects not related to the subject of the DelReq? But I've already understood that such information isn't wanted to posted on talk-pages of projects. I'm sorry. I've already deleted these notifications. I won't do the same mistake another time. Please, I've commited an error, please apologize me. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete I vote for deletion for two reason:
  • IMHO this photo doesn't add any educational value. I find the article Host desecration really interesting, educational and well documented. This photograph instead has no trace of documentation: it just depict a moldy wafer: without any documentation, to me it could simply be some badly conserved nougat processing waste. But feel free to consider "educational" this photo: I can assure it is the truly picture of the Holy Grail ;-)
  • IMHO there exist things that is right and useful to explain by words, but don't need to be shown explicitly. To me is a matter of sensibility, personal and towards other Wikipedia users. Some example: this for Algerian War (personally I find really interesting the information, but I consider those victims deserving of the largest compassion and respect: isn't explaining the torture only by words in the article educational enough?); this for article Dismemberment (isn't much better and respectful - I would say: "educational" - the painting of the actual wikipedia article?).

In a word, THIS [6] is what I mean for educational and documented about host desacration. IMHO a fully untrustable picture isn't.

Thanks for your time and patience, and sorry for the indelicate photo I've had to add to this post. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Finally, I would thank smial: I didn't know the work (and the international criminal records) of Peter Klashorst before. I just wonder about why this "Shaven Genitalia" work should be more interesting than a photo of my shaven genitalia: I can assure that those are as "educational" as mine. But don't worry, I will take care of uploading a photo of mine, so enhancing the "educational" content of Commons, as soon as possible :p --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Not useful for encyclopedical use. --Fungo velenoso (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

another italian user very active in pages about catholicesim, recently found using sockpuppets, suspected to be the reincarnation of a user banned for an unsusteinable catholic agenda, at his first appearance on Commons... Really no effects from the call to arms... --Jollyroger (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the informing other users diminish the value of their arguments? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:KazanKremlin.gif

No legend for numbers on map makes this useless. Also questionable copyright status 150.250.43.236 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Legend would normally go in text, not image, so that image is usable across languages. Used on 9 Wikipedias, so the claim that it's "useless" is obviously off base. On the other hand, I have no idea on the licensing status, nor where the information would be to add the legend. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 3

[edit] File:Discworld-librarian.jpg

Image includes a derivative of File:Orang-Utan Zoo.jpg, a copyrighted image that was deleted on 6 February 2009 by User:ChristianBier. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The prior file was deleted without discussion, I would like an admin to state what copyright it violated. I think it would be a shame to delete this image and will try to get whatever permission is necessary to keep it. -Nard the Bard 23:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If it was deleted without discussion, then it was probably a clear copyvio. I notified the deleting admin if he wants to comment on this deletion discussion.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have posted an undeletion request at COM:UDEL. The original license allowed the work to be used "without fees for any purpose" and as far as I can tell there's only been a single discussion on images from this source (a prior deletion request that closed delete). In my opinion that's too narrow of a scope to decide on all images from 777life.com (only 5 people commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SunWuKongInBeijingOpera.jpg). We have dozens of images from this source, all of them should not be deleted just because of one deletion discussion that didn't attract much attention. -Nard the Bard 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Assuming that is the correct license and the correct translation is listed in that particular DR, I think your quote is misleading. The full license is "You can freely use all the photos in our gallery without fees for any purpose. (For wider commercial use a separate permission should be requested from the author.)" Note the text in the parentheses, which seems to have a restriction on wide commercial use, which is inconsistent with and more restricting than CC-BY and GFDL, which allow for unlimited commercial use. --Blargh29 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
        • The undeletion request filed by Nard the Bard for File:Orang-Utan Zoo.jpg has been denied: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11. Therefore, this file has an unambiguous copyvio.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I think the discussion should have been left open, the only commenter was you. But whatever. -Nard the Bard 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I guess I was that compelling.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Death_01_provia_17.jpg

Derivative work: Image of a character from the Discworld series, a copyrighted book by Terry Pratchett. Commons:Derivative works states that "Images of characters...in books are subject to any copyright on the book itself." Thus, this is a derivative of a copyrighted character. It's no different than a drawing of "Albus Dumbledore" from Harry Potter. Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Death 02 provia 17.jpg. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep - Terry Pratchett does not own the copyright to all imagery of Death. Death as a skeleton is an idea (with drawings etc.) that predates the author in question by a very, very long time. If this were clearly derived from a particular piece of artwork in the books there would be a problem. Cannot see any copyright issues with this image at all - Peripitus (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Death_02_provia_17.jpg

Derivative work: Image of a character from the Discworld series, a copyrighted book by Terry Pratchett. Commons:Derivative works states that "Images of characters...in books are subject to any copyright on the book itself." Thus, this is a derivative of a copyrighted character. It's no different than a drawing of "Albus Dumbledore" from Harry Potter. Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Death 01 provia 17.jpg. Blargh29 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep - Terry Pratchett does not own the copyright to imagery of Death. Death as a skeleton is an idea (with drawings etc.) that predates the author in question by a very, very long time. If this were clearly derived from a particular piece of artwork in the books there would be a problem. Cannot see any copyright issues with this image at all - Peripitus (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Voldograd_City_(Den).jpg

This statue (The Motherland Calls) is located in Russia; no freedom of panorama in Russia for statues. Gump Stump (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Presuming the statue is still under copyright, a reluctant delete. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Any reason while only this photograph of the city was earmarked for deletion? All photographs of buildings and statues in Volgograd, excluding some ruins deliberately left after the war, violate COM:FOP - they emerged after 1943. Consistency, please. NVO (talk)
  • I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If those images violate COM:FOP, they should be deleted as well. Or have you seen a discussion where similar images were nominated for deletion on Commons and were kept? If so, please post the link. - Gump Stump (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What I am trying to say, again and again, that some consistency won't hurt. This is your call, so I beg you to explain why one image is tagged for deletion and thousands of others are not.

This one is tagged for deletion

This one is not

Neither is this one.

