User talk:Collard/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cynthia Lennon

Hello. You've deleted the picture of Cynthia Lennon that I had just uploaded. Could you please help me finding the appropriate license for the photo and uploading it in the correct way? I'd be very grateful. Pugno (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I forgot to add - the picture was from the English Wikipedia.

Ok, thanks a lot for help. ;) Pugno (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rapdämon - Tape.JPG

I send the permission for this picture to on Wednesday. There is no vioalation of copyright. A german user will prove the permission. Please restore this image. --Lipstar (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

done, put {{OTRS pending}} on such uploads in future Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Lipstar (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


This is replying your message. Please delete my account if you can help. If not, WTF (returning your words). Thank you. --Stavenn (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand your last message. Sorry. But I really do appreciated if you can delete it. Thanks. --Stavenn (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It's not copyvios, I just want to license it as "fairuse" due to personal problems. Also, if you deleted my user page, is it going to remove all my contributions also? If yes, please do so. Thank you in advance. --Stavenn (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Collard, I apologize for being (perhaps) dense, but I'm not sure what "protip" means (my English does fail me on occasion). Did I make an assertion or implication regarding my age at Susan or did you just mean that our terrestrial friend may be assuming discrimination on the basis of age (which would only be the case if I were a "youngster")? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to write that into my dictionary. The age comment had been bugging me; I would have felt badly if I'd misled anyone. I suspect you were wise to want to get away from Susan. Regards, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Joe facepalm.jpg
I love this image. giggy (:O) 05:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brian Kennedy (singer).jpg

Why did you delete it? This is free and you could simply replace license template, couldn't you? Please renew it and I replace template if you couldn't do it.--KriFFek (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculizing "cn"-Tag on enWP?

Hi, as you're familiar with proceedings, I please ask your opinion on en:Karin Schäfer (version as of -- alhough I feel ridiculized as much as the use of this tag seems to be ridiculized in this case, I'm going to work on it soon). Please comment on article's talk page. TX. --WeHaWoe (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is the sort of thing that keeps me away from Wikipedia these days. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like "Bad luck for willing-to-be-contributors", ??? I tried my best anywayas. ;] --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like "this reminds me why I stay clear of serious editing on Wikipedia these days". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The guy+me seem to be clear now, I think. Maybe he's just had a sarcastic day. ;) If you want to feel the desire to be attracted to editing in enWP again, try deWP for a while, BTW ;)) --WeHaWoe (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I don't know if they'd be too impressed by my broken german though (hope you have a de-(-5) userbox there). ;P Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Never-ever tried to find any "(language MINUS-something)" here. I however managed one day to create de:Jef Scherens from nl:Jef Scherens "just for personal F.U.N" -- which (FUN) is, frankly spoken, the only thing of ANY'...s EVER REAL interest in WP ;]]]] --WeHaWoe (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I get to be a flickr reviewer! :D Thanks for your support! :D Brynn(talk) 15:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough

This bears some resemblance to a user you recently blocked.... Or are you leaving that one for now? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it for now; I don't expect it to be back. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Please could you clarify the reason for deleting the image Barbie.jpg as a derivative work. It seems unlikely that Mattel would object to a straightforward photograph of a Barbie doll used for illustration purposes. --Ianmacm (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Edinburgh Trip April 2008 021.JPG

Once again you close this deletion request inappropriately, not only does your stance and involvement with the discussion make it inappropriate but so do your comments in closing it. No one wants to see you using expletives all the time, it does nothing to strengthen your point.

It was not me that caused this contributor to leave, I have worked extensively with them to deal with problems, add categories to their images etc, it was their apparent misunderstanding of what Commons is about. Their comparison to Flickr seems to suggest they think that Commons is just a photo sharing site whereas this is clearly not the case.

You are welcome to try to encourage this user to return but I trust that if you do you'll be closely monitoring their uploads to ensure they are placed in appropriate categories etc. This user might have uploaded some useful images but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to issues like this image out of fear of them leaving. We encourage contributors to stay by working to educate them and resolve problems as I've done, if they are going to kick up a fuss and threaten to leave whenever they perceive something to be going against them then I'm not going to walk on egg shells for them.

