Angel, are you saying you are the photographer? In that case, just follow up with the COM:OTRS process. But if not, then clearly the photographer, not you, would have the rights to this image, so you can't grant them. - Jmabel ! talk05:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I own the copyright to this image, and have a legal contract to prove so. When it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, I selected the Public Domain tag. Despite this, the image was quickly deleted. The reason given was that it had been marked as a copyright violation. If possible, I would like the image un-deleted. Great days0346 (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a scan of a forty year old photograph. Are you the photographer? If not, please explain in detail how you come to own the copyright to it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not the photographer. The photographer sold his archive, which included photos as well as negatives, to a collector. This collector then sold them to another collector. The latter has been, and is, selling these same photos and negatives on eBay. This eBay seller gives you the option to buy the full copyright for many of these negatives. When I purchased the negative of Lee Purcell, I also decided to purchase the copyright. I have since received the negative, along with a legal contract, and had a print made. The print was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and then quickly deleted. Great days0346 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If it is as you describe that is legitimate, though multiple collectors means a long chain of assigned rights to keep clear. See COM:OTRS for how to proceed. I strongly recommend that your email should name the people in the chain of assigned rights instead of just "some collector assigned the rights to some other collector." - Jmabel ! talk19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask for a little more. You say,
"The photographer sold his archive, which included photos as well as negatives, to a collector."
That does not say that the photographer licensed the copyright to the photos. It is very easy to imagine (and cite cases) where a photographer gives away or sells his collection but continues to collect royalties. So, we need not only the whole chain, but your statement that you are satisfied that at each step in the chain an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, all rights license to the copyright was included. Your e-mail should include the text of the document under which you bought the rights. (You don't buy a copyright, you license it. There can be more than one license of a given copyright.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to 1978, selling the negatives may imply selling the copyright as well. If the original sales were 1978 or later, then copyright transfers need to be specified in written, signed agreements -- Congress decided to end the ambiguity of selling negatives and that kind of thing in the new copyright law. Still, given this situation... I'm not sure we need to require tons of evidence. We're not a court; in most situations we simply assume good faith of uploader's claims that they are copyright owners. We draw the line at photos previously published elsewhere, since it becomes too easy for people to simply copy them off the web or wherever, so we require OTRS in that situation. This one is tougher, as we probably don't know if the photo was previously published in a way to make it easy for someone to copy. It should not have been speedied in the the first place, as I doubt we actually found a source on the web, but rather a regular deletion request so the situation could be discussed. Anyways, the uploader at this point pretty clearly thinks they do own the copyright (as does the ebay seller), but I don't think we require an absolute chain of evidence -- this is now very clearly not a copy-off-the-web situation. And it looks like OTRS has already been sent with enough details to have it undeleted, great -- that always helps a lot. I would have supported undeletion at the very least to have a DR, and may have supported keeping it without OTRS, but definitely support keeping it with OTRS (which I can't see, but it was obviously good enough to have the processor undelete the file). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just fine with me -- a jpg of the contract is included with the OTRS e-mail and the person from whom the uploader purchased the image transfers all rights and warrants that he has the right to do so. If I were being unreasonable, or this were a million dollar image, I could ask for more, but for our purposes it is just fine. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the photographer's name from the ticket to the source field in lieu of the "own work" previously present, since it's not the uploader's own work. – Adrignolatalk14:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My headshot photo titled Frank_LaRose_headshot_3-23-11.jpg has been deleted and the history indicated that the licensing related tot he shot is unverified. Please undelete this image. This is my photo and no license problems exist here.
The upload did not grant any license. You have to grant one or another specific license (e.g. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, or CC-Zero, or something else of the sort). Also, though, you are claiming it as your own work, which seems unlikely if you are the subject. The photographer, not you, would presumably hold the copyright. May I strongly suggest going through the OTRS process with this, to make the permission absolutely explicit? - Jmabel ! talk06:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ÉSTE ES EL LETRERO QUE ME APARECE:
Hace falta indicar el permiso para subir esta imagen. La imagen indica un autor y un origen pero no existe comprobación de que el autor está de acuerdo en publicar este archivo bajo la licencia informada. Por favor, indica un e-mail o una página web a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org donde se pueda comprobar su licencia. Lo mismo aplica si eres el propio autor.
Si el permiso no es recibido, la imagen podría ser borrada siete días después de la fecha siguiente: (17 de febrero de 2011).
Administrador: Con la herramienta GlobalUsage puedes verificar el uso de esta imagen en otros proyectos Wikimedia.
Cuando añadas esta plantilla:
Usa {{subst:npd}} para categorizar por la fecha de marcación.
Usa también
{{subst:image permission|File:UNIVERSIDAD GALILEA 30 Aniversario.jpg}} para notificar el usuario que ha subido la imagen.
Català | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Norsk (bokmål) | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Svenska | Slovenčina | 中文 | 中文(简体) | +/−Bold text
--MAURICIO ALVA (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[[1]][reply]
I am speaking about the file File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg. The original picture by painter Dmitry Kardovsky was published in a newspaper named «Red Niva» («Красная Нива»), 1926 #46, and also in a newspaper «Appeal» («Призыв»), 1926 #198. This means the picture is not covered by copyright in Russia. In my previous undelete request I could not mention this because did not know about those two articles. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not covered by copyright in Russia? Seems like it qualifies for the 70 pma term to me, as it was still under copyright in Russia on Jan 1, 1993. It is PD in the U.S., since it would not have been restored by the URAA. But it looks to me as though the Russian copyright will last until 2014. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... but the 1993 law retroactively restored all works where the author died 1943 and later, from the looks of it. 50 years from publication looks to be for anonymous works. Carl Lindberg20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russolo was Italian. The Hulton Archive -- the source of the image -- is British. There is no reason to believe that the USA rule of PD-1923 applies. It is almost certain that the image follows the British or Italian rule and will be in copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer, which, for a 1913 photograph, could well be in the future. It is also possible -- the Getty caption is vague -- that it is not a photograph, but a painting by Russolo, in which case it will be in copyright until 1/1/2018. Also, there is the fact that Getty claims to own the copyright. Claiming copyright when you know that it has expired is Copyfraud and Getty certainly knows that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it is for sure not a painting, although the image might appear hazy.(check 'luigi russolo' on Google images and you'll find other photo's of the same objects as well) The image is very famous and an icon of the futuristic movement. For sure Getty Images doesn't have the copyright on it, you're right about that. As far as I know it remains unclear who took the image. I've never seen a photo credit in any publication so far. So the 70 years rule is impossible to uphold (perhaps the photographer was born in 1903 and is still alive, making the expire date 2081 if he dies in 2011. 2081 is of course to point out the 70 years rule is a bit ridiculous when it comes to this rather innocent image shot in 1913 and of which it is totally unclear if there was even a person who owned the copyright. Getty Images has tons of pre 1900 pictures on which it claims copyright. Calling that fraud is a heavy word and the copyright is for sure not theirs. It's their business so I don't care about how they earn their money. The image is Italian, not British (the intonorumori have never been transported to the UK, only to Paris, where they were destroyed in WOII). I think it would be the best solution to restore this image under a 'fair use' publication, similar to including pictures of album covers. Or otherwise I will upload the album cover of this one: http://www.amazon.com/Intonarumori-gorgogliatore-gurgler-1977-Recording/dp/B00287GT58/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298818127&sr=8-2 and follow the rules for album covers. 83.87.175.19214:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition. The fact that an image is from Italy or whatever other country, doesn't mean commons can't apply the US rules. WikiCommons is US based and not Italian, so the rules for copyright are equal to any other image, no matter from which country they are. 83.87.175.19215:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up the 70 yrs rule according to European law. It mentions when the author of the photograph is unknown (as in this case), the 70 year rule is for the DATE of PUBLICATION, which is inbetween 1913 and 1923 (the year The Art of Noises Manifesto was published). The instruments are bombed in WOII June 3rd 1940 and therefore this image can never be younger than 71 years from now (2011). Also Pratella on the image abandoned the futurist movement already way earlier (around 1920). The last intorumori performance was in 1927, which also prooves the picture must be older than 70 years.
The rights mentioned on Getty are untrue. The Russolo Intorumori picture is taken by an unknown person in Italy 1913, and therefore rights free based on European copyright laws. Please restore the image. 94.210.220.4318:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the fact that we do not know who took the image does not mean that for copyright purposes the photographer is unknown. The name could well be on the back of a paper copy of the photo or in the Hulton archives.
As far as Getty's use of (C) goes, I can't comment, but your examples are not on point. Although the rule in the USA and on Commons is to apply Bridgeman v Corel and say that images of 2D works that are PD-OLD have no copyright of their own, that is not the rule in many other countries. A modern photograph of the Mona Lisa, taken in France, would, as far as I know, have a copyright in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course Getty can claim copyright on the photographic reproduction of the Mona Lisa. Such claims are not recognized by Wikimedia (pd-art), but they are valid in some countries. The same applies to Van Gogh - thats a great "research" you did. This is different for this Luigi Russolo photograph, it is too young to declare it public domain as we did without knowing any details. The claims at gettyimages might be wrong but they can be true, you dont know without knowing the details on who created the work. So no, the image can not be restored without examining (at least!) this obvious sources to find out the author. For the copyright status in the U.S., which is based on publication not on the death of the author, you have to provide the publication of this work in the U.S. before 1923 and you can upload it to en.wikipedia if you have that information. --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo appears to be published in Russolo's L'Arte dei rumori (Art of Noise), published in 1916 in Milan, Italy. The caption is "nel laboratorio degli Intonarumori a Milano" (so, taken in Milan as well).[2][3][4] Getty's claim is almost certainly spurious -- they probably just have a scan from the book (unless some country allows a copyright on that type of thing). However, I'm not sure the photo qualifies for {{PD-Italy}} -- I think the guidelines there deem posed portraits as more artistic works and not snapshots. So, we would need to know if any photographer was attributed in that book or not. If not... then {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} could apply. If a photographer was listed, we would need to know when they died. But without seeing a copy of the book, we can't know, so we can't undelete it. If someone can find a copy of the book, and look through it for photo credits, that would help a lot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on Getty's false claim. Here's a pdf of the English 1967 translation published as a Great Bear Pamphlet by Something Else Press. : http://www.ubu.com/historical/russolo/index.html
Great Bear Pamphlet is a very respectful series of 20 republications: http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2008/11/06/the-great-bear-pamphlets/
The book only contains the manifesto and some pictures (this one and the portrait of Russolo). The republications are done very accurate. There's no photographer listed in the book. The French edition, same story.
The image also appears in this Taschen book I've at home: http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/community/events/3180.futurism.htm
I've just looked in the colophon of this book. No photo credit on this image. Other pictures in the book have credits but not this one. It is 100% reliable Taschen is not ignoring rights on photos. Go to your local bookstore, pick up any book about futurism, for sure the Russolo image is in it, check the colofon and you'll see there is no photo credit in it as well. Not very difficult to find out for everybody with a decent art book collection.