As for the links, yes, yours truly did attempt to enforce mass deletion of COM:FOP violations (some found to be no violation at all, bust most still are) at Commons:Deletion requests/own photographs violatoing COM:FOP and after nearly a year it was closed as no consensus. It's a matter of numbers. Deletion of a single file might sneak in unnoticed, but mass deletions are stil a no-no. NVO (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused by your tone, NVO. You sound exasperated with me, as if I have done this before and I should know better. I believe this is the first time I have listed an image for deletion as a Russian FOP violation, and in my mind it is a valid deletion request. Please assume good faith. By asking for "consistency", you are actually asking for complete inclusivity; you are asking me to ferret out all possible variations of this image on Commons (or even all possible Russian FOP violations) and list them as well. To me that is silly; whether other similar images exist on Commons has no bearing on whether this particular image is a copyright violation or not. If by asking me to "explain why one image is tagged for deletion and thousands of others are not" you are alluding to a policy on Commons that invalidates Russia's FOP rules, then please reference them plainly. Thank you for posting that link. If the current mood on Commons is to let apparent FOP violations slide, then so be it; I won't try to list another Russian image for deletion for violating FOP. - Gump Stump (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a policy, it's a "don't ask don't tell" code of silence. The case of Volgograd is somewhat special because images of anything built in this city that does not look like a war ruin are a violation of COM:FOP. And, by the book, category:Monuments in Volgograd should not exist at all. But it does. I'm not blaming you for listing this image but this is exactly the case that requires all-or-nothing approach. Here are examples of a successful (if deletion can be a "success") mass nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork and Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork 2. NVO (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC) In the meantime, anothe long saga continues at Commons:Deletion requests/Photos of Monument to the Conquerors of Space (followup to Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space from 2007). NVO (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Remains_of_Ab_Kheyl_Compound,_July_2002.JPG

Valid source is missing: "US Army, tape released to 60 Minutes" is not sufficient. This is no evidence for PD-USGov-Military-Army High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How should he read it? This report is nowhere mentioned, neither at the pictures nor at the category. I now checked this wikisource-file and also its source (the pdf mentioned on the talk page there) and still could not find any pictures. Yes, there is a list mentioning a few pictures but they themselves are not here so there is no way to confirm it is those which were uploaded here. Same with the newspaper article at Chicago Tribune. If the images were available in the print edition, scan the page, upload it on flickr or something like that and provide that link for the time of these deletion requests. You can delete the page again after the admin who will decide these del.reqs. has confirmed that these pictures are really the ones mentioned in these reports. Or otherwise: you must have gotten them from some webpage, so just provide this link. -- Cecil (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well first some of the images did have links to articles that were guides to their provenance. Second, when someone nominates an image for deletion a second time I think the rest of us should be disappointed in them when they didn't thoroughly review the discussion in the first deletion discussion. Several of these images were previously nominated for deletion, and a nominator who had reviewed the earlier discussion couldn't help seeing references to OC-1 CITF witness report.
• You seem to be asserting that OC-1 CITF witness report, when published by the Toronto Star, and elsewhere, would have to actually include the photos it describes for you to recognize those photos as being in the public domain.
  1. We know certain photos were taken by GIs, and that stills (screenshots) were taken from two videos of the scene.
  2. We know the only photographers on the site after the firefight were employees of US Federal agencies.
• There is, IMO, simply no credible explanation other than these photos are those listed in the document.
• Are you suggesting that these photos were not taken at the site of the firefight, that some third party (anti-war activists? Al-Qaeda?) staged a recreation elsewhere, with actors, and make-up? Why, in the name of heck, would someone do that? Sorry, this possibility strains my credulity past its breaking point, and deep into the twilight zone.
• The contributor who first started nominating these images for deletion insisted that the images had to be taken by a reporter -- because the DoD didn't publish strong images of dead or wounded individuals. They insisted the images were taken by a reporter, in spite of all the evidence no reporters were present. I responded to this claim thus: Are you trying to convince us some non-GIs were roving around rural Afghanistan, without an escort, snuck up on the GIs, got within a few feet of Khadr, snapped these pictures, and snuck away -- all without the GIs noticing their presence? So how did they do that? Jedi mind trick? Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, in what kind of sick world are you living, that me wanting to see the source of the images (not some documents) means that I'm suggesting the pictures are staged? Is this something normal, this staging of pics, that you immediately jump to this conclusion? -- Cecil (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your personal reflections are inflammatory. Could you make a greater effort to confine your comments to the issues? Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Khadr40.png

Valid source is missing: "US Army" is not sufficient and the stated source "www.thestar.com" gives no clearance, too High Contrast (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored.

You are welcome to eMail the reporter who wrote thestar's article to confirm with her, as I have, the photo's public domain nature. Sherurcij (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- The sixty minutes broadcast contains several clips they say the GIs took. One of those clips contains views of the ruined compound essentially the same as this image. Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 4

[edit] File:Taniyama.jpg

(a) copyright violation; file is a derivative work of http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/blogimages/Taniyama.jpg (b) Violation of No Original Research policy, which prohibits user-created art rtc (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Derivative work may be a problem here, but there is on prohibition against user-created works on Commons. Indeed, probably half our images are user created photographs, and many are user-created computer graphics. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I was talking about user-created art, not content in general. See COM:PS. Commons is not an art community; user-created art can be posted on any one of the art communities, like deviantart. --rtc (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep, not a derivative work, and original research is not a concern (see COM:NPOV). The file is in use, hence in scope. –Tryphon^☂ 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  DeleteThe No Original Research policy simply doesn't exist in this form on the Commons. However looking at the photo and the drawing, I'm sure that the latter was derived from the former. The photo captures a particular moment in time with the subject looking askance and his tie parted in a particular way. I'd say these peculiarities (captured by the photographer's skill and artistry) have been transferred to the new artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete - This appears a clear case of a derivative work of a copyrighted image. As Simonxag states too much of the substance of the original has been duplicated - Peripitus (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Seems to be a derivative work to me. --Berntie (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Walker_Family_Crest.jpg

Possibly unfree image. No information on the author/creator. No information on 'who' released it into the public domain. Obviously this digital clipart style picture doesn't date from 1200. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true the Clip Art Version does not date from 1200, but the original picture does, as it was used by the Noble Walker's as their shield crests and Horses. And as it belongs to my family we have agreed to digitalize it (a paid clipart artist that used an old shield as origin) to be able to use it on family matter's, documents and now on the internet for all Walker's to use. Therefore it is my belief that this is now Public Domain. Nicolas Walker - 19:40, 4 November 2009