I still maintain that this image is a lower quality duplicate of a near identical image by the same photographer and hope to see it deleted eventually. Adambro (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm (yellow).svg thanks for the TL;DR. I've deleted it just to make you happy, since I suspect you'll lose sleep over it, and I'd hate to do that to a fellow admin. also, don't be such a Dalek. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BurmABC.svg

Since 2 people agreed, can you delete that image? It's holding open an otherwise-resolved request on the English Graphics lab. Thanx, 15:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

delivered. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
YaY thanx, 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hapsenje D Dzajica.jpg

Actually, this is a photo taken by Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs during the arrest, so it is the official material of a Republic of Serbia state body, and thus, in PD. --Matija (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

do explain how it is "a law, decree, regulation or official material". Merely being taken by an employee of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs does not qualify it, IMO. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about “official material” part. The photo was taken by an employee of Serbian MIA during his duty, which was to document the arrest, made also by MIA. If that doesn't qualify the photo as an official material, then I guess there are no official materials made by any MIA in the world. --Matija (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that a satisfactory explanation? --Matija (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. "Official materials" refers to things like laws and decrees. I suspect it does not cover everything ever distributed by the Serbian government. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Serbian Copyright Law, Article 6, featured also here (as the Law was declared while State Union of Serbia and Montenegro still existed, and is in power to this day):
“Work is not copyrighted if the work is:
1. Law, sub-law act or other kind of law act.
2. Official material of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function.
3. Official translation of materials of state authorities or translation of materials published by any other person or institution which do public function.
4. Any of acts in judgment processes.”
So, laws and decrees are separated from official materials by law, and official materials of state authorities are also not copyrighted. --Matija (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Any further explanation needed? --Matija (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You are testing my patience; I'm refraining from comment for that reason. I'd suggest taking it here. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excuse me for being right, while you weren't. I'm just trying to make you see what is copyrighted in Serbia and what's not, so that you don't make any more similar mistakes in the future. Cheers, Matija (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. And you're also seriously testing my patience. Responding to you is only making me more pissed off and not getting either of us anywhere. Go here and GTFO my talk page. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No need to be so rude. I am right and I'm sorry that you don't want to admit it, but instead you're being impolite. This is the last of me here. Bye. --Matija (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Imad Mugniyeh.JPG

dear Collard, just take a look at this image and the permission used for it. is the licence ok? that source claims that the man in the pic is Imad Mughnieh, but probabely he's not. -- 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be GFDL. I've {{npd}}'d it. Thanks, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Collard. Source of image, is one of offically organization of iran, and you can see in the foot of first page, note that: "کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند" : "All of content published in GFDL Licence". Images of this site also used in other wiki projects like and without any problem • Rohan T 11:17, 26 June 2008
Oh, disregard that then. I'm still not sure if actually have the authority to license that image under the GFDL (did they really take it?) but I don't care enough to make it an issue. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. But this issue spent long discusions in and we concluded to rely that offically organization. But we can proof that by OTRS. Best regards ;-) • Rohan T 14:32, 26 June 2008


I see things - take care, mail if you want - cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I see things too :( --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 :( :( :( Ping me if you want the tools back, and my email is open. giggy (:O) 10:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really sad. How dare you leaving me :( --Kanonkas(talk) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

cheers guys. <3. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Hope things work out for you. <3 Rocket000 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OMGWTFBBQ! I just noticed this :((( Patrícia msg 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbie photo

Fortunately I still have a copy of the photo of Barbie that was deleted from Commons (it can be viewed here). What I do not have is details about who took the photograph etc. I would also like some advice on how to tag the image for fair use on Wikipedia so that it does not get speedily deleted. Could you help on these issues? Thanks, --Ianmacm (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Commons does not allow fair use. You may upload the image to Wikipedia if they allow it, which the English one does. Check the local fair use policy (most likely found here). Rocket000 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

File Naming

Hi Lewis,

  1. please have a look at Category:Film set of Transformers where I proposed new names for all 4 items, being a trusted user for a few days who doesn't trust himself all too much ;)
  2. On the uploads of an artists heiress, I recently proposed following scheme (see Image:6596 Landschaft mit Menschen.JPG): Image:Author catalogue raisonné-nr original's name (technique, year).jpg , here: "Image:Margret Hofheinz-Döring 6596, Landschaft mit Menschen (pastel, 1982).jpg". Do you see any objections?
  3. In what period of time can these renamings be expected to be dealt? Information on such seems pretty poor.

TX, --WeHaWoe (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC) hi,

  1. Looks good. Unfortunately, I tried to read your sentence too fast, thought you were asking me to approve your edits, and so went around and made a null edit on them...I'm stupid. :/
  2. Looks good too.
  3. A few days or so.
Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

;) --WeHaWoe (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I noticed that after saving :) and found it a funny (however not intended) variety of my too-often used smiley. That's why I didn't repair it. 8d --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hihiiihiiiiii / ROTFLOL: the pictures you "touched" (approved) seem are declared by BetacommandBot as "couldn't be renamed for:" REASON: the rename request was made by a non-trusted user. Have a good evening and a funny night ;) --and tell me if I can help you ;))))))) --WeHaWoe (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(the one's you didn't touch are done ;)))) -- have a funny evening+night, Wolfgang --WeHaWoe (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
SHORT: I'ts a wiki ;) whwö. --WeHaWoe (talk)
In case you want to comment, please do so at User talk:Siebrand#Template:Rename media. eod here ;) --WeHaWoe (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Siebrand being too busy, please talk at Commons_talk:MediaMoveBot#Possible_bug_in_BetacommandBot if needed. --WeHaWoe (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Lewie! Brynn (talk!) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