Not done. Omitting the credit line doesn't mean declaring that is surely unknown. Unfortunately, no further evidence that image is in the public domain, no reliable sources where this is stated. {{PD-Italy}} probably doesn't apply, photograph may be considered a work of art. A low resolution version should be uploaded on Wikimedia projects where fair use doctrine is allowed.--Trixt (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wasn't quick at all. I read the documents Weedwhacker128 linked to, but they were completely unrelated. They were not applicable at all to this case. Jcb (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - see COM:FOP#France, in case of buildings a "definite artistic character" is necessary to be copyrightable. This is just another straight building. Possible copyrightable details, if present at all, would be DM - Jcb (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Tour Montparnasse is far from being just another office building. It is quite distinctive and emblematic, and I doubt a French court would deny it copyright protection. –Tryphon☂21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point of the discussion. Maybe you should try to avoid dropping fast some comment on every request you come across. -- Docu at21:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, you could try using that thing in between your ears called a brain and avoid making superfluous undeletion requests altogether! =) -FASTILY(TALK)10:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I recognize the great value of redirects (and really don't see any problem in having a lot of them here, if they are useful), I fail to understand what would be the point of "Blouse" redirecting to "Blouses". In hotcat, for instance, it would not make any difference, except cluttering the available possibilities with no gain whatsoever.--DarwinAhoy!23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category has been created for the first time on 28 april 2011 and moved and deleted 4 hours later, recreated by docu, redeleted the day after. --Foroa (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. It was deleted with the edit summary "Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses". Anyone trying to access the category will thus be pointed to the correctly named category. —LX (talk, contribs)07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of my statement are you disagreeing with? BTW "Anyone" is incorrect, as none of the tools in use at Commons work with the edit summary. -- Docu at11:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the edit summary was "moved". It wasn't. It was "Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses". Sorry if that was unclear. "Anyone" typically refers to people, not tools. Sorry if that was unclear too. —LX (talk, contribs)11:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, my text should have read "[..] moved [..]". The tools are typically operated by people, thus none of the persons using the tools can access it. We (at least I) hope that people use the tools, rather than edit everything manually. Afterall, we want them to use their volunteer time efficiently. -- Docu at11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which tools you mean, but if those tools rely on the existence of category redirects from non-standard forms of words, non-English words, misspellings and other category names that are inconsistent with our naming standards in order to work, I think manual editing should be preferred until those tools are fixed. —LX (talk, contribs)11:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing "blouse" which is an English word (etc) and tools are listed on the "Categories" page. -- Docu at06:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is inconsistent with our naming standards, just as names in other languages would be. Are you saying that all the tools listed at Commons:Categories##Tools break if there is not a category direct from the version without an "s" at the end? Even if that's the case, fixing it by manually creating redirects for a few select categories would be the wrong way to fix it. —LX (talk, contribs)09:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The guidelines provide administrators with the ability to delete categories that are unlikely to be used accidentally. HotCat will immediately show the plural form when uploading. – Adrignolatalk23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And promoting things like that for marginal single image categories. No thanks. Category redirects that don't respect the basic naming rules and punctuation of Commons need be deleted; lets save redirects for things that really have several names. --Foroa (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Category:Blouse is not a longstanding category with links that was now renamed, it is a category redirect created only on 04:37, 28 April 2011. A redirect is therefore not required. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deleting administrator, this category was moved. Thus we would apply the usual guideline. In any case, it was deleted out of process and thus needs to be restored. -- Docu at20:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have it restored so all participants to this discussion can assess it? Foroa's edit summary is confusing, as most user can't check themselves what exactly they did. -- Docu at05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missing Page history:
(show/hide) (diff) 13:34, 29 April 2011 . . Docu (talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (redir (deleted by error)
(show/hide) (diff) 06:37, 28 April 2011 . . Wiki-uk (talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (←Created page with '{{category redirect|Blouses}}')
Log: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
(show/hide) 13:08, 30 April 2011 Foroa (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Blouse" (Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses) (view/restore)
(show/hide) 10:37, 28 April 2011 Foroa (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Blouse" (Category:Blouse moved to Category:Blouses) (view/restore)
Oddly none of the other four administrators participating in this discussion seem to be aware of that, thus I somewhat doubt it. Would an administrator independent of the deleting administrator certify that the above is correct? -- Docu at06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page history is correct. It was deleted a mere day after creation as a category redirect, then recreated by you the day after, then deleted again the day after that. – Adrignolatalk12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the edit summary got most if not all participants in this discussion confused (voting Oppose based on incorrect assumptions). The reasonable thing to do is probably to undelete the redirect and ask people to open a regular deletion request. The deleting administrator should probably be reminded to be more careful about their edit summaries. In this case, they seem to have mislead at least for administrators. -- Docu at06:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was no COM:PORN low quality "porn". No valid reasons for deletion have been given. This was the only image from this point of view. So, contrary to abf's mentioned COM:PORN, it contributes anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images!
The argument that it is not in use in any articles is void. By far most of our images are not "in use". It is indirectly in use; for example in (commonscat link!). Commons is not just a place for images you/all like.
Please stop deletion useful pictures and time wasting at (un-)deletion discussions. --Saibo (Δ)
Argh. This is a year old..
I believe this is the most clear photo that has been taken of Milton Friedman. Every other photo on his page [Milton Friedman] is flawed in some way whether it be that the photo is blurry, distorted or what not. It seems like this photo is the best photo for Milton and his page, and thus should be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuski (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular copyright status assumed for pictures accompanying press releases/ publicity photos, presumeably commercial use is assumed? derivatives? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image should not be deleted as I am the copyright holder as well as the subject of the image and am sending the email to permissions-commons wikimedia.org. Duaneivan (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored and marked {{OTRS pending}}. Duaneivan, you should also update your website if possible to indicate somewhere on the site the license of this image (in an image caption, at the bottom of the page, or on a separate license/about page). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was first kept, than deleted by the same administrator with the reason: After some additional discussion I changed my mind. There is no place for files which this kind of restrictions at Wikimedia Commons. I request a revision of this deletion.
The file is released with the licence CC-BY-SA, thus fully according to our project requirements. The author additionally explains that he expects the credit (directly) under the photo. Such a user text is not a legally binding condition (this is the licence alone), it's only a noncommittal wish. We have lots of such user additions like mail me, send me a link to the using homepage, send me a specimen copy and so on. Such additions are all not treated on Commons as restrictions but as explanatory notes that reusers might but are not forced to fulfill.
You could also argue that it was released under a CC-BY-SA-except-for-one-part license (the part which allows people to implement the credit in any reasonable manner), and not the full CC-BY-SA. Under that view, we have to delete unless the author relaxes his conditions so that CC-BY-SA can be accurately claimed. If you feel we can simply edit the license text to remove or relax that condition to a simple suggestion, then fine. I'm not entirely sure that is within our rights... if the author only consented to CC-BY-SA because they thought they could specify placement like that, it may be an issue. It is worded as an absolute condition and that wording can't stay. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user seemed to indicate in the DR that it was only OK for Wikipedia to do that. That also can't work. Entirely possible that there are language barriers here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The file is released under CC-BY-SA + Own Restrictions. He insisted multiple times to keep this as part of the license. This means, he enforces this additional restrictions. As you might be able to read, the text is no bidding, its an an enforcement.
If the text isn't legally binding then it must be removed, to not provoke misunderstandings by re-users.
Next time i will upload images "with a friendly enforcing text to perform the chicken dance and upload it on youtube as proof", if you want to use them beside Wikipedia itself. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That shows quiet well how unclean you are working in your argumentation. You're linking the same old case (my own case from 2009) three times (two of them are blogs of my case opponent with lots of wrong and half informations). That case didn't base on credit directly at the image but on lacking any credit on his site. It is quiet well known that I'm not the only one who ever brought violating reusages to a legal issue. We do not need explicit credit expectations for that. Do you want to let delete all images of these users? --Martinatalk22:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the images aren't licensed in a correct way (not only for Wikipedia) then i suggest the deletion. I believe it does more harm to keep them, as to delete them.
I linked this (your) case for one reason. It shows how easily re-users can fall over some issues, how hard it hits them and what damage is done to the project. In the actual case Wolfgang could sue re-users that implement the CC-BY-SA, but not the additional restrictions. I don't know if he will do this, but i also don't know if he would not. Regarding to project guidelines we have now a bunch of images that are unfree. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Lots of Commons' contributors do sue reusers for using images in a way that their authors do not agree with. That's totally independent of what they did write or did not write on the description page. I would even argument the other way round: If an author explains his expectations, resusers have a guideline and do not run into an open knife. That's why we have a link on Commons:Weiterverwendung at each image and a Template:Credit line and lots of additional individual explanations. See few examples like Special:ListFiles&user=Diliff, Special:ListFiles&user=Fir0002, or User:Raymond/licence. Shall we delete all these images? --Martinatalk22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against further explanations. But I'm strongly against further restrictions (not recommendations) that are not part of the license. See comment from Carl Lindberg above. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong at all with User:Raymond/licence. Same with Fir0002 (though that may have been edited a bit). David Iliff's... hm. Not great, but a lot more arguable it's OK. The credit is required and you can't bury it somewhere unexpected. By no means do I want to delete stuff by this user... lots of great work there, obviously. But I do want to respect his wishes. Something truly licensed under CC-BY-SA explicitly allows licensees to implement the credit in any reasonable manner, and not only the one specified. I'm just not sure we can assume the author is fine with that, given the text he wrote -- it's possible that his condition was of paramount importance to uploading it here in the first place. If the author is fine with *anyone* implementing the credit in a reasonable manner, apart from the way specified, then great -- we can just change the text to be a suggestion instead. If that is a problem, then it is not actually licensed CC-BY-SA, which means we don't have a "free" license, which only leads to less-attractive options. The user is obviously OK with Wikipedia not using that implementation of the credit, but it has to be OK for everyone else as well, otherwise that amounts to a Wikipedia-only license (also not OK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uploaders are welcome to request attribution in a certain place, but cannot require it. Not only would such a requirement, if enforced, prevent the use of such images (including this one) on most WPs, it would prevent their use in any book or magazine which collects credits in one place. If we were to allow users to add special requirements, it would not be long before we see an image licensed as CC-BY-SA+$100 or CC-BY-SA+No-Smaller-than-1200-pixels.
As a general rule of law, if you modify boilerplate (in this case, the standard license) by adding extra words, then the extra words override anything in the boilerplate that conflicts. In this case, that means that the uploader is requiring something that is outside our rules -- he must either change his license or be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The file is released under CC-BY-SA + Own Restrictions. As long as the copyright holder insists on his own restrictions, we have to accept his restrictions. This means that the images have to be treated as non-free. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my name is Wolfgang Pehlemann, excuse me, as the author of the questioned photograph – and in total we talk about approx. 397 photographs since the year 2008 - I ask for a fair and objective judgement of the licensing under Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland (CC BY-SA 3.0-De) and not for subjective views and opinions.
1. Licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De is offered for use by Wikimedia and Wikipedia and so far not to be discussed. I am using this for licensing.
2. There is no place for argumentation about invalid licensing.
3. Licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De includes especially the following terms/conditions: "Sie dürfen...” (You are free...) “... Zu den folgenden Bedingungen: Namensnennung - Sie müssen den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.“ End of conditions to this part in licensed CC BY-SA 3.0-De.
There is no room for interpretation about this conditions about attribution: you (third party) must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. As explained under No. 3 the author or licensor is entitled to add the manner of specifying to his licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0-De. Why else there is written in the license conditions “in der von ihm festgelegten Weise” (in the manner specified by the author)? Specifying where? It has to happen additionally: the author or licensor is entitled objectiv to fix his manner of specifying in addition to CC-license – I did it as explained: mein Name direkt unter das Foto.
5. There is legally not “an elbowroom for interpretation” that this licensing CC BY-SA 3.0-De (by attributing this) has a result as a “not-free” license.