The point here is whoever made this particular image is the copyright holder. It doesn't matter whether it is a depiction of something 800 years old. So you aren't supposed to upload clipart stuff off the net. Things where you aren't sure who exactly created the particular image. That's all. You first listed the author as "Walker Ancestry"[164]; then "Unknown"[165].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Satyricon_download2.jpg

Most of the image consists of the stage-design (definitely not ineligible) and the screenshot of the large monitor for which the copyright owner is the camera men. -- Cecil (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete I'd forget the stage design, the picture isn't of that, but the screenshot is at least as important as the people in the current composition. The picture would be OK if you cropped it down to remove the screenshot and focus on the performers. --Simonxag (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually see the stage design as a unavoidable accessory, but in this case the real musicians are such a small part of the image that the design got pretty dominating (red). When first opening the image I had to look twice to see if there are people on the stage. Cropping down would be ok but the fotographer was too far away to leave something recognizable while we have good pics of Satyr and his buddys (and I would have some more in my upload queue if I ever manage to get to it (helpers welcome)). -- Cecil (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep La imagen fue subida de Flickr y fue ratificada, así que por esa razón creo que no debe ser borrada pues no incumple nada. La imagen forma parte en el artículo en español de la banda y queda perfectamente, así que pido que no sea borrada pues es muy difícil encontrar este tipo de fotos para subir a Commons. Además lo importante no es la banda en sí, sino el concierto en general.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because something on Flickr is marked under a free licence it does not need to be under a free licence in reality. People there just upload their pics and most don't think or know about licences at all. You can find there thausands of unfree images under free licences. Beeing wrongly marked free on Flickr is no excuse to transfer them to Commons. Here we have a different project scope and images have to be free. But yes, I have already noticed that this does not really matter to you. Lots of your uploads are copyright violations and/or have wrong licences. -- Cecil (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lo que sucede en la foto de Satyricon sucede también en esta foto ¿por qué no la borras también?

Si subo fotos que supuestamente tienen derechos de autor es porque no sé inglés y las subí para enriquecer un poco más Wikipedia--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are always free to make a deletion request if you see an image where you have doubts. But keeping one image because there is another is no argument at all. In this case the other pic now also has a deletion request. -- Cecil (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Entonces, ¿qué hay que hacer? ¿Borrar la foto o cortarla? Yo no sé cortar una imagen de Commons.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can try to crop the image somewhere between the heads of the musicians and the Kerrang-sign, but seeing its quality it will not leave much good to look at. There is a re-uploading function (on the image page in the lower third of the page) you could use for the re-upload of the cropped version. I can't delete the file myself, since I am the deletion nominator. Other possiblity: If you want I could upload ~70 images of a Satyricon show on Flickr, which I haven't yet filtered through to decide which ones are good enough for Commons (same for about 30 other metal-bands like Immortal, Neurosis, Sabaton, Suicidal Tendencies, Candlemass, ....). You can then decide which one you would like to have transferred to Commons, but you would have let me do the transfer because since I don't have a pro-account at Flickr I can't upload the full resolution file there. The collection contains a few images where you can see all the members except the drummer. -- Cecil (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think the image should be deleted, because cropped not serve too. I need a photo of Satyricon of the year 2006, but there are other image. If you can upload more photos, I will be thankful. I will try to upload more photos of the Immortal´s show in Metalway.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In 2006 I lived somewhere in the middle of nowhere, so no concerts. I just have Satyricon pics form 2007 (those uploads in the Satyricon-category with Metalcamp in their name) and from 2008 (check here if you like a few and notify me there or on my talk page). -- Cecil (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Euchloe-tagisEM.JPG

 Keep Nominated by uploader, but many months after original upload. Commons licenses are irrevocable. If the uploader/nominator were to give a reason we would consider it. --Simonxag (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the upload history, you can probably figure out the reason. Someone doesn't like it that people can edit their work, in this case, to remove a huge watermark. Maybe he had wrong idea about what this site was for.. That's unfortunate because this is the only photo we have of this particular species. Rocket000 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the reason he gave was "will upload a better one". If that's true, it should be uploaded over the current one. Rocket000 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the uploader wants their original version left in place untouched, then the version without the watermark could be uploaded under a new name with a link back to the original. It may not be the creation of the derived work that's annoying (it's clearly allowed by all our licenses), but the replacing of the original work. Just a thought. --Simonxag (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring more to the wiki aspect, than the free license aspect. I don't think having both versions (one of which would probably never be used) would benefit Commons. More useless redundant crap is the last thing Commons needs... sorry I'm little disillusion right now (not because of this). Commons is becoming a garbage dump. We keep anything and every thing without discretion (and I'm not alone). Outside looking in gives you a whole new perspective. Rocket000 (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ss_neue_reichskanzlei.jpg

An old photo of SS-soldiers in Berlin from 1939. The source website doesn't give any information about the author, but he can't be dead for more than 70 years yet. It's tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, however this exception of German copyright law only applies to a very narrow range of official works (law texts, judgments, etc..), see Commons:Licensing#Official_works_2. Photos are usually not considered to be "amtliche Werke", exceptions are pretty rare. The uploader, User:Brutalowesten, disagrees with this, so I'm nominating this file for deletion instead of tagging it with a no-permission tag again. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stadion_Miejski_w_Krakowwie_stary5.jpg

Lacking author, date and publishing information, as such the licence cannot be verified. feydey ^(talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also File:Stadion Miejski w Krakowwie stary4.jpg. feydey ^(talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 5