If you want the toys back :) --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm better. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. Fill in the admin list stuff yourself - I'm literally about to go on holiday! Play nicely while I'm away. More seriously - good to have you back. --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Have a good holiday. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay me! ;) Good thing that you changed your mind! This time stay! --Kanonkas(talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Kelly (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm (yellow).svg <-- that's a good thing! Welcome back! —Giggy 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

718smiley.svg Awesome!Roche.svg Rock On!Facepalm (yellow).svgFacepalm2.svg FacepalmTemplate:Facepalm3MUTCD R3-4.svg NO USymbol wtf vote.svg WTF?Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I mean, welcome back. Rocket000 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks guys. <3 Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WB. But the lot of you are weird. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg

On June 1, you deleted this as a "Copyright violation". I restored the local copy to the English Wikipedia where it is used in a featured article. What was the nature/details of the copyright problem? I may have to change the copyright status of the image on En Wiki depending on what problems were determined here. Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is still under copyright, and the Canadian Library and Archives have not granted permission for re-use of the images under a free license. Likely you'll be able to claim fair use over at Wikipedia. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That must be the fastest response ever. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
;) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The page says nil restrictions with attribution required. I'm confused. -Nard 11:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Collard, could you kindly explain to me the reason you removed the copyvio tag I placed? In the site listed in "source" and "permission" for that image the disclaimer at the bottom of the pages says: "All of the screenshots and other images used on this site are solely for promotional purposes and are copyrighted to their respective owners." Is this a permission? --Marcok (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: the copyright in the film has lapsed, ergo screenshots of said film are also in the public domain. Taking a screenshot of the film requires no creativity; ergo, the people who took the screenshots of the film cannot claim a copyright either. So it's not a copyvio. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Urban Explorer Hobart.jpg

Meh. Close it as keep if you want. I do think some of my nominations are overzealous. -Nard 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure; we need to have some discussion about the copyright status of illegal graffiti (I'll note that Banksy, one of the more famous ones, has lawyers who actively enforce his "copyright" over his work; I can't imagine they're totally blowing smoke). Maybe I'll look into it further today. Over-zealous is good, BTW; leads to some interesting discussions at least. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfair labeling

On the closing comment[1] drama-mongers is a rather unfair comment to make. If you have looked into this you would see I wasn't the drama-monger (There is more to this then that section on the page) and I would like the above comment withdrawn since it's totally unfair and also I wouldn't label anyone here as an drama-monger even if they maybe causing some drama which I wasn't. Bidgee (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the comment since it seems to bother you. Not that I think this was an unfair assessment; there was drama and I'm not particularly concerned about who started it. But I'm sorry if the closing remark offended you. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your close on this Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SaabScandia.jpg‎ was wrong

Let me pose you the following thought experiments:

Can you copyright the appearance of a human being ? No. A human being's appearance is not copyrightable. Can you copyright a sculpture of a human being ? Yes. Is a photograph of such a sculpture a derivative work ? yes.

Look at it another way. Take a coin, say a Roman coin (Sic transit gloria mundi) . PD for a thousand years. Take a photo of the coin. The photo is protected by copyright.

How can a 3D representation of a PD object not be protected by copyright given the above. Megapixie (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm going to re-open the deletion request. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

recently deleted

hi, you deleted the photo i uploaded. that photo is of a friend of mine, he's a rapper in miami, fl therefore notable, i uploaded it for use in his wikipedia article. The photo was taken by a photographer and sold to him. Im handeling the distribution of all his media, im not sure what cpoyright that falls under, i'm also new to this so any help would be appriciated so that it wont be deleted again. thanx Swindler305 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay i can have him email that, but i don't want it under that copyright, do i just replace the wording with what applys to the correct copyright?? It's okay if its used elsewhere as long as its properly attributed and it isnt altered. Swindler305 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

a question?

Hi collard, i'm admin here in Commons too. I have a question, why you deleted this image??. I think that you should see the history before delete. :) greetings, Loco085 msg 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I should have checked the page history; I didn't see someone else removed the license. sometimes I try and work too fast for my own good. sorry about that. ;/ Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent image

You just deleted the miss universe image. There was no real time to reply to your message though.

"In this case, all the evidence points to it being a copyright violation. The low resolution, the fact that the user would have to be a professional photographer to have taken most of the images he uploaded, that this is a photo of a "Miss Universe" (something that people get very obsessed about, and that attracts more than its share of blatant copyvios), and so on. Viewed in isolation, these things would normally be irrelevant, but they take on some weight when one bears in mind the user's history."