6. Inside Wikimedia/Wikipedia uploading a photograph by allowed CC BY-SA 3.0-De-licensing hat to be the only one point here. I can’t find limitations which explain to me what had to happen - legal or not legal - outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia by third party users.
Third party users are always responsible for their use of photos: for e.g. by law the use of photographs showing something inside of the residence of “Sanssouci” the use in commercial sense is restricted, even as it will be free for non-commercial use.
7. All this is not new and discussed years ago. Add. I spend my photos since years by the same manner of licensing specified by allowed attribution. Without any problems - the problems are only for theory in this discussion, often by subjectiv arguments and not following the written terms.
8. Some people try to discus a discussion, excuse me, and to press a result outside conditions, rights and terms as I explained above, not enough: User:Chaddy changed without any authorizing my licensing terms of my photo:
[Linz Neuer Dom], free Wikipedia?
9. Strange discussions and doings without reading the terms as written? Deletion questions without legal basics, not reasonable discussions as “not-free” without reflections to given conditions, this way it feels for me as a discrimination of an author of photographs which is using legal and proposed licensing by Wikimedia, not more and for sure not less.
10. Otherwise the right to use a licensing under CC BY-SA 3.0 as explained has to be deleted in Wikimedia/Wikipedia. This is in total another point.
Comment To item 8: I reverted the change of User:Chaddy because I agree that you (the copyright holder) have the right to define the license in the way you like. Wikimedia/Wikipedia has the duty to observe your restricted license. Wikimedia/Wikipedia, however, has to right to decide whether this license is considered as free or not free according to the rules of Wikimedia/Wikipedia. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here may be one of translation -- either in the translation of the license into German (which I don't read) or in Wolfgang Pehlemann's translation into English. The English In the manner specified by the author means attributing with certain words, that is "Photograph by Wolfgang Pehlemann", or "Image taken by Wolfgang Pehlemann", or "Photograph courtesy of Wolfgang Pehlemann", or anything similar. It does not mean that the place and style of attribution can be specified. If that were permitted, then the author could require that the attribution must be a certain size, in a certain color, in a certain type face, or in a certain place, all of which would make the image impossible to use in some environments.
The whole theory behind the CC licenses is to make images easy to use in a variety of contexts. Consider use in a book. Almost all books have a consistent method of showing attributions -- they are either under the image, on an adjacent page if the image is a full page bleed, or collected on one page, usually at the back of the book. They are all the same size, in the same type face, and in the same color. Wolfgang Pehlemann's license might require his images to be attributed differently from all others in the book. It also makes it impossible to use one of his images in a full page bleed. If all the authors of all the images in the book did the same, then the image editor would have to pay attention to each different rule, which would be very difficult and would make the design of the pages much more difficult, in addition to looking sloppy.
The same arguments apply to the web -- it is much easier to lay out a web page if attributions are on the click through, not immediately under the image. That is one reason that it is policy on WP:EN (and other WPs, I guess) that we do not put attributions under the image. We are told that Wolfgang Pehlemann accepts that for WP -- but the same problem is true for all other web sites.
I should add that it is certainly Wolfgang Pehlemann's right to put any license that he wants on his images. However, it is also Wikimedia Commons right to say that a license which goes beyond CC in specifying the place, size, typeface, or color of the attribution is unacceptable and that, therefore, we cannot host images with his license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the language issue: The German translation of the license doesn't make it as clear as the English original. Thats why some people think that they can make their own interpretations.
The correct assumption would be: Anything that is not forbidden or stated clearly by the license is allowed by the re-users.
The faulty assumption is: Anything that is not forbidden or stated clearly by the license can be defined by the copyright holder.
"It means..." and so on?! Interpretations?! Suggestions?! Implementations?! We close our eyes, so that we can't read what cc-by-sa-3.0 makes to an elementary part of this licensing? There is not only one other term in Wikimedia's proposed cc-by-sa-3.0-De-license than that it is explicitly allowed to require an attribution of the name of the author in the manner he specified. Basicly it was so in 2008, and it stays so up to today. - A thousands of additional words cannot change this licensing as given and proposed by Wikimedia/Wikipedia, sorry -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk)
Yes... you are not understanding what "manner" means in the license. It means you can specify the text of the credit, but does not include the ability to specify the placement of the credit, I'm sorry. The CC-BY-SA license explicitly allows licensees to implement (i.e. choose the placement of) the credit in any reasonable manner. This is the last paragraph of section 4(c). The license has always been that way, and you are correct, nothing can change that wording in the license. I believe the German version of that part of the license is Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden. Your restriction serves to override and actually alter that part of the license, meaning it is no longer the CC-BY-SA license but a custom, non-free alteration. You are the author, so you control the license to your works, and we are trying to figure out if the placement of the credit is important enough to you that you do not want your photos here if you cannot specify the placement of the credit. There are two choices -- you can actually license it under CC-BY-SA by removing the placement restriction (or changing it to a suggestion instead of a requirement), or otherwise the license is considered non-free and does not conform to Commons:Licensing, meaning (and I really don't want this) that we would have no choice but to delete them. I know your placement restriction seems reasonable but there are many situations where it is not, including on Wikipedia itself. If it is OK to implement the credit in a different manner (by clicking through to the image page) on Wikipedia, then it *must* be OK for *everyone else* to do that as well. That is what a free license means. You can't give that permission to Wikipedia only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the wording of the license in different languages, in this case the German version, i translated your cited part. In a very close translation it means: "The necessary indications, after this paragraph 4.c), can be made in every appropriate form/manner." So it is more less the exactly same wording inside the German translation. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carl, clear as usual. Again, Wolfgang, -- the issue is not what the license says, the issue is what Commons policy is. Commons will not host an image that requires attribution on the same page, or an attribution written in pink, or in 36 point type, or in any way that may be different from all the other attributions in the book or magazine or web page. That is part of free use. So, either you change the requirement on all of your images, or Admins, including me, will begin deleting them. We will regret it, but we will do it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<--- "Commons will not host an image that requires attribution on the same page" Please do not mistake what you wish with what really is consent in our project. Wikimedia Commons is actually hosting
masses of images with the additon Attribution of this image to the author ... is required in a prominent location near to the image. (i.e. Diliff's, Kuebi's, THWZ's, PS-2507's and others'). And we have a lot more of this kind of explanatory user texts on Commons: near the photo, directly at the image (direkt am Bild) and so on. And mine has also been kept. Authors can write whatever they want; in the end only the legal code of the licence counts. --Martinatalk22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is a good time that we stop with this bullshit. But on the other hand: Did you follow your own links? Most of the pages are written as "wish from the author" in a not restrictive/enforced way, which isn't an issue. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has unfortunately been an issue with a number of authors (if you note, User:Fir0002/5D 400 was edited for precisely this reason). We probably haven't seen all the others. Yours is perfectly fine; you can attempt to explain the license and it only specifies the credit text anyways. Nothing wrong with those. If the conditions are labeled as merely explanatory sections for the legal code, that helps too, as it makes clear the legal code (allowing any reasonable placement) is the only legally-binding text (although it would be a poor explanation, seeming to require one type of placement when in fact others are allowed). However, when something like this is done, which appears to be an additional condition for re-use, it actually contradicts part of the CC-BY-SA license itself. That becomes every bit as binding, legally, as the legal code does. And since it conflicts with a part of the legal code, it will actually take precedence, legally. License conditions like that actually mean that Wikipedia itself (which does not place the credit near the image, unless you consider a click-through "near", which may be the case) is not following the terms, and in reality is committing copyright infringement (unless it is fair use). There have actually been attempts to force Wikipedia to credit images on the article page, using conditions like this. Permission for credit implementations like that cannot be Wikipedia-only; everybody must be allowed to do it that way (or other reasonable ways). While it's terrible that it may now affect lots of images, it is a real problem, and letting all of these go will only cause it to get worse. These are always uncomfortable situations, and have not always ended well, but allowing non-free conditions because it is too painful to argue isn't a great approach either. I would definitely like a good way to explain all this better -- those extra conditions can very much have a real legal effect, as they change the legal code of the license the author is giving. Legally, authors are not restricted to the CC-BY-SA legal code -- they can alter as they see fit and give any kind of a license they want; it is merely a Commons (and Wikimedia-wide) rule that we only accept "free" licenses, and an altered CC-BY-SA license is in most cases not going to be free. We can't change such a license to what we want it to be; we can only either keep or delete. If the author agrees to be bound by the CC-BY-SA legal code and nothing else, then great -- we can edit the explanations to be more accurate. But otherwise it feels like we are changing the actual license against the author's wishes, which we absolutely cannot do. Most of these conditions are (understandable) misinterpretations of the CC legal code, but they have legal consequences which should not be ignored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I would also interpret the licence terms ("In the manner specified by the author") as covering the various aspects of the attribution, and not only the wording. If it only applies to the wording, it should be clearly stated. I must say as well that I don't see images whit somewhat complex attributions as "non-free", though the freedom degree of those images is certainly diminished. There is no black and white here, when one requires attribution, the freedom degree is already diminished as well. If there is a problem with the licence wording, it should be resolved before starting deleting images that comply to that licence. In this specific case, I don't believe this image in particular should have been deleted in those grounds.--DarwinAhoy!23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around. (I already stated this above) Anything that is not directly enforced by the license is up to the re-user. Any extension in a more restrictive way creates a new license that can be called: CC-BY-SA-except-for-one-part or CC-BY-SA-with-further-restriction. Such kind of licenses aren't allowed by our policies for good reasons. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking here about "exceptions-to-one-part" nor "further restrictions". The image continues to be free to everyone, only the attribution bit changes, and that is covered by the licence. Look, the licence says that for the manner of attribution, we must refer to the author specifications. It doesn't say it's only about the wording, as is pretended here. Nor says the licence that such manner of attribution is up to the re-user, I don't read this anywhere. Quite the opposite, it directly says that it's up to the author, not the re-user. If there is a problem with that licence, please solve it before starting deleting images based on twisted interpretations of words that are not there.--DarwinAhoy!23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exact sentences from 4.c) are:
"You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: [...]"
"[...] The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, [...]"
There is no word about how a re-user has to implement the copyright notices. This is up to the re-user. But it has to be reasonable for the medium used. Thats all. The only logical consequence is, that a author can't add additional restrictions, while accepting to release an image under a plain CC-BY-SA license at the same time. In case he releases the image under CC-BY-SA he agrees with this terms of re-usage, that are allowing anyone to choose the appropriate method to mention the credits. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I now fully understand your point. I apologize for having missed that part of the licence. I hope Wolfgang Pehlemann will understand it as well.--DarwinAhoy!01:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you only read the license that far. Further down in the legal code, it makes the clear that "the credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner", thus it distinguishes the implementation (i.e. location) from the manner. Conditions like these effectively override that part of the license, legally, and are a problem. They are a real-life problem for Wikipedia itself, let alone anywhere else which puts credits in different places; it is (perhaps unintentionally) restricting usage to only those situations where credits near the image are OK. In this case, it specifies "below" even -- so if you want it vertically up the right hand side, sorry, can't do that. If you want to use it on a wiki, with a click-through license page and credit, sorry, can't do that. If you want to use it on a postcard with the credit on back, sorry, nope. If you want to use it in a book, where the credits are in their own section at the front or back (very very common), then nope, that can't be done either. Want to use it in a collage? Stick the credit right in the middle of the collage then, possibly ruining the aesthetics, or don't use it. The idea of a free license is to not restrict things like this; even if it may seem reasonable, it often isn't. People seeing "CC-BY-SA" will often assume they have the right to put the credit in their normal place, which they should, and if that clause has been effectively eliminated from the license then it can be a huge restriction on re-use -- entirely against the "free" concept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. I was also reading here that no technical limitations should be placed on the content, and in this case a technical limitation is effectively placed on the image. The wording of the licence should be clarified, nevertheless, as at first sight seems that you can indeed specify the manner of attribution in more than the wording. Incidentally, I came to think what would happen if someone abuses of the wording, demanding it to be attributed to "whoever uses this image is a clown", Håimsøg Åay or some other joke.--DarwinAhoy!23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can specify the things mentioned at the beginning of section 4.c). That means the wordings of your attribution, just because that is what the re-user has to use inside the credits. What you can't specify without extending the license is anything else. Otherwise the re-user had to follow the rules of the extension and not the original license. Both together means: Any additional restriction made by the author will create in a new agreement between him and the re-users. But it isn't a CC-BY-SA license anymore. It is exactly the same as if someone would write CC-BY-SA+100$. We surely don't want this, so we can't allow such an gray zone. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I asked for a fair and objective judgement of the licensing. Done?