[edit] Template:Attribution-Ubisoft

It has been known for a long time that this template is invalid, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 2. Unfortunately, because of some zealots mass voting for keep, it was never exorcised from commons, as it should be. The permission is not valid; only a signed permission by an authorized person from Ubisoft's executive board at their headquaders would be valid and it is clear that this would never happen, as it would be equivalent to release all the game art. No game company like Ubisoft would do this on a rational basis. The person that gave the alleged "permission" was not a member of the executive board, it was not even an employee of Ubisoft France who own the copyrights, but it was some support guy having no idea of legal things in a German subsidary of the company. It is clear that he cannot give a permission; what he meant to do was merely to explain the standard requirements for using screen shots under fair use; he mistakenly confused fair use and the alleged "permission" because he saw some similarities (both require attribution) and so said it's okay. There was enough time to resolve the issue as promised at User talk:Avatar#Ubisoft permission for using it's screenshots under the free license, but nothing has happened for years now and it is obvious that this was just an attempt to delay matters indefinitely. Please finally delete this template and all associated pictures. It's wishful thinking. By the way, User:Avatar/Ubisoft#Permission says clearly that Ubisoft reserves the right to revoke the "license" at will. So even if it were a valid license, it would not be free. The correspondence at User:Avatar/Ubisoft/OTRS_thread shows the requesting user systematically playing down doubts by the support guy he is discussing with, trying to convince him that the nature of the differences is purely "theoretical". But the support guy clearly wants to state the companies policy and by no means extend it (which he is not authorized to). He says that the policy allows Ubisoft to revoke the license at will, and when the requesting user emphasizes what a free license means, we see that the support guy does not understand, never responds to these ciritical issues; he never explicitly says that the needed permissions can be given and especially he never explicitly says that he wants to give permission beyond the use according to standard Ubisoft screenshot policy. Influenced by the biased statements by the requesting user, he incorrectly thinks that in all practical matters, this policy is ess entially the same as the proposed attribution license.

Let me summarize:

• The "permission" is invalid. It was not given by the copyright owner, Ubisoft France, but by an unauthorized support guy employed at a different company, a subsidiary.
• The permission as it is claimed on the template is not credible. It would mean releasing the artwork of all games of ubisoft, opening them for the competitors. This would be a major, revolutionary and to date unique change in the companie's politics, and nothing like that has been made official.
• A look at the discussion with the support guy unveils that he merely wants to explain the company's policies for screenshot fair use, not giving a free license. He explicitly states that in any case, Ubisoft reserves the right to withdraw any permission, and this is acknowledged by the commons user on the discussion page of the template.
• The appearance of the guy giving a license is purely based on his incorrect assumption that the ubisoft screenshot fair use policy is essentially the same as the alleged license in all practical respects.

--rtc (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that this is very questionable. For example this "answer" by Plrk. The right answer would be that the German employee explained that they reserved the right to have images deleted at will: "In Einzelfällen behalten wir uns das Recht vor dieses zu untersagen und die entsprechenden Bilder löschen zu lassen. Z.b. in dem Fall, dass Bilder gemacht werden um das Produkt klar in Diskredit zu stellen." The images cannot be used for any purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I am a little worried that we may be demanding "a signed permission by an authorized person from Ubisoft's executive board at their headquarters" (in blood perhaps :-) ). The permission we have may well not be fully free and the person granting it may have insufficient authority, but no big company would have a director do this stuff. If we get permission for publicity material, it will be from some relatively lowly individual in their marketing department. --Simonxag (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rtc summary (2 first points), that why requesting a new permission is the way... but the result is imho easy to know. ~ bayo or talk 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Simonxag, I do not think that blood is necessary ;) But such a license would be quite far-reaching, and so a signature by the executive board is not asking for too much to make the thing credible. I still think that they would never give it, but rather laugh at someone who even asks.

Bayo, this already is the deletion request after "requesting a new permission". The last one ended with basically "but let's just request a new permission", see User talk:Avatar#Ubisoft permission for using it's screenshots under the free license: "Would it be possible to recontact them to confirm what the deal is with this?" -- "*Sigh*. Will do." But apparently nothing happened, now for much more than a year! So let's just accept that it's illusionary and delete it. We can't delay it indefinitely; two and a half year has passed since the first deletion request and this was simply enough time. --rtc (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I was linked above! What are the odds that I'd notice that. I stand by my statement that free licenses are irrevocable, but if they aren't valid to begin with, there is nothing to revoke as it was never really freely licensed. If the Ubisoft employee that originally "released" the screenshots had no authority to do so, the screenshots aren't really released and this template should be deleted along with all images that have been tagged with it. Plrk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment If this permission is really invalid, then no doubt images must be deleted (as painful as it will be).
But what about {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} ? To me, either it is valid and then it proves that such free release is possible (which does no mean the Ubisoft one is valid, sure, but this leaves the door opened to talks), or it must be considered too. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS discussion for {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} is not public, so it cannot be checked. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The GSC license looks, on first glance at the OTRS ticket, valid (you'd need someone who speaks Russian to verify however.) --David Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment In the event of deletion and removal of this Ubisoft agreement, we need to have a game plan for dealing with the 800 or so relevant images. Mass deletion of these images is not an acceptable option and would cause significant disruption. I'd suggest some sort of phased removal, in which images are checked to see if they can be made compliant with fair use (not all will). If so, uploading them as such to relevant language Wikipedias then deleting the Commons version; if not, then deleting image straight away. -- Sabre (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I fully understand Rtc's issue with the template, and I disagree with the extensions some are trying to use for the template; it's vaguely worded as to what its boundaries are. However, it's as valid as anything. Here's a novel thought, Rtc: since you are so hell-bent on deleting this, contact Ubisoft yourself and clarify the license. Otherwise, this is plain and pointy forumshopping, hoping the outcome will change. David Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

David, as I described, this is exactly how the last deletion request ended. Ubisoft has supposedly been contacted by Avatar back then after that deletion request. I did not do this to avoid allegations of bias: If I would contact them and tell the clearly what a free license means for them, they would for sure say "no, of course we do not want this!" So as a concession I did not contact them. There was no outcome of Avatars request, apparently! I waited for over one and a half years since then, and far more than two years since the first deletion request. So this is not forum shopping, it is the consequence of there being no progress at all. I think it's the right time to finally delete this now. If any valid permission should turn up, we can still undelete them, but the pictures are not that important as to make it necessary to delay matters indefinitely. Please see the arguments above concerning why the template is very clearly not valid. --rtc (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you essentially admit you never contacted them to find out for yourself but still assume you can read their minds? They may have other reasons, like PR ones, they could have made such a decision.71.14.187.158 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An email has been sent out on 09/17/2009 asking for license confirmation, but since the email is written in German, I cannot read it at all. So contact has been done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to read their minds. Read the EULA - no free license there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