  1. The user could very well be a professional photographer in Venezuela (apparently that picture was taken a while ago), or in one of the other countries she has apparently worked.
  2. This part "people get obsessed" is a very subjective thing, how does that bear relevance on fraudulent pics?
  3. "and so on" not quite sure?
  4. The history of the user is questionable, but as long as ALL his pics are not in violation and the other possibility that it was a real webblog he got it from doesn't show violation. Assume good faith doesn't show exception, that's the point of discussion here.
  5. Low resolution does make the pic somewhat questionable, but perhaps uploaded onto the weblog it wasn't in the best.

Im not picking fights here, but just throwing alternatives in the air. They could help/hurt either side. (also can you reply to my wikipedia usertalk, ive never checked this. don't know if it translates over either, thanks) Lihaas (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened here, so I'll respond here, thank you. In order:
  1. I'd be willing to entertain this possibility if the user did not have a history of copyright violations.
  2. Everything outside of mathematics is subjective, to an extent. "That's just your opinion" is not an argument. I pointed this out because things that people obsess over are more likely to attract new users who do not understand copyright. It's the same with any other celebrity shot; this sort of thing is more likely to be a copyright violation than (say) a picture of a cat, or a train. As I said at the deletion request, this would not be relevant, except the user has a history of copyright violations.
  3. No, I only "assume good faith" insofar as long as there is not compelling reason to assume the opposite. I'm guessing that you do not show good faith over at the Other Wiki towards vandals and spammers; similarly, I'm inclined to think that press-quality images from users with a history of copyright violations are very likely to be copyright violations. (Actually, I can assume good faith and still think that a user doesn't have a clue about copyright; what's the road to hell paved with? :))
  4. The weblog in question was irrelevant to the discussion, and I said as much at the deletion request; it was likely that the weblog copied the photo from Wikipedia, not vice-versa.
HTH, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi the image File:Linuxboy.png had just been deleted for no reasson can you put it back? Sterkebaktalk 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wooly Mammoth-RBC.jpg

Hi, could you restore this image of a mammoth that you recently deleted? The image was taken in Canada, which does have freedom of panorama, so the image is not a copyright violation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Otiñar

Hi. First of all sorry about my english. I read your succint motivation for my request. Why the licences are non-revocable? (this include CC-BY-SA?) There is another way to request the deletion of the files or any way to do something similar? Although I abandon the project, I still wait an answer in my disussion page. Thanks. --Otiñar (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This message is a copy. The original is in User_talk:ViperSnake151, but your answer is welcome too.

Deleting derivative works?

Hi Collard - I see you deleted Image:Lennon Ono Trudeau 1969 b.jpg on the grounds that it was a copyright violation. A couple of photos apparently derived from that one are still here, though: Image:Lennon69.jpg, Image:Lennon 01.jpg. These should probably go as well, no? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories to restore

Hello Collard,

What do you think of restoring Category:Paul_Charbonnier, Category:Alexandre Mienville and Category:Georges Biet and add {{NoUploads}} to them like Cecil did here and there. That way contributor might see avoid uploading problematic picture.

Thanks, Liné1 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I almost did that. Then I thought about it: that's not particularly helpful. The point of our categorisation scheme is to help people find things; it is not helpful for them to come across endless empty categories flagged with that template. For that reason, the template says only to use it on categories with media in them, and not to create categories which should not exist in the first place. I wish there were a better solution than this; it would be nice if we could find some way of letting contributors know about the issues at hand before it's too late. But creating endless empty categories is not the way to do it.
Also, what I just said is probably nonsensical, rambling, and may well come across as harsher than I intend. Apologies in advance; I'm tired since running on an hour and a half of sleep at the moment. :/ Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, those categories are not really needed.
Thanks for the apologies even if they were not needed as I already finished my pictures mourning ;-) (Sorry if that is a pure french joke lost during a bad translation).
By the way, I have another question: Do you think this rule about french architecte died 70 years ago still applies if the building on the picture has been destroyed ? For example a post-cards of a destroyed Art Nouveau building created by an architect dead 40 years ago.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I reckon it does. A tenuous analogy would be like a photo I've taken; even if I lose the original, I still hold copyright over a scan of that photo. The copyright does not reside in the building as such, but rather in its design. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It is probably better if a few users who are frequently present at Commons put does non-existing categorys and gallerys on their watchlist, so that there is always somebody here who can act as soon as somebody creates the category/gallery again. If the category already exists, nobody notices it immediately when it gets filled. Maybe there needs to be done something at the source. If we can't change the law, we need to rise the awareness of its existence. Sure, there are a few tourists who make pictures but our main contributors are always the local people. They try to organize picture requests just to later learn that it is not yet allowed to release them under a free licence. I don't know yet how to create that awareness but I definitely will think about the problem. -- Cecil (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The watchlist idea is a good one. I'll do that. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)