1. For licensing my photos I used cc-by-sa-3.0-De proposed by WMF during upload of a photo.
2. This allows especially licensing by cc-by-sa De under “Namensnennung” (credit of the author's name) by re-users.
3. This allows further (by cc-by-sa De) on the point: “Sie müssen den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.“ (You (re-user) must attribute the name of authors/right holder in the manner specified by him (author))
4. I did not another licensing. This is exactly allowed and so there is no change in licensing to “not-free”.
5. Result: when license allows attribution in the way specified by the author then this will be added to the license for sure – where else this specifying can happen than additional?!
Most of the discussions here has a reflection to a question, why this cc-by-sa allows an attribution – but not to my simple licensing as especially admitted by this cc-by-sa-3.0-De.
I think here are people busy with encyclopaedic work. I'll wait what kind of decision we get. I think I can expect a correct decision and not a view to wishful thinking.
“You only can hold out to a defendant what he did” - and not what others could do.
I feel, here some people wants to start a problem, which is not to find in the world. I am uploading photos since 2008 by this licensing (as discussed years ago) and a thousand times my photos are used by re-users (especially my aerial photos and further my VW-, BMW- and LH-photos re-used with ref. to business news) – there was not only one problem or claim in the meantime. At all print media and websites I've seen the re-users are free without paying one cent, but spending attributions for normal.
So I believe I have to feel free to work in the WMF as others.
Or let me know that I've to stop with free Wikipedia. And for sure, I've no problems with a decision for deletion of all my approx. 400 photos, when this decision will be based on such discussion far away from right to license as proposed by WMF during uploading a photo.
-- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the other comments? If you are releasing an image under CC-BY-SA, then you have no right to define the placement/style/kind of the credits, since this can be decided by the re-user corresponding to the used media [read 4.c) of the license]. Additional restrictions interfere with the rights of the re-users you granted them with this license. So you released them under a CC-BY-SA + something else license, which is not allowed.
The only thing you can do: Removing the further restrictions.
The only thing we can do: Deleting the images if further restrictions remain.
Wolfgang, to be fair and objective: who was telling you that in der von ihm festgelegten Weise means that you are allowed to specify the location and not only the wording? Is this your personal interpretation, did you get some legal advice, or did some other users say that this is allowed? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm asking for a fair and objective reading too. If you agree with the CC-BY-SA license, then you also agree that: Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden.' Do you agree with that? Since I can't speak German, what is your interpretation of that? The English version is pretty clear though. You can't agree to that statement and then impose a restriction which conflicts with it, which is the basic problem. The last thing we want is for you to stop contributing, so we need to come to an understanding of what the license actually says (in full). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All was said, Mr. Lindberg, but with respect to your trying another way: I wants to work in the WMF to be pleased (and not spending my time to Mr. NeoUrfahraners requested discussions with never ending statements).
May I feel free to spend my time better here? Or working to be pleased here?Or here?
No one forces you to contribute to this project. No one want's you to not contribute to this project. But if you want to contribute, then you will have to follow the rules. Putting on pressure to leave, if your wishes aren't fullfilled, is not the way it works. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ones pressuring other contributors are you Niabot and your co-campaigner NeoUrfahraner, not Wolfgang Pehlemann. He contributed >170 quality images since 2008. There were never any real-world problems with them, except your activist-generated "problems". Checking for the remaining 10-20 percent copyvios among our 10 mio files would be far more productive than pestering valuable contributors. The 40,000 characters wasted in this discussion might have been used better for wikipedia articles. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only pressure I put is that I want to clarify the rules. If we agree that the rules allows additional restrictions, it will be fine for me, and if we agree that the rules forbit additional restrictions, it will also be fine for me. But if the rules remain unclear, much more characters and energy will be wasted in the future. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't create the problem. Its the missunderstanding of the license that lead to this issue. No image needs to be deleted if Wolfgang is willing to change his liscensing to an actual CC-BY-SA, as 99% of our contributors do. That he wants the attribution closer to the image can remain as a bidding to the reusers, but it can't be enforced in the current way or with the current wording. A little bit of insight and we wouldn't need to dicuss anymore. Thats all. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...the current wording. A little bit of insight..." - I'm citing you, Mr. Niabot. Please, but more of this: Mr. Niabot, please you are going on and going on - I said to you qiet and a little bit less, but clearly as above, you wish there were only your rules. And just a few minutes ago I read the same: your rules. You didn't understand my (a little bit quiet) words. Take a look into a mirror, Mr. Niabot.
Here is a mirror of your own words as above to others in this community:
"Then it is a good time that we stop with this bullshit. But on the other hand: Did you follow your own links? Most of the pages are written as "wish from the author" in a not restrictive/enforced way, which isn't an issue. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)"
For sorry, your words, your thinking, your feeling, your doing sometimes against people, where you must take another respect for sure, should be far away from Netiquette in the WMF, I miss in your words any respect against other people here. Using "bullshit" without any excuse to others, it's a disqualification with ref. to talk about rules - and in this question you've not only one second an understanding for an argument about written terms and conditions, sorry. I told to all people here, and if you read it then for you too, that I'm in an age of 64 years old, and I resume: there is indeed no excuse to me from your side with ref. to your discussions with your attack using "bullshit" as cited. When your stile, your thinking and your egoism is this what WMF means, then I stop without pressure, but I'm ashamed for you. But I think you can't realize your own words as cited on the piont. Learn to listen to other people, sorry for this directly words, but it seems to me, it's time to tell you this about your own stile here in WMF.
-- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish that "my rules" are followed. I wish that the rules of the WMF, Free Media and the Creative Commons License are followed. I wish that that free media is created, shared and put to good use. But all without creating snares for the reusers. Saying that you are willing to contribute while laying out traps (bending the license, adding your own and wrong interpretations) is contradictory. This kind of behavior is rightfully called "blullshit" by myself.
You don't need to repeat steadily that you uploaded # images or that you are much older then myself. This has no relevance to me at all. Since everyone/every contributer/every user should be treated equal. There are no exceptions. Neither for you or for me.
Wolfgang, the people above have a point, though I, as Turélio, don't believe it to be of some utter importance. Could you please rephrase your licence so that it would cover the exceptions where the direct placement of attribution below the image is not feasible? It would end this whole, rather unfortunate, issue.--DarwinAhoy!20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely don't want this to get confrontational. There are indeed worse copyvios around for sure, but at the moment these are effectively Wikimedia-only permission files, which are still problems. It does seem there is something of a language issue, as I do not entirely understand Mr. Pehlemann's response -- he may very well be saying he just wants to do whatever WMF needs to host the images. On the "manner" issue though, Creative Commons itself has a FAQ which describes it better:
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:
They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
That is the interpretation from the Creative Commons folks themselves, which seems quite consistent with the legal code. We are mainly asking to limit the requirements to those above items. You can certainly ask for particular placement though as a preferred way of doing it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean, you would be satisfied if Wolfgang Pehlemann inserts the word preferably, thus preferably directly at the image? And that's it, image restored and discussion finished, no more going on with tons of discussions? And in the same moment you accept several thousands of images that require attribution in a prominent location near to the image? Obviously I need somebody to teach me logic fundamentals. --Martinatalk17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would do it. Lot of wrangling over that one word, but... it changes things quite a bit :-) I think people copied Fir0002's template, which used to have that "near" wording, and yes those all *should* be changed (as Fir0002's was). You could at least interpret the definition of "near" to claim compliance with that condition in most reasonable circumstances, but it would be better to use terminology actually in the CC license if possible. The specification of "directly below" does not leave much room for interpretation; that is a very specific condition and very little room to claim compliance with Wikipedia's click-on-the-image approach. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you want to change the wording for this one image just "quite a bit" and do not want to touch or delete all the other xx thousands? --Martinatalk21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it on this one image will get this one image undeleted. If the same or similar conditions exist on other images, they should be changed as well, otherwise they may get nominated for deletion again under the same rationale. I have not gone through all of the user's uploads to see if the same text is there (from memory some recent ones did not contain it). Adding just that one word ("preferably") will alter the interpretation considerably, enough that it no longer conflicts with the CC legal code and so there is no more free-or-not-free problem, and no reason for us to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "preferably" (which German translation: möglichst/vorzugsweise/wünschenswerterweise?) for all additions (position, file names etc ) to the CC licence would also be okay for me. I still hope that by far the most copyright holders will prefer to add this word instead of having their images deleted. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, though IANAL, I would read out of CC's FAQ comment that if a copyright holder requires things he/she is not able to require per the CC license, these requirements would simply be (legally) invalid, which actually reflects the long-held community opinion on Commons. I don't see that such invalid requirements do either invalidate the CC license itself nor could base a litigation for infringement of copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL either, but I do think it would be a legal problem in real life. Authors can license their copyright (or not) as they see fit with any conditions they like; there is nothing whatsoever wrong about taking the CC license, and then modifying it a bit, and calling it your license for this photo. It may not meet the definition of "free", but that is more arbitrary -- there is nothing legally invalid about the license whatsoever. You can't call it CC-BY-SA anymore since it is different, but it would still be a valid license. Unless maybe since CC-BY-SA is claimed by name, and some of the language in there could be used to invalidate any extra conditions. Basically, the situation is that you have conflicting clauses in the legal code versus the very specific requirements spelled out by the author... in that case, I believe that legally the specific conditions from the author would take precedence over the more boilerplate CC legal code (James woodward mentioned something like this, buried somewhere above in this discussion). The way the license reads to me right now, is that credit placement directly below the image is an absolute requirement for use, and anything else would be using the image without permission. He appears to give Wikipedia itself a waiver on that, but... Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as it seems that we all are NAL and as this question, thanks to our campaigners, might decide over the fate of >30,000 images (likely the high quality type) on Commons, wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask WMF's new legal counsel for an expert opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, couldn't hurt. This is not the first time we have had this discussion here though... they have generally all gone this way and they often don't end well, unfortunately. I think Fir0002 stopped contributing, which was a shame. In some cases the conditions were added well *after* they were clearly licensed under a regular CC-BY[-SA]; in those cases the conditions usually just get removed but that can still get confrontational, usually getting heated and ugly as each side is sure their interpretation is right. The CC FAQ linked above makes it more clear, but if the counsel could better state the legal ramifications of such additional restrictions, that may help in this and future cases. Or, if we are completely wrong about all this, maybe we are just making much ado about nothing (and have been for years). It's not the first time something like this has caused issues though -- there was something vaguely analogous in the software world a few years back; see here. That first occurred in 2004 and there are still related battles over it even today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, could you eventually draft our questions to the legal counsel? (should not be restricted to the current "case", but possibly include past/different scenarios, if you remember any) --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've filed a rfc to the legal counsel of WMF about the most important questions that surfaced in this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not fair if we give the copyright holder the impression that his additions are legally vaild while we are thinking that his additions are invalid. This means that we have to inform the copyright holder aboout our concerns and get an agreement with the copyright holder. Otherwise one could say that we "stole" some rights from the copyright holder. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"to inform the copyright holder about our concerns" is something alltogether different from what you and Niabot are currently doing. In past cases that such credit requirements became known or caused questions, it was communicated to the copyright holder that we assume requirements beyond the CC license to be invalid. So, this would be nothing new. If a copyright holder would still cling to these credit requirements it would be his/her "problem" (of invalidity), but would not require deletion of images from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was informed multiple times before this deletion request to change the wording of his addition to the license. Every time he opposed to make any change. After that i started the deletion request. He opposed again during the deletion discussion. He did as well in this discussion. He must be more then informed. :::::Keeping images with inaccurate licensing is not an option for me. Just because we are not surely on the legal side. May a judge decide that the claims of the uploader are valid. Then the WMF or the reuser is in trouble, despite we told the author that this additional restrictions have no relevance.