True the EULA states that, but as they hold final say, they can make exemptions in favor of less restrictions on case-by-case basis. Use by Wikimedia organization could be one such.74.207.78.39 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A license is only free if it does not discriminate on a case-by-case basis. --rtc (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Stop this crusade. For starters, it's not unheard of for low ranking people to engage in licensing if that's part of their job. That's how all bureaucracies work, sometimes low-ranking people actually hold the power. There's nothing here which is invalid. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please stop the vendetta for keeping this irrational tag. Low ranking People by law cannot have the power to give away copyrights, this is solely possible by the authority of the executive board and requires a written and signed declaration, not some unclear statements mentioned in passing in an email discussion with a PR guy. PR guys are there to use psychological tricks to make the public think positive about a product, not to give away the company's assets! Apart from that, it's not the only strong argument against the validity of the tag; you ignored all the others. The guy was not an Ubisoft France employee, and only Ubisoft France holds the copyright. And there was never an agreement about a license. The guy merely tried to explain the Ubisoft screenshot policy, and (if at all) incorrectly assumed it to be the same as a free license after biased statements form the requesting user. Please change your vote to "delete" if you want to be rational. --rtc (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  That's not at all true. I have friends who manage company copyrights. If they are invested with the ability to dispense copyrights, more power to them. There is no legal reason why an executive board would have to get involved in such a formal manner. Finally, badgering users and accusing them of being irrational is not a way to make friends or convince anyone of your arguments. David Fuchs (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  It is neither my goal to make friends here, nor to convince anyone of my arguments, but to get the tag deleted, and if anyone thinks it should not be deleted, then please state what is incorrect about my arguments and my reasoning. Well, your friends might "manage" copyrights. But do they transfer them without a signature by the executive board? I do not think so. I do not know this case, so I cannot really judge it, and in general, anecdotes do not help us very much here anyway. --rtc (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete perhaps a delete vote is in order in addition to my comments above. Plrk (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete After having considered all that was written above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete It was surely a lot of work to create all those screenshots, but I understand rtc's thoughts. Why should Ubisoft give everybody the right to use virtually everything from their games, while Ubisoft's trademark and copyright notices are still visible on every game package and every title screen? For example, if this "permission" was true, everyone would be allowed to release a game starring Ubisoft's famous Rayman® character and make profit with it. Would Ubisoft tolerate how someone else cashes in on one of their properties? I don't think so. --Grandy02 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I looked at the OTRS ticket and from what I saw, it is about the use of images on Wikipedia and I saw no firm assertion of a license to be used on images or if even such a permission has been granted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - I think the language barrier caused some sort of confusion. A free license allows the user to use the image for **ANY** purpose. This includes commercial uses (e.g., games that use the same graphics) and derivative works intended to "discredit" the company. It may seem unlikely that a major game company would be willing to grant screenshots from its games under a free license, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask. After all, anything is worth a try. As for the deletion proposal, I would recommend contacting the appropriate Ubisoft representative and asking them to explicitly (note the emphasis) state that images from its games can be used under a free license. As said before, free licenses cannot be revoked. A free license would not allow Ubisoft to revoke images. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  As stated above, that was already the outcome of the last deletion request of this tag! We can't just delay matters again and again for another year. --rtc (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  As I also stated, there was contact recently to Ubisoft about the clarification of the license and there has been no reply yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, as per rtc. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete, convincing and valid arguments from user:rtc. --Kjetil_r 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This DR can influence Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ubisoft logo.png ?. ~ bayo or talk 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should point out that most of Rtc's nomination statement is complete and utter bullshit and/or original research on his part. For one thing, the desk jockey you suggest is some middle management shill is the head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR, Niels Bogdan.[166] So to say it's someone who has no clue what he was doing is plainly insulting. He still sent an email which says plainly that the screenshots can be used freely provided there is attribution by Ubisoft. Finally, Rtc has never attempted to actually verify the issue, yet expects others to do that and then is impatient. So he's got something dead up his ass, I'm not sure what. I have sent an email to Bogdan asking him to clarify, and CCed it to the other corporate PR heads, so hopefully someone will respond... it took me all of five minutes, Rtc, glad to see you care. In the mean time, I see no reason to delete the license; regardless of supposed motives, or lack of understanding, we've got the email and his stamp of approval. --David Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop your zealous vendetta. The "head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR" is a "desk jockey". PR guys are not executive board guys and are not competent about licensing in general. I stand by the fact that he obviously has no clue about what the requesting user was asking for and what a free license really means. He said that "the screenshots can be used freely provided there is attribution by Ubisoft" because this can be understood basically as being the same as Ubisoft's fair use screenshot policy, which states, surprise, that you may use the picture for free and that you must give attribution to Ubisoft. I have never attempted to actually check the issue as a concession. If I would do this, people would essentially kill me for being so "biased" by telling him plainly what a free license means in a way that makes it obvious for him why such a request for such a license is an insult to Ubisoft's rationality. Your attempt to contact Bodgan is completely pointless, because he is not an employee of the company that holds the copyrights (Ubisoft France) and has no authority to do anything execpt to explain the existing Ubisoft screenshot fair use policy that comes with the games anyway. Nice that you sent a copy to other PR heads too, not to people who actually understand something about licensing. We have got not stamp of approval whatsoever from him, and if we would have, it would be invalid. You are denying reality and your aggressive attitude is ridiculous given the fact that nothing has happened for years now. There was more than enough time to resolve this issue! --rtc (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment. I suppose that it's very reasonable to consider a head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR as a person that knows what he does. So both we and the reusers will have an excuse in any court. It's him, the PR head is responsible, not us neither the reusers. The proponents lose time and can't contact Ubisoft?! Ok, let the opponents contact Ubisoft. But give us please any real proof that the PR head is an unreasonable person and his permission is void. Isn't this a correct way? (However, it looks like the permission has other problems as well.) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Drbug, it's a PR guy. He's there to give Ubisoft a good image, to communicate with fans and so on. Licensing is certainly not his expertise! head of Ubisoft "Group" Germany PR? Such important sounding position names are all common in Germany. The lowest ranking positions are called "Director", "Head of X", "Manager" and what not, to make them appear impressive to the uninformed reader. Perhaps he's the chief of a few bunch of guys, but certainly not anything with power to give away the company's assets, such as copyrights (and, stressing again, he's not an employee of the copyright holder, Ubisoft France). If you read the conversation, there is no such thing as a permission. All the guy does is to explain the existing fair use policy that comes with the games anyway. He seems to assume incorrectly that it is the same as the requesting user is asking for, which is understandable: The requesting user posts a list of options, and the guy replies by pointng to "* Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden" ("Ubisoft has to be attributed") and says that this is what the pictures must obey (understandable, it's a condition of Ubisoft's fair use policy). Nowhere was it stated clearly that this is not merely a restriction, but, quite on the contrary, meant to release any copyrights merely under this condition. The guy states in the same mail that Ubisofts reserves the right to prohibit screenshot use at any time as it sees fit (again, as the Ubisoft fair use policy says). The requesting user replies that this is not okay and says that such a restriction is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's understanding of freedom, but then he goes on to talk about the quite different issue of Wikipedia not being able to enforce such a restriction against third parties. The PR guy replies, obviously assuming that he is still explaining the fair use policy and not supposed to grant a license, that he is talking only about Wikipedia, and that it is (of course) not Wikipedia's problem if third party users violate the policy. He clarly states: "Es geht lediglich nur darum wie es direkt bei Wikepedia angeboten wird." (We are talking here merely about use at Wikipedia), which makes very plainly clear again that what he is talking about is not a free license for the general public, because that would be valid for anyone outside Wikipedia also. The requesting user then says that there is NPOV policy and so Wikipedia won't misuse it in a defamatory way, which he assumes is a problem for the PR guy (rather, I may say, the Ubisoft Fair Use policy), but that criticism sections would be allowed. He also says that Wikipedia would delete the picture if Ubisoft would ask for, but that he cannot impose deletions on third parties. He also makes the careless comment that he thinks that any remaining differences are purely theoretical in nature. So the PR guy replies: Fine. Of course. Nowhere was it made explicit that it's not about using the pictures in Wikipedia according to Ubisoft's policies, but that a license is requested that has nothing whatsoever to to with Wikipedia, but is given to the general public as a whole and gives away all the screenshot's contents, even for use in games by competitors. --rtc (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Responsibility. It's the first part of your answer, which bothers me more. We invented an OTRS system of permissions. It provides us enough guarantees that we and the reusers will have a good excuse in courts, or at least will have a regressive suit fallback. And permission by OTRS is considered enough. If one doubts the authority of the person that issued a permission, one should check it with this person. Before this the license may me considered void only for very good reasons, which are not found in this case. I don't see a reason to be sure that the PR Head hadn't checked the situation with the legal department. I don't think that it's too difficult to write a message to him. German is not my mother tongue, otherwise I would write to him myself, instead of writing all this.

