Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[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 [1]. 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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep At least four books by this author [2], but I couldn't find any other image of this person to verify identity. --Justass (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg 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 [3]. 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)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep band already released one album [4] --Justass (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Monument to the Conquerors of Space

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)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 02:28, 7 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. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --minhhuy*= (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of Flag of the Kingman Reef

Forgive me if I am doing this wrong - I work on deletion on Wikipedia but have never done this here before. The two files are substantially identical, so one of them should go anyway, but that is not the main problem.This wrong file on Commons has been the subject of discussion on the Flags of the World website and mailing list: this is not the flag - official or unofficial - of the Kingman Reef. The Kingman Reef has no flag; this is simply the signal flag "K". It has most likely been taken from the vexilla-mundi website [5], where - if you click on the index letter "K" at the bottom of the menu screen, you get this signal flag followed by a list of entries beginning with K (the third of which is Kingman Reef). Grutness (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK it is not a reason, that a flag is a fantasy flag, although this could lead to wrong entries in Wikipedia. But the flag was taken without liscence from vexilla-mundi. That is a copyright violation and request a speedy deletion. --Patrick (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept: If the filename is misleading, you can have the file renamed and the resulting redirect deleted. This is not a reason to delete the file as such. Closing this discussion and adding {{rename}}. -- User:Docu at 12:55, 19 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)

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

[edit] Images of Marrovi

I believe that User:Marrovi's flags are all Out of project scope, they don't have a official source to validate them.
Only author's personal design. 187.146.51.234 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. in use in scope Huib talk 12:37, 14 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)

Symbol delete vote.svg 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)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/11/06"