We make sure that we don't violate rules and do no go beyond legal borders (step into grayzones) every time. I just remember the cases of freedom of panorama and cars/trains/busses in germany. To be safe, the images will be deleted. Why should we react in another way in this case? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: We have to assume that if the copyright holder insists on his restrictions, then he thinks that they are legally valid (en:WP:AGF). If we tolerate such restrictions, this means that we either create the impression that we agree that the restriction is legaly valid, or we "steal" the rights from the copyright owner. Both is dishonest, independent from whatever any judge would decide in such a case. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wolfgang's comment on his discussion page, it seems that he contributed under wrong assumptions all the time. This I think is the real waste of time: nobody told him what rights he will abandon when he offers his work in Wikipedia. We have to clearly inform the copyright holders about this, otherwise we will create a lot of disapointment. I like the images from Wolfgang very much, but for sure I do not want to "steal" them. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all good-willing participants of the above discussion who want to take care of a somewhat more real problem on Commons, I suggest to take a look at our CC-license message boxes, that should inform re-users about the license terms. For example, let’s take the most commonly used CC-BY-SA 3.0 license:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
What conditions does it present to the re-user?
Attribution and, in this case, Share-Alike
Looks fine, as we are accustomed to it. But is it correct?
No, it is not. As the legally binding license text clearly states in § 4.a., 2nd sentence:
You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.
(I don’t want to claim unwarranted credit for this finding, as we were notified about this by a user on COM:FORUM already 2 months ago![5])
Without complying to this third condition of the license, the use of CC-BY-xx-licensed works is not allowed/unlicensed/illegal in all or at least most cases of use. However, neither our english nor our german message box for CC-BY-SA 3.0 does make re-users aware of this. I didn’t check other language versions, but likely they have the same problem.
By this incomplete information we expose re-users to litigation for infringement of copyright.
Is it relevant? Well, it seems so. Our Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0 contains 1,450,512 files, Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated has 1,035,467 files.
However, the problem is the same with our message boxes for CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-SA-2.0, Cc-by-3.0, Cc-by-2.5, Cc-by-2.0, etc., though I checked only the english language versions.
Why not simply include a resumed version of 4a in the license text, under "under the following conditions" as a third point?--DarwinAhoy!21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be my same thought on this. ([ii] title if supplied, [iii] to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Darwin, it's not that easy, because as per this reply to my question at the CC forum, it seems that "uses that don't include distribution or performance don't trigger the URI requirement". So, first we have to define which uses do "trigger the URI requirement" and which do not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the attribution requirement to me, though as mentioned I guess it is not required in all situations that the attribution is. Our tags follow the summary CC themselves give... not sure we really need to go further. There are quite a few nuances in the legal code not explained in the summary; making it too complex sort of defeats the purpose. Also note that a simple label like "CC-BY-SA-3.0" qualifies as a URI (don't need a full URL link, necessarily). So... I don't think we need it, but if there is a good, concise way of wording it without getting into too much legalese, it could be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at w:Uniform_Resource_Identifier a notable, if not reliable source, a URI can be a URN or URL. A URN is simply the unequivitable name of some resource. Can "CC-BY-SA-3.0" mean anything else any more than say an ISBN number could represent anything other than a particular publication? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the legal code for CC-BY-SA-3.0-de, which is originally in German, CC seems to have a different opinion, as the code says in 4a "Sie müssen dabei stets eine Kopie dieser Lizenz oder deren vollständige Internetadresse in Form des Uniform-Resource-Identifier (URI) beifügen." (italics by me; following transl. by me: You must always include a copy of this license or the complete internet address in form of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).) This is indeed a marked difference to CC-BY-SA-3.0, where the same part says "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work ..."[6]. This tells me that our license message problem is even more complicated that I had initially thought. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion above, I feel urged to express my opinon, too, but I must do it in german, because of my limited abilities in expressing my thoughts in english. Maybe, someone wants to translate? Als wichtig sehe ich die Frage, ob die ergänzenden Texte von Wolfgang Pehlemann in den Lizenzen der Fotos in den letzten Jahren schon einmal Anlass zu Problemen zwischen den Nutzern der Fotos und Wolfgang Pehlemann gegeben haben. Dies war nach dessen Aussage nicht der Fall. Also gibt es kein praktisches sondern nur ein theoretisches Problem. Und bei dem theoretischen Problem geht es um nichts anderes als um das Prinzip. Nach meiner Lebenserfahrung machen die Leute, die auf Prinzipien pochen, den Menschen das praktische Leben einfach nur schwer. Wir können diese Diskussion gerne beenden mit der Wiederherstellung des gelöschten Fotos und die Diskussion nur dann noch einmal beginnen, wenn das erste praktische Problem zwischen einem Bildbenutzer und Wolfgang Pehlemann auftauchen sollte. Is this a fine suggestion? --Brühl (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davon halte ich sehr wenig wenn es um Rechtsstreitigkeiten geht. Lass doch mal einen ein Bild von Wolfgang korrekt nach CC-BY-SA verwenden, aber gegen die Einschränkungen verstoßen, da er sie gutgläubig übersehen hat. Können wir sicher sein, dass der Nutzer dann nicht von Wolfgang verklagt wird? Es muss jetzt nicht einmal Wolfgang selbst sein, wobei ich ihm das nicht einmal unterstellen möchte. Dennoch würde wir wohl kaum davon erfahren und dass so etwas sehr schnell gehen kann, dass hat Martina ja eindrucksvoll präsentiert.
Zugleich verwenden wir überall das Prinzip auf einer möglichst sicheren Seite zu sein. Sei es Panoramafreiheit, Beiwerk, usw.. Warum gehen wir hier zur Liebe der Nachnutzer, wovon es ja durchaus die meisten ehrlich meinen, nicht auf Nummer sicher? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beim nächsten Anwurf gegen meine Person mit Falschdarstellungen gehen wir auf die hiesige VM. Ich habe überhaupt gar nichts "eindrucksvoll präsentiert". Was du zu meinem Rechtsstreit von 2009 im Internet findest (und weiter reichen deine "Kenntnisse" hierzu offensichtlich nicht), wimmelt von Halbwahrheiten und Falschdarstellungen und hatte - ich schrieb das neulich schon, du könntest es also inzwischen besser wissen - mit "direkt am Bild" herzlich wenig zu tun. Versuch mal, einfach bei der Sache zu bleiben. --Martinatalk21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich schrieb aber auch bereits, dass ich darauf gar nicht abziele, sondern auf die Möglichkeit auch wegen solcher Nebensächlichkeiten wie bei Wolfgang (nicht nur auf ihn bezogen) Probleme zu bekommen und das die Konsequenzen nicht minder bitter für die Beteiligten sein können. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rechtliche Probleme kann - theoretisch - jeder Nachnutzer bekommen, der den Credit an der falschen Stelle anbringt oder den Link auf den Lizenztext nicht anbringt (sondern z.B. auf "CC-by-sa" abkürzt oder nur auf den Deed verlinkt). Dafür ist es völlig egal, was ein einzelner Autor unter seine Bilder schreibt. Die mir bekannten Fotografen, die massenweise Nachnutzer rechtlich und finanziell belangen bzw. sogar von einem Anwalt mit risikolosen "Flatratevereinbarungen" belangen lassen, stellen keine explizite Aufforderung zur Namensnennung direkt am Bild. Fazit: Schutz der Nachnutzer heißt, ihnen möglichst genau zu erklären, was sie zu tun haben, damit sie die Inahlte sicher verwenden können. Und genau nicht, diese Hinweise zu löschen. --Martinatalk22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for feedback about this special case on info@creativecommons.org and the creative commons mailinglist
cc-community@lists.ibiblio.org and will come back with their feedback on this topic.
Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia policies do not request to publish a file under a specific license like cc-by-sa-3.0. Wikimedia policies merely generally request a free content license. The "by" attribute of cc-by-sa is a restriction, but this does not make the license unfree. In the same way, the requirement indicated by Wolfgang Pehlemann does does not make the license unfree. As such, the requirements of a free license are met even if the restrictions should exceed those required by the cc-by-sa licence. Therefore, I cannot see a violation of the Wikimedia policies in the deleted image and thus no reason for a deletion. The image should be restored.
Imho, the question whether this restriction is legally valid is of a second importance. This, however, is the risk of the uploader who by his own will put his images under the cc-by-sa licence. There is nothing "stolen" from an author who puts his images under a free license. However, in the past re-users appear to have respected Wolfgang Pehlemanns restrictions. There is no real problem with these files, only a hyptothetical which might arise (or not) in the future. This is not a reason for deletion either.
"This, however, is the risk of the uploader who by his own will put his images under the cc-by-sa licence". When you are saying this, your are not honest to the uploader. We have to explain our uploaders what it really means when they put their images under a free licence. Since your are speaking German: Please read Wolfgang comments on his Wolfgang comments on his German discussion page. For years, nobody told him the truth, and all his images were contributed under wrong assumptions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "stolen" is of course not the best word. In German I would say "Wir haben uns die Rechte an diesen Bildern durch Täuschung erschlichen". Could be something like "We obtained the rights on these images by malicious fraud". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to Bjs ("the question whether this restriction is legally valid is of a second importance") I'd like to give an information from one famous and very often cited site about image copyright (Germany) which says also for images under CC: "Kennzeichnung in unmittelbarer Nähe des Bildes" ("marking straight near the image"). That's the current way in at least the German picture market and thus fully according to CC-by-sa 3.0 de, that Wolfgang choosed for his images. --Martinatalk07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it would be handled inside Germany that way, then there is still no need to do it the same way for re-users from other countries. Thats why the license makes no restriction to the "how", beside the notice that it must be reasonable to the media. Beside that, the linked blog article doesn't go into the deeper facts and doesn't make it clear what is meant with "unmittelbarer Nähe des Bildes". --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The German version of the license also contains the text Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden, so that right is explicitly given to licensees, and any conditions otherwise imposed cannot conflict with that (at least if you are claiming the work is actually licensed by cc-by-sa de 3.0, and not a modification). It's possible that site is misinterpreting the license too, but "near" wording is at least more vague and could be interpreted to allow clicking through, or placement on a different page in a book, etc. If they mean that it should be visible on the same page, then that probably conflicts with the explicit permission already given in the license above. For reasons like this, I would prefer to not invent wordings that significantly stray from Creative Commons ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's quite obvious that the author does not understand the licence, at least he doesn't understand the difference between the deed and the licence. (Points 3 and 4 of his statement). Martina says: "Wolfgang Pehlemann fully accepts the indirect credit inside Wikimedia projects" which i understand as: He accepts it for Wikimedia projects but not for other usages. In the end this means we have some kind of a "only for Wikipedia" licence which does not qualify as free.