  2. Lack in permission. The second part of your answer is about problems that I denoted "(However, it looks like the permission has other problems as well.)". I don't agree all your points in this second part, but I definitely wish to have a single text explaining what exactly is granted to us and our reusers, instead of a tricky conversation open for interpretations.

  So, I still don't understand, what's the problem indeed? The person's e-mail is known. Does he abstain from responding? Who did write to him last time? I think, after two years of delay, we can wait one week more to understand that there's no answer or unsuitable answer. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  1.: I disagree strongly. OTRS is a means, not an end in itself. It is not our .goal to "have a good excuse in courts" (to violate copyright), but that we have free licenses. And if there is a picture here where this is doubtful, then we should put things to the test. The more problematic the issue is (and it certainly is, the copyright owner being a major game company and the pictures containing all their game art), the more important it is to really check carefully. No good arguments in this case? I think it is a very good argument that PR guys are usually not those who have authority to give away copyrights. We do not have to assume the best case, but the worst case. The goal is to have pictures that are genuinely free. Not to have pictures that we have good reasons for to fool ourselves into believing them to be free, or at least keeping them here.

  2. I think we can agree on that.

  Yes, as said above, according to OTRS, someone contacted them again, and there was no reply. Go ahead to contact them yourself if you like, and try to get something that is more watertight than what we have. I know that a free license will never be granted, but I still welcome these attempts. Experience tells me that this tag won't be closed very soon, anyway, so you don't have to be afraid that all the pictures will be gone in a week. --rtc (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  FYI: The last contact attempt by the OTRS was made on 2009-09-17, no reply since then. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  Considering that the email given in the OTRS ticket and the one currently listed at Ubisoft are different, that might be part of the issue. David Fuchs (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Have a German OTRS user resend the email at the correct address. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• If this was discussed with them before and they haven't come back to WMF about it, I don't quite see why these should be deleted. -- User:Docu at 07:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of times licenses are created, then our policies changed or the first email forgot to mention what the license entails. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep But the "any" word should be removed. FR (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Non-free licenses are not allowed on commons. --rtc (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Even before reading the arguments above, I noticed that the agreement claims the ability to revoke the license in individual cases. It would seem clear that this makes it a non-free license, as they are placing conditions on "reuse for any purpose". As much as I'd love to have these images remain here, we can't pretend that the license is legitimate when it is not. The concerns over whether the supposed licensor even has the authority to release the images just exacerbates things further. AJCham 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The case is clear. It would be really nice if we could keep the screenshots, but it's impossible. The mail exchange between Avatar and the German Ubisoft person (see also my translation into English) shows clearly that the Ubisoft person never dreamed of releasing all Ubisoft game art for commercial use and for (commercial) use in derivative works too - probably such a thought would have seemed too absurd to him to cross his mind. It also shows that "Ubisoft" (the support person from Germany) thought that it was only about using screenshots for Wikipedia... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I create few week ago Category:Useless Ubisoft game screenshots. Maybe we can wait some time the "Ubisoft reply" (again 1 month?) and delete that content. And wait again 1 month (to allow people to transfer/remove used images) and then delete all screenshots from Category:Ubisoft game screenshots. I also create Category:Ubisoft game logos to help transfer. ~ bayo or talk 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Arguments above seem persuasive. Prudence in this case dictates we delete, unless someone can come up with a clear statement on intent from the copyright holder, which I think in this case would me from Ubisoft's home office. Tabercil (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 6

[edit] File:Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2009_in_Besetzung_gueltig_ab_2009-11-01.jpg

This image is not one of the set of images covered by the copyright waiver granted in the OTRS tickets mentioned in Template:Swiss Government Portrait. Moreover, a derivative work of this specific image was recently used in a political campaign in Switzerland, and the Federal Chancellery invoked copyright to prohibit this reuse, citing the legal disclaimer of the source website according to which reuse is not allowed without permission. See the report of the en:Neue Zürcher Zeitung at [167]. Accordingly, this is an unfree image and must be deleted. Sandstein (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This might also apply to other images from Category:Official Swiss-Federal-Council photographs. I've invited the users who wrote the template to comment; they may be better placed to evaluate whether we ever received proper permission for these files. Sandstein (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it different from the unedited version of the same image (File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2009.jpg)? -- User:Docu at 05:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The copyright status of the edited image specifically was the subject of media reports (see also the official statement) but I think that there's no difference to the others as regards copyright. That's why I am questionioning the copyright status of all images in Category:Official Swiss-Federal-Council photographs. None of these images have ever been properly released, it seems. They do also not name the photographer. Sandstein (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.ch seems to say the same. According to a recent check (OTRS Noticeboard) it was ok for the image I had double checked.