Besides this specific issue this case touches some more general issues. People are often juxtaposing the impact of the CC licence to the licensor with the impact to the licensee. Martina says "Authors can write whatever they want; in the end only the legal code of the licence counts." which is a good example for what i'm suggesting. While it is true that authors "can write whatever they want" assuming that the presence of a CC boilerplate will limit the freedom of the licensor in any way is a mistake. The licensor and only him/her chooses the appropriate licence. If the licensor chooses that his work shall be obtainable as CC-BY-SA+further conditions this is perfectly fine. You can licence your work CC-BY-SA for all except al-Qaida members and that's fine. No Al-Qaida member will be able to claim that "in the end only the legal code of the licence counts".
Martina also claims that the additional conditions are just a "kind of explanatory user texts" but that isn't true either. If we look at the wording of the additional conditions we will find words like "require" and "want" etc. which do not look very "explanatory" but demanding. Even if we credit the wording to any form of language barrier this won't help anybody in the end. Even if the user intended a just explanatory text in the beginning and changed his mind later, he will be successful in sueing users because the wording is quite clear.
The same applies for the requirement of a (hyperlinked) URL. As discussed above by Turelio, Carl and Tony, CC only requires a URN and nothing else. Therefore by demanding hyperlinked URLs we have the same case of "CC-* + further conditions".
Bjs got the point when he says "Wikimedia policies do not request to publish a file under a specific license like cc-by-sa-3.0." It's a mess that there is no appropriate process for introduction of new licences on commons. Basically, anybody can cobble a personal licence text together. It isn't very astonishing when there is much clamor if those personal licences are contested after years of usage. Bjs has also a valid point with "In the same way, the requirement indicated by Wolfgang Pehlemann does not make the license unfree." In the end, this is a debate about where we will cross the borderline to "unfree". --Wiggum (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanations. You brought it up to the point: Which kind of free licenses do we accept and which not?
That everyone would be able to create his custom licenses is a big issue. I uploaded this image as an example yesterday. Everyone should see that "Free License + Own Additions" can easily lead to absurd conditions. Drawing the line what would be allowed and what not would be impossible. One clear solution would be to accept only a set of approved licenses, with no custom additions. This would draw a clean line. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Custom licenses would be open to community discussion and voting. Many types of restrictions are explicitly not allowed (such as denying the license to a certain class of people, or requiring further communication with the author such as notifications of use, etc.) But it's not impossible that there could be other conditions which are OK. Custom licenses are definitely discouraged though, as it is very easy to make mistakes, and there are practical compatibility problems -- any custom license immediately becomes incompatible with CC-BY-SA or any other license, causing derivative works issues in many cases. But, we can't just bar non-standard licenses which are still free just because of convenience. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiggum's post is mostly correct -- the user however specify an additional URL as part of the attribution, provided the URL contains information related to the licensing (i.e. it can't be any URL at all). This is separate from the UR*I* of the CC license itself required for distributions. Custom licenses, provided they are "free", are OK but discouraged. They are a practical problem as they greatly limit the use which can be made in derivative works... in other words, since the license is no longer compatible with CC-BY-SA, works from this author cannot be mixed with actual CC-BY-SA works. But in this situation, the extra condition amounts to a significant restriction on reuse, which in my mind does make it non-free. Wikipedia itself will not be adhering to that condition, which is an immediate problem -- and as you note, we can't keep Wikipedia-only licensed work, which is what this then becomes. This is moreover misleading in that it references CC-BY-SA without making very clear that is is modifying that license with an extra condition. Anyways, yes, I believe the extra condition makes it non-free. It can be used in very particular situations, but really gets in the way of many many others. That's not the idea of "free". Conditions like this have been used to try to force Wikipedia to change their crediting practice, or to try to not allow watermarks to be removed from images, and that kind of thing. The larger problem here is that users fully believe they are within the bounds of the CC-BY-SA license itself, which they are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCommons:Licensing demands: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Wolfgang Pehlemanns image generally meets these policy requirements. What nevertheless clearly can be seen in this discussion is that we are lacking project rules about where exactly the frontier lies between an unbinding wish/explanation/interpretation and a binding requirement set by author's additional texts, and in which cases author's additional texts could eventually make content "not free enough" for Wikimedia project. We will not find a consens about this questions in a single deletion/undeletion request. Unless we do not have a clear guideline for this issue there is no justification for deleting this one image while about 30.000 that have quiet comparable or even more demanding (required) user's texts and stay untouched. --Martinatalk21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Niabot: Yes, custom licenses may become absurd as your example shows. But Wolfgangs requirements are not absurd and can easily be met. It is not a case of a "for wikipedia only" license, either, since Wolfgang permits everyone to use his pics for any purpose free of charge.
I agree it is desirable to clarify more in detail which licences should be allowed on commons. However, I disagree that this should only be specific pre-defined licenses without any additions. This question, however, is of such importance that it cannot be decided in a deletion request of a single image. And as long as additions to pre-defined images are not explicitly excluded by Wikimedia policies, there is no reason to delete Wolfgangs images. --Bjs (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjs: "This question, however, is of such importance that it cannot be decided in a deletion request of a single image". I agree, but up to now we did not find a better place for this discussion. And yes, we should agree on the general policy before we delete Wolfgang's remaining images. But we should not wait too long because the problem becomes worse and worse if we continue with the unclear situation that we currently have. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the detail that this creates new licenses which aren't compatible to each other. In this case it wouldn't be possible anymore to combine this images with other CC-BY-SA licensed images. This is already an issue with the currently allowed or proposed licenses, which would even increase further then needed. Until we have a clear rule what is allowed and what not - so we can draw a sharp and straight line - we should stick to a set of licenses to prevent further damage. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason to discourage custom licenses, but it does not prevent them altogether. If a license is still free, we should accept it. It's not always perfect, but we look to the definitions at freedomdefined.org to help with the determination. However, it is very easy to add conditions which artificially (and probably accidentally) restrict people's ability to re-use the work, and that often will cross the line. It becomes a community decision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can not (always) easily be met. Wikipedia doesn't meet them, so there is a problem already. It falls down on the "for any purpose" part of freedom -- freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions has some discussion on the matter. This particular condition does significantly impede normal use of the work, in many situations (including Wikipedia itself and more). It seems reasonable at first for the most common use (illustration on a web page), but there are many uses beyond that which are effectively blocked. I gave several examples earlier -- one was to point out it is not possible to use one of his images on a postcard, having the credit on back. It seems rather arbitrary to deny that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It always is possible and quiet common to print the name and the CC licence link directly into/on the image (like a watermark). Freeware, two clicks. So, there is - technically - no need for kicking the attribution somewhere else. --Martinatalk22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what is unwanted. Because any re-user from the re-user (viral effect) doesn't have the original anymore, leads to a needles losses in quality over time. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with a requirement to put the credit directly below the photo, it is not possible to use that common method either. But, even if the credit is there, the freedom to make derivative works needs to include the right to remove/crop the credit and place it somewhere else. Authors cannot require the credit to remain in the image either (if they want to release it under a free license). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Martina: "Wolfgang Pehlemanns image generally meets these policy requirements". On other places you said something like "in 99% of the cases". Just to make our different POVs clear: You are always speaking about these 99%, I am always speaking about the remaining 1%. It is no problem for me to admit that in maybe 99% the attribution should appear directly under the photo. The problem is that we also have to consider the special cases where this requirement cannot be met. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 99% of all usages attribution directly at/near to the image is clearly requried. For the last 1% nobody can know for sure what reasonable manner could mean in a single case. That's why I always recommend to reusers attribution as near as possible at the image. --Martinatalk21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't buy that wrong opinion of yours. Which 99% percent, in which country and at what circumstances? This is boundless exaggeration. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly the right one to talk about boundless exaggeration. :-) Again: Have a look at further discussions on de-WP where we gathered more than enough links about picture attribution in Germany, and have a look on WP:WN/M how images from Commons mostly are used. Whe're talking about images licenced under the German CC version so that German law is applicable. --Martinatalk22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a couple times, what would your interpretation of Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden be? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether it is 90%, 99% or 99.9%. The question is what to do with the remaining 10%, 1% or 0.1%. Recommendations to reusers are also fine, but on the other hand our contributers must be informed what "free" really means. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that should be done in any case is restricting use of licence templates to cases where the licence applies, without further restrictions. Anything else is misleading, especially where reusers use automated tools to check which images have to be removed or taken special care of. The uploader could be notified that by using one of the standard licences he accepts that licence as is.
In the case under discussion the problem is with the unclear wording in the licence (may be clear to an English speaking lawyer, but not to e.g. me and Pehlemann). The deed is even worse, at least in Swedish. Notifying users that use such extra restrictions and replacing the templates with {{custom licence|cc-by-sa|further restrictions=...}} or something similar would be one partial solution (but I cannot think of any automated way to do this).
Yes, I could agree with that. If an author intends to modify a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license it should be very, very clear it is not the same thing, and should not use the standard CC tags. I still think in this case the author thinks he is within the boundaries of the unmodified license though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion ends far away from the basics to questioned deletion/undeletion of my photo (it seems there are only interests in WMF-politics for future times, then in the question of allowed/non-allowed licensing during upload of my photo at Wikimedia). So a kind of summary will be needed as follows:
Uploading a photograph on Wikimedia there is licensing requested and proposed by WMF with various licenses to add with a click. Why there is during upload process a cc-by-sa-3.0-xx license proposed (this one with name attribution), if not wanted?
I did my licensing with this WMF-proposed cc-by-sa-3.0-De license. There is not only one term, that this may not happen.
The license cc-by-sa-3.0-De (for name attributions) explained by itself, that author/copyrightholder has the right to define such an additional attribution to this license indeed: You (it means: the re-user) must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (Why this is WMF-proposed, if not wanted?). This has as conclusion, that licensing whis such an additional specifying is in total a guilty licensing and it will be not an invalid licensing.
Next point is absolutely: this has to take place ‘’’in the manner specified by the author or licensor’’’. This determination “in the manner” and defined/specified “by the author” is licensors right and cannot be interpretated to re-users right(s), as licensor has given an exact specification/definition! (Only if there’s not an exact specification there could be place for re-users attribution as required further by license conditions, for e.g. 4.c.) This juridical definition is missed in the whole discussion, sorry.
In a kind of mixing of arguments in the discussions to seems the Commons License “cc-by-sa-xx” would be a for WMF/WP only – that’s wrong. The Commons License “cc-by-sa-xx” can used by anybody and has to fulfil more (then only interests of WMF/WP) especially to protect copyrightholders work by defined terms and conditions proposed by licensor for the case of re-use-interests. It’s a “no-go” that re-user can fix what’s allowed for a re-use of a photo licensed by “cc-by-sa-xx” with ref. to described attribution specified by the licensor.
In the discussion was talked a lot about the constellation between Copyrightholder and re-user – this has nothing to do with legal uploading and legal licensing in the WMF/WP as admitted and explained above. In WMF/WP is following the upload rules an additional attribution not forbidden, a ban rule isn't written – wishful thinking may be another…
Either you are still not able to understand the license or your are willingly bend it: "author/copyrightholder has the right to define such an additional attribution". A Joke? He can define the wording, but not the implementation. To choose the implementation is a right granted to the re-user by yourself. Thats what 4.c) is about.
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:
They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.
They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
That is the interpretation from the Creative Commons folks themselves, which seems quite consistent with the legal code. You can specify items within those bounds. Your interpretation of "manner" contradicts the license itself, later on in section 4(c), which makes clear that the credit can be placed in any reasonable place (and giving some guidelines on "reasonable"). The rest of the discussion is basically what the legal effect is when an author has a condition which directly contradicts the language in the license. In this case, the language being contradicted is "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner" (English version) or "Die nach diesem Abschnitt 4.c) erforderlichen Angaben können in jeder angemessenen Form gemacht werden" (German version). If you agree to CC-BY-SA in its entirety, then you agree to that statement as well, and cannot restrict that right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Lindberg, with your FAQ as cited, there are the same problems as with this never-ending-discussion. With ref. to contractual licensing you mentioned in your explanation following points after my first contractual conditions as I explained above, especially under my points three and four.
Licensing is - juridical - a contractual solution, and if licensor proposed a licensing at first under (allowed) additional specifications (as to read in combination with the photo in WMF after upload) and further with the rest (point 4.c is a part of rest) of proposed contractual license conditions, so the re-user has to question himself, will he take it yes or no. And I didn’t proposed another licensing then re-use with attribution “my name directly under the photo” – third-party-re-user don’t must take, it’s very easy. And all the contractual conditions between licensor and re-user are not a question of deletion in the WMF, contractual conditions between third parties can’t be a reason for deletion of legal licensed photos in the WMF.
And a Million of re-users every year can live with an attribution “name under photo”. But all the re-users, especially the re-users which wants to use downloaded files from WMF/WP for commercial works, cannot expect a total free use under protection of proposed licensings. Not for re-use of articles or files from WMF/WP. In the WMF/WP always is said, there may be something correct or wrong. But for any re-use there may be rules under law or terms or conditions or restrictions. WMF/WP cannot guaranty that all this is free! Any re-user is responsible for that, what he want to do (that’s life)!
For e.g. a photographer may take photographs inside Sanssouci in Germany only for non-commercial use without permits from third party. Using this inside Wikipedia it’s a non-commercial use. Using this file for re-users commercial works, the file like this under license cc-by-sa or another is not “free in total”, re-user must ask for an additional non-free-licensing from www.spsg.de! Another: the whole illumination of the Eiffel tower in Paris is completely restricted by special copyrights, another: restriction against free use you have in Belgium by copyright law, further all the freedom-of-panorama-problems in various countries. Free-free-photos unrestricted from WMF/WP and even all around the world: this is wishful thinking – a re-user must inform himself about restricted or forbidden use.
But this way of discussion shows, that we discuss(ed) indeed not a deletion of my photo, but WMF-politics for future times...
Mr. Lindberg, this subjective discussion take a lot of time, time we loose. I'm looking to various papers and I see attributions like "Photo:Wikipedia" "Photo:Mr. or Mrs. XY". Our discussion shows opinions for theory, but not a legal problem.
Mr. Lindberg, have a nice evening -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But all the re-users, especially the re-users which wants to use downloaded files from WMF/WP for commercial works, cannot expect a total free use under protection of proposed licensings." Yes this is the crucial point. The re-users expect a free use according to the WMF/WP rules, and WMF/WP can only host files that are free according to their rules. There are already too many external copyright laws to observe, it makes no sense to add some additional internal restrictions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can make contract with the re-users by releasing the image under a free license or you can create your own rules.
Releasing an image under a free license grants everyone the right to reuse the image as stated inside the license, without any further condition.
Releasing an image under another license agreement creates a new license, which is incompatible to other licenses. This means, that you can't claim to release an image under CC-BY-SA 3.0 while adding additional restrictions, which are not part of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license itself.
The result is:
You have to choose between CC-BY-SA 3.0 or Custom License
In case of a Custom License the WMF or the community has to choose if it accepts images under such a license.
In any case: Images released under a Custom License can't be marked to be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0.
By the way, it is more than a theoretical question. Last week I ordered a book using the Wikipedia Book creator. This is clearly a commercial usage, since PediaPress will earn some money. As usual in books, the image contributers are not listed directly below the image but in the appendix. Let's hope that the book does not contain any of your images (I did not check all the 400 pages). --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend the uploader use the language "The author requests, but does not require" followed by whatever the hell they want. The author should not offer their own interpretation of the license as though it were legally binding. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I want is this to get heated -- and yes, we seem to be going in circles.
You say you chose CC-BY-SA, but to truly do that, you have to agree with everything in the license. This includes allowing anyone to implement the credit in any reasonable manner.
The part of the license which says the author can choose the manner of the credit, therefore, does not mean they can specify anything about the implementation, but rather only the content of the credit itself. The FAQ I cited is not mine, it is not WMF's, it is by Creative Commons themselves -- i.e. that is the correct interpretation of their CC-BY-SA license.
You then added a condition which is not allowed by the CC-BY-SA license. You are entirely correct that, as the author, you can impose pretty much whatever conditions you like. However, once you do that, you can no longer claim to have licensed the file with CC-BY-SA, but instead are using a custom license.
At that point, users (including WMF) have to decide if they can live with the conditions. Yes, attribution in the manner you require is perfectly fine for many users, but not all.
Most importantly, the requirement is not OK for WIkipedia, which does not credit images that way. They rely on the CC-BY[-SA] clause that you are not agreeing with. Therefore, we are using it without permission, and against the license. If you say you agree to allow *only* Wikipedia to do that, then we effectively have a "Wikipedia permission-only" license in addition to the one you have listed on the page -- but those have been disallowed for years. You must allow anyone to credit the image in the same way Wikipedia does.
A central part of all WMF projects, particularly Commons, is the concept of "freedom". While this concept may seem somewhat arbitrary, it is pretty well-defined (and was not invented by WMF either). Commons policy then is to delete any images which are not available under a "free" license. Since you have a custom license, we need to determine if the license is "free" or not.
I don't think it is free, but that could be up for community discussion. Any conditions which do not allow Wikipedia's normal practice (crediting or otherwise) are inherently non-free to me. Your condition imposes significant restrictions for derivative-work situations (i.e. where someone is not just making a copy of the photo, but using the expression in some other work, like maybe a drawing, or collage, etc.) There are many many examples of where the condition is a problem. If you wish to disallow all of those uses, that is your choice, but to me that is "non-free".
I think the key point is understanding that your condition is not allowed by the CC-BY-SA license. You may disagree, but that point is made quite clear by the license itself (since the wording on the implementation clearly constrains the meaning of "manner" to matters not involving the implementation), and also their FAQ. If you choose a different interpretation, it is then not licensed with CC-BY-SA and this gets messier.
Comment Creative Commons just issued a clarification on this point, which can be found here. As that FAQ states:
Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work?''
No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the means used by a licensee to re-distribute the work. There may be differences based on the format in which the content is re-used. For example, providing attribution to the author when re-distributing information via a blog post may be different than how credit is provided to an author in a video remix. All CC licenses provide that attribution is to be provided in a manner “reasonable to the medium or means” used by the licensee, and for credit to be provided in a “reasonable manner.” This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees – minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.
Thanks for this link and joining the discussion, Geoff. The FAQ still does not answer the two central question in this UR: 1.) Does the licence really get more restricted by additional user texts like attributon directly at the image or do such user texts only have a recommandory, but legally unbinding meaning. 2.) If making the reusage conditions more restrictive - does such an attribution requirement violate our project's guideline (free usage by anybody for any purpose) or is this central requirement for contributions then still met? Or more specific: Is CC-by-sa + a special attribution requirement less free than or still comparable to other accepted licences like, for example, GFDL 1.2.only (verbatim copy of the license document) or the FAL(composed work falls under the same licence what make this incompatible to content under CC licences) --Martinatalk17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the text does not explain the license to help the reuser, but instead is written as contract condition, then it is legally binding. In case of Wolfgang we can't assume anymore that this is an accident and not intentional. He released the images only under the condition that the credit is next/under the image. Even if we are not 100% sure how a court would react to this, we have to assume that it might be valid, to ensure the safety of the reusers. In this case we have a completly new license, which is incompatible to any of our current licenses. In short: We should ensure to use as less different licenses as possible to have the best legal options. Anything else would be careless. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting questions. I cannot formally advise on the contruction of the Creative Commons license since WMF is not a party to it. That said, here are some personal thoughts that may be helpful: (1) There is an arguable risk that a court could construe a "required" attribution as a modification of the CC license, in which case the attribution arguably becomes mandatory and the CC license+mandated attribution would no longer be compatible; and (2) although this is a Community decision, I personally believe a mandated attribution is inconsistent in principle with the project's guideline. That said, to avoid taking down too many images, I suggest that the Community take advantage of the new CC clarification in the FAQ, using it as an opportunity to educate our contributors and convince them to substitute preferences for mandates (but, of course, this is a Community decision). Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This, however, cannot be done in the present discussion. And until such decisions are made, there is no reason to delete images based on an individual opinion that additions to pre-defined lizense texts are not allowed. Wolfangs image(s) should therefore be undeleted. --Bjs (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither we have a solution that would support the undeletion. I would strongly oppose to upload new images with this kind of licensing, until a decision is made. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this mixes up the burden of proof: If there is no reason to delete an image, it is not deleted, or, if it has been, it has to be undeleted. There is no burden of proof that an image can stay on Commons, it has to be proved that it cannot. --Bjs (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no. We require that files be 1) in scope (not an issue here) and 2) licensed with a "free" license. The work stated CC-BY-SA as the license, but then does not follow the terms of the license (made clear above), so it is not CC-BY-SA. It was nominated for deletion under the rationale that it was non-free, and was deleted for precisely that reason. That represents a "decision", and nothing has really changed. If you want to argue a restriction like that is still permissible, fine, argue here -- but multiple people feel it is not. To me, it is not even close -- it is a significant restriction that severely restricts the ability to use them in derivative works, among other things. It doesn't even allow Wikipedia to use them, given the way credits are done there, which is a major reason for them being here in the first place. I really don't see how it can be argued as "free". I can understand how the misinterpretation happened on the part of the author, but that is what it was, an unfortunate misinterpretation, which this discussion has at least made clear. It is up to the author, as always -- he can release the image under a free license, or decide that the freedoms he must give others (to have it hosted here anyways) are too much for him to give up. That is also perfectly understandable -- "free" licenses don't work for everyone, which is why there are other Creative Commons licenses such as CC-BY-ND, but we don't allow them here). We would be able to get tons better illustrations and other works if we accepted CC-BY-NC, or CC-BY-ND, or even wikipedia-only permissions, but the "free" aspect is fundamental to Wikimedia, and (in particular to Commons) have instructed us that we cannot ignore it (other projects are allowed "fair use" exceptions, but Commons is not.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did follow this discussion from the start on the german page. I did not participate at the discussions that took place on de and on commons so far.
I think this issue is important for Wikipedia and for the authors.