Independently of the copyright status, it might just be a problem of personality rights. Seems a bit silly to request pre-approval for a caricature. -- User:Docu at 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the one that is being debated is the one without Burkhalter. -- User:Docu at 12:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the person who originally requested the permission from the Federal Chancellery and forwarded it to OTRS. My original request was targeted at the portraits of the Federal councillors (such as this one), but I later asked for other pictures of the FC; the person who gave me the authorization used so very general language ("les photos des CF publié par la Confédération doivent être/rester libre, sans "copyright"); however, we never discussed explicitely the yearly picture of the Federal Council; is the authorization good enough for pictures in Category:Official Swiss-Federal-Council photographs ? I am not sure. It is a pity, really — it we had emailed them last week and asked for confirmation, we would doubtless have received it, but there is no chance for this now (which also means that there is no point asking for free content from the Confederation anytime soon...). I am not terribly disturbed by what was was published in the newspaper (which I had noticed as well): neither by the disclaimer on the web site (given that we have actually asked for permission to reuse some pictures), nor by the fact that the Chancellery invoked copyright to forbid a use of this image (which seems like a politicial decision which has little to do with protecting copyright). That the Chancellery would give a blanket permission to reuse the image on one side, and invoke copyright to forbid its use on the other (both in good faith) would not really be a surprise (actually, I could bet that the authorizations we received are stored only on the email system of the person who gave them — if they are stored at all). It may be worth noting that the authorization template has been abused (in good faith) in the past; see here.

The best course of action would probably be to wait until the controversy dies down, and recontact the Chancellery to clarify which pictures are covered or not. In the meantime, I am not really sure what to say about the deletion. Schutz (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's probably best to postphone this decision until the current press run dies out a bit. Obviously, it's mainly about personality rights and not about the image as such. Although we generally request images to be reusable for any purpose, we wouldn't be able to keep any images (including portraits) depicting people, because they could be used in an abusive context. I do think there would be similar political controversies if one tryied to use an image of Barack Obama for a political campaign against him. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On a tangential note, while I'm fully aware of the Foundation's core principles, I'm wondering whether this would be one of the situations where the Foundation might want to reconsider rejecting a CC-BY-ND license by default: photographic works of living people that could be reused to illustrate article content but not modified in a way that sparked the above controversy in the first place. Just my 2 cents of course. MLauba (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. Just thought about something like this myself. It didn't even need to be "ND", "ND-altered" (only unaltered reproductions allowed) would even suffice. I think the number of pictures that really are used for profit use from commons is comparably small and it needs adequate review by anyone actually wanting to do this in any case, so that an extra indication that one should not use the picture in a out-of-context manner would not make commons less usable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Official pictures are nice to have, but they tend to look all the same and can be found every else too. At least for contemporary politicians, we should be able to find other pictures. BTW here are some official ones that are a bit different. -- User:Docu at 06:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree here. If you take a look at de:Bundesratsfoto, you see that these official pictures are somewhat changing over time. And there's a difference between an "official photo of a government" and photos during an "official visit" or an "official task". --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nancytstricklin.JPG

I want to delete this account --Tavon36 Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Unused photo apparently taken in a private place without explicit authorization, and it's the only upload by the user. OTOH, the subject seems to be a poet/novelist that published some works (see here), so it could be in scope. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep At least four books by this author [168], but I couldn't find any other image of this person to verify identity. --Justass (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep No privacy issues that I can see: the subject is posing for her photograph. Published author, so notable. Her identity can be verified form this [169]. The uploader added this image almost 2 months ago. I think that's a bit long for us to assume a mistake. Would they please explain their reasons for deletion? --Simonxag (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ramones1996.jpg

TinEye brings some hits here that might indicate that the image is taken from somewhere else - at least the image was published elsewhere. Most interesting is the sanned image http://img13.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/3/a/0/8/d/3a08d50ac440619ae2baa287f68cbce8_full.jpg. Also http://uk.real.com/music/artist/The_Ramones/gallery/image/13234/ is an interesting hit. --Martin H. (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the other uploads from Oldpunk on en.wikipedia:

• File:DDRamone.JPG has a strange TinEye hit of a larger image showing the whole person
• File:Ramones-1978byoldpunk.jpg has nothing, but given the different quality of this three images it is unlikely from the same author but taken from somewhere.

--Martin H. (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ElvinJones-triple.jpg

Missing evidence of permission tag was removed by IP, taking this here. Allowing usage "for Wikipedia" is not enough, evidence of a specific free license is required. Hekerui (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That IP was mine... I didn't realize I was not logged in. Beyond publishing the email conversation I had with Joey Harrison where he gave his permission for this image to appear on Wikimedia, I have no further ability to establish the image's license. Instead, I have contacted Joey Harrison to request of him one of two actions: to release the three original Flickr images under CCSA license (or similar) or to upload the triple image to his Flickr account and release that under similar license. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:N421408_36920675_31.jpg

out of scope (not realistically useful for an educational purpose). unused low-quality picture of an amateur band. Plrk (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep band already released one album [170] --Justass (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Monument to the Conquerors of Space

• File:Monument to Soviet cosmonauts.JPG (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Monument to the Conquerors of Space.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Russia space monument.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Fotothek df ps 0004451 Ausstellungen ^ Ausstellungsgebäude ^ Denkmäler - Denkmal.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Fotothek df ps 0004493 Ausstellungen ^ Ausstellungsgebäude ^ Denkmäler - Denkmal.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Sadly but COM:FOP in Russia allows only for non-commercial use. Same matter already discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space --Justass (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as already done before, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space. Deja vu. On a side note, what makes this, shall we say, structure, so favored by deletion folks? On another side note, the Fotothek upload appears to contain thousands of COM:FOP vios for Moscow alone, shouldn't it all be trashed? NVO (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] KUKA images

File:Industrial robots-transparent.gif (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Factory Automation Robotics Palettizing Bread.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Automation of foundry with robot.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Robotics Cutting Bridge Building Parts.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:KUKA robot for flat glas handling.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:KUKA Industrial Robot KR10 SCARA.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)

Images claim to have permission by KUKA. This would need OTRS verification, otherwise they need to go. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:3D_animated_flag_Ukraine.gif

"free" but not free in the freedomdefined.org sense. Terms of use do not allow competing image repositories to store these. -Nard the Bard 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the website I took the picture from (http://www.clipartdb.com/): ClipartDB offers thousands of free cliparts and graphics that you can use in any application such as microsoft office (word, excel, powerpoint), open office or on your website and weblog. Our Free Cliparts can be downloaded free. Feel free to browse the various clipart categories and enjoy these clipart graphics! Wikimedia Commons is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, so they can use it on their website, which is this website.Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not totally clear licensewise. For one thing it's not stated that you can modify the clipart itself as well as use it. --Simonxag (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1.  Keep --minhhuy*= (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CapaExperienciaReligiosa.png

Incompatible licensing. File:Brain stem normal human.svg is used and is only licensed under CC-by-sa 2.5, thus it is impossible to license this as GFDL. The brain image needs to be changed or the author of the brain image asked to put the image under GFDL or, even better, CC-by-sa 3.0. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Irdenware_von_Max_Laeuger_1900.jpg

Läuger died 1952. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Meine_Drei_Cousinen_von_Ignacio_Zuloaga.jpg

Zuloaga died 1945. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Ok, you are right, still in copyright. But this just an extraction from another image, which is kept... I should really check the dates before I do some extraction work, of course,... Frédéric (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 7

[edit] File:Pterarchos_Ioannis_Giagkos.jpg

Portrait photograph of an officer taken from a Greek government website, but not {PD-GreekGov}, not part of an official text "expressive of the authority of the State". {PD-GreekGov} is different from PD-USGov. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FullReport2-07-2005.ogg

Improper license. Derivative of cc content must be cc. -Nard the Bard 03:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• So can't we just relicense appropriately, rather than delete? - Jmabel ! talk
•  Keep we can retag it as the correct licence, according to their licence page anything before September 2005 (like this file) would be licensed under GNU_FDL. Jamesofur (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sketch_Botschaftsviertel.JPG

The author of the book from which this image was scanned still lives. So the question is whether it is a drawing of the book's author or material from the 1930s. In the latter case we would need the artist who has drawn the map. Or if it was offcial work to use some corresponding license. ALE! ¿…? 17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly not a drawing by Wolfgang Schäche, who still lives, as you rightly note. I know, because I wrote the article about Schäche on de:WP. This drawing is also reproduced in other publications, like some brochure from the Verein Berliner Unterwelten e.V. on the subject. The drawing in question was created in 1938 as a part of an official plan for the reorganizsation ofthe Reichshauptstafdt Berlin inside the institution GBI, but certainly not by Speer himself. The original author(s) are unknown. As to which PD might apply: I do not know. I also do not know whether this drawing has "Schöpfungshöhe". --Minderbinder (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mylene Demongeot in Gold for the Caesars trailer 2.jpg

This trailer sreenshot is from an Italian film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057391 and still copyrighted in the EU. --Elsa Baye (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PondMeadowFront.jpg

I don't see any indication of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license at the source site Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but I personally know the author who has released it as such. Ontello (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please get the author to email OTRS with permission. --Simonxag (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Steven_Gerrard_(adidas).jpg

Advertising poster from Adidas. Didint add speedy deletion as there is similar discussion at Deletion requests/File:Leo.Messi.Adidas.jpg Justass (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep--Whatnwas (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 CommentIt all depends on who or what the Flickr user "adifansnet" is. "Fans" are not Adidas. It's probably Adidas pretending to be fans, but that's hardly a basis to establish a license someone could rely on in court. --Simonxag (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:3rdalley.jpg

probable copyvio, compare http://www.martianchurch.com/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=29_138 Athenchen (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Same theme used in new album trailer [172] --Justass (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Obvious band copyrighted promotional material. Needs OTRS permission. --Simonxag (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Opha3343.png

No actual source. En:Wikipedia uploader made no claim to be the author of this image. This is an image uploaded to en:W by user Kingsevil, who uploaded a number of unsourced images found on the web to en:W; all have been deleted save this transfered to Commons. Uploader inactive since 2006. Image is in use in multiple Wikipedias. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 8

[edit] File:Railway Cy map.jpg

This file is the same as File:CGR_map.jpg, which was deleted today because it does not contain a source for the underlying map data, see COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. --Sv1xv (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• This map was created by me, based on the Greek version of it. How can I make you stop tagging my maps? NeoCy (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You must state the source of geographical data used to create this map and prove that is is wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license. See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. I have explained to you the Wikimedia Commons policy on your talk page (with examples), see User talk:NeoCy#Adding source information to maps, but you chose to ignore it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done... but I have seen other maps too, not all of them state their origin. Why this specific obsession over this one??? NeoCy (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See my reply in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyprus geomorphologic.jpg‎. Sv1xv (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cyprus_geomorphologic.jpg

Very unlikely to be "Own work" of uploader. Please see other deleted maps that this user uploaded Justass (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete This file is the same as File:Cyprus topographic towns and road map.jpg, which was deleted today because it does not contain a source for the underlying map data, see COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. Sv1xv (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This map was created by me. There are Greek and English version of it. How can I make you stop tagging my maps? NeoCy (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• By stating the source of geographical data used to create this map and proving that is is wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license. See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. Sv1xv (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done... but I have seen other maps too, not all of them state their origin. Why this specific obsession over this one??? NeoCy (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not an obsession. Most maps without a source are simple outlines of borders and coastlines and can be seen as "simple facts and data". This specific map and its derivative for CGR are very detailed and a source is required to established its free status. If you see a detailed map without a source, please request the cartographer to add it. Sv1xv (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)