I did request an opinion from info@creativecommons.org on this issue which I want to share with you
The statement from them was announced as a personal view from the person answering the mail, i will quote the most relevant part from the answer:
" My *opinion* is this: as you
mentioned, section 4(c) of the BY-SA 3.0 license does not indicate
that credit *must* be given in the exact manner specified by the
copyright holder, but rather in a manner "reasonable to the medium or
means You are utilizing" and later in that same section "The credit
required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable
manner;". My understanding of that license is that the copyright
holder can absolutely specify *what* information (to an extent) must
be supplied in the attribution, but not precisely *where* or *how*
that attribution must be given. The license, I think, tried to
account for various media where attribution in some specific way may
not always be possible.
The licenses do not allow for the licensor to specify any restrictions
or requirements that go above and beyond the license itself, as
specified in 8(e), at least not in any bind way with regard to the
license itself.
My guess is that it would probably be okay for him to make a simple
request that people attribute in a certain way, but it's not clear to
me that he can demand that attribute be given in that way.
"
As suggested by the answer from info@creativecommons.org I did send this case to the
cc-community mailing list.
Several experts on the list did answer on the case.
I will quote from some answers:
"I can't find any part of the license which allows for this
restriction. HOWEVER, if the CC-BY-SA work is original, then the
author's clearly expressed terms should be respected regardless of
whether or not the restrictions are compatible with CC-BY-SA. The
author owns the copyright, and is not required to release it under
CC-BY-SA at all. And in this case I think that is especially true, as
the plain English terms clearly state that you must attribute the work
in the manner specified by the author*, even though I can't find a
provision within the license which provides for that. If the terms
are not compatible with CC-BY-SA, then the author should be asked to
stop calling the work CC-BY-SA, we shouldn't just invalidate his
obvious intent."
Another:
"I don't necessarily agree with this as it breaks the compatibility of BY-SA.
Now imagine a collage of 20 photos from 20 different photographers each with
the same requirement. 40? 100? 1000?
To me, if you want the goodwill of using a BY-SA license then you should be
cool with that.
Otherwise, take the cc name off of the license, mod the license itself to your
pleasure and expect people to respect that. You are gumming up the works if
you want special treatment for your work in a BY-SA world.
"
Another:
"My understanding is that you attribute in accordance with the authors
wishes such as "e.e. cummings" not "Edward Estlin Cummings" or as "Phiz"
not as "Hablot Knight Browne", and that is has nothing to do with
placement or font size or colour or any other such nonsense."
And several answers of the sort to make it absolut clear in Version 4 of the cc license, that the attribution is about the naming of the author and not about the layout of the attribution.
Putting all the arguments on the scale I think that the picture is not fully compliant with the expectations for free content within Wikimedia commons.
The usage of the picutres within the Wikipedia projects does not honour the specified requirements of the license itself, since the attribution in Wikipedia is not under the pictures itself. The handling of books created from Wikipedia articles is not clarified. I like the work of Wolfgang and would like to see the picture back after the strict requirement of placing the name under the picture is changed into a strong whish /recommendation to do so.
comment:Hello my name is Kaga Mitsuru. I'm Artist. I upload My work into wikipedia,but wikipedian attack my page.
I'm Artist debuit almost 20 years ago. My main work comic illustrations, storyteller,and art direction.
comic http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ろくでなしBLUES[Rokudenashi BLUES]'s main charactor
[IKEBUKURO NO KASAI],my drawing and storytelled almost 12years ago.
[JOJO's BIZARRE ADVENTURE]'s main charactor,My design.
Hello Kagamitsuru. The issue here was that you created an encyclopaedia article on Wikimedia Commons (this project, a collection of free media) rather than Wikipedia (an encyclopaedia). The page was therefore deleted as it was outside our project scope. I suggest recreating the page at ja:加賀充. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
こんにちはKagamitsuru。問題は、ここでは、ウィキメディアコモンズ（このプロジェクトは、自由なメディアのコレクション）ではなく、ウィキペディア（百科事典）よりも上の百科事典の記事を作成したということでした。それが我々のプロジェクトの範囲外だったとしてこのため、ページが削除されました。私はページを再作成をお勧め ja:加賀充. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable or not: thats a ja.wp issue, please go to ja.wp. They also have a page for such discussions for example at ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼. Creating an article on Wikimedia Commons, 加賀充 is the wrong way, Commons is not a place for articles. --Martin H. (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the OTRS procedure wasn't completed, I guess due to miscommunication, see also here and the deletion requests and logs.
Now after I asked User:Andrew c for assistence, see User talk:Andrew c#Request for assistance, a new OTRS procedure has been completed and the OTRS ticket 2011051210004131 confirmes that User:Jbw (the original uploader) is Jean-Baptiste Waldner.
I would like to request these three files to be undeleted, because all required permission is now available. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete this file because the Fotografer was not the 1953 died de:Johannes Maaß as assumed in the DR, but a different person of the same name died 1930. I got contacted by the original uploader on de and had a deeper look into this case. (see here in german). The original de: file you can find here. There is another image with a different uploader stating the same data - see File:HL Damals – Königstraße 50.jpg. The DR-requestor was allready contacted by 2 people about this case - see here. Thx and regards. --JuTa (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I also were contacted this afternoon about this image by Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre, with the same explanation. It's restored.
Furthermore, the picture description itself gives 1930 as photographer dead date and I'm going to put a note on the talk page, so the confusion won't be possible in the future. --Dereckson (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
With this reason you can delete every and all pictures showing humans as someone likes - shooting around randomly - aka censorship. We do not have a consent verification system (like OTRS) so this cannot be a valid reason as - as I said - this would mean Commons can (as it obviously is) be censored. I am sick of this. I personally invested time in this picture, we only have very few (if any - I do not know the current status) pictures of sexual intercourse. This picture was even quite aesthetic and good quality.
Oppose - copyright is not the main concern, deletions of the Flickr-account doesn't automatically cause deletion at Commons, but now we have no way to check other things, this is a high risk file - Jcb (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should have a mechanism of checking those "other things" when the file is still around there. What is it that should be checked? --LPfi (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows the age of the subjects and nobody knows if the subject gave their permission to be exposed like this in the internet. This could be even cyberstalking. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did the subjects seem very young? Is there some reason to doubt they gave permission? How would the issues be checked if the image still was on flickr? How do we check those issues for the images still present on flickr? --LPfi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that we have no ID card copy for any picture here? And did you notice that you could delete many, many pictures with this argument (especially those)? --Saibo (Δ) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I'm not going to look around to get as much files as possible deleted from a certain category. I just process DRs. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this seems to be very arbitrary if we have no means in place by which legal and appropriate images can be kept. We have to have policy on this. I have seen no argument about this image being any more problematic than any other sexual image (unless the depicted people clearly are old). --LPfi (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a solution proposed to the statements around requisite record keeping, which to me seems relevant and pivotal to the deletion. Argument proposed is not convincing, unable to support reinstatement. — billinghurstsDrewth13:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point me to our policy which requires the "record keeping" which some think we need to do? Please also tell me why images from flick account should need to go and images uploaded here directly with totally anon accounts which could be dead at some time should be okay. --Saibo (Δ) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false argument; an absence of a policy is not a legal defence and does not prevent us from taking required lawful actions. I didn't mention flickr and I see no difference between legal requirements for flickr-sourced or a direct upload, and you make a good point that if this is a requirement then maybe it should be applied to all the other images of that nature.
I'm tending to agree with Saibo, here. If we're going to get queasy when the original source for "graphic" images are disabled, that needs to be encoded as a consensus policy somewhere. Until then, I see no reason to treat these images as any different than any other now-deleted image from Flickr. Powers (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, weakly. This was a {{2257}} image. No secondary producer would be able to re-use it without some way of identifying the actors. Without access to the original account, that doesn't exist. This is problematic from a pragmatic point of view. We should have a policy of keeping our own copy of all contact info for 2257 images, whenever possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support On reconsideration I found Saibo's argument persuasive on this matter. We host many images that are effectively impossible to use inside certain nations (e.g. images PD in the US but still in copyright in Mexico). It's unfortunate but content reusers in other nations would still be able to use it. I'm concerned about our inability to evaluate the image for license laundering, but I'm equally concerned about new users uploading copyvios as Own work, and the situation is very similar - the convention is we don't delete without evidence of likely copyvio. Moreover, the two persons in this image are impossible to identify (being an extreme close-up on the genital region), so privacy is not realistically an issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As I understand it, 2257 does not apply to us, because we are non-commercial. Anyone handling such things commercially will know that. As far as I know we don't keep 2257 info on file for anything, do we? - Jmabel ! talk06:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't and shouldn't, but I'd argue we should at least provide some way to contact the record holder, or else it effectively prevents most commercial use inside the United States. Usually this is provided indirectly through the source link, which is not useful in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above: uploads by totally anon, even without compulsory email, one-upload accounts should be okay but flickr uploads not? However, if 2257 should be effectively able to censor Commons, which Commons is not, we do need a way to get rid of it. The best way would be if WMF sets up servers in another country - this way we could also solve the URAA nightmare. "effectively prevents most commercial use inside the United States" - maybe - but if we delete it we prevent use in every country. Not the other's fault that US has some ... let me call them interesting... laws. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose escpecially with that bull argument "censorship". Gladly we have nothing to do on commons, so let's blabber around. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea why you think someone is "blabber"ing around here. I am just calling a spade a spade. Of course, I know, you call the spade cleanup tool instead. --Saibo (Δ) 17:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems there is no specific reason this file was deleted. The arguments for deletion are based on us not having done things that no guideline suggests doing. If such arguments are accepted, deletion of files will be very much arbitrary. Instead, try to find consensus for how these things could and should be handled in the future. --LPfi (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my understanding, us hosting this without a statement of the location of the records ensures that someone is doing something illegal. See 2257 section (e)(1). I don't think our current {{2257}} template adequately reflects that requirement of the regulation. Once a Flickr account is deleted, we can no longer credibly claim that we have a statement of the location of the records (perhaps even pointing to a valid Flickr account is insufficient). --99of9 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that the 2257 requirements are for images intended for commercial distribution. Section (e)(1) says as much (by reference to section (a)). What makes you think that Wikimedia needs records, or a location of them? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems worded to catch as much under the federal remit as possible. (a)(1) appears to catch this kind of image because it is "produced with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce" (i.e. a camera, unlikely to have been entirely manufactured in the user's state of residence). After (a)(1) catches the image (either because of the camera or the author's commercial intent) before it even gets to wikimedia, from then on it needs a records location attached (in (f)(4) we need to list a location, but don't need to verify the accuracy of the records ourself). [Finally, a side point that applies to Flickr images... the fact that we got them from Flickr means that they've gone via a commercial(?) site, so that may even trigger (a)(1)] --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The disappearance of a flickr-id is not necessarily mean the individual was banned for breaking a rule. Just as here people quit. About six weeks ago I uploaded a fine image from a prolific flickr contributor. (1) I thanked him, as is my usual practice; (2) He grew very upset, although he had uploaded several dozen images here himself, but had been unaware that over one hundred other flickr images he had made available under a free liscense had been uploaded here; (3) He tried to claw back the liscense on all his images here; (4) I initiated a deletion discussion on his images; (5) In the discussion he kept accusing us of theft; (6) After his images were he first changed the liscense on his images to "all rights reserved"; (7) He said we had ruined photography for him -- his favorite hobby for the last 40 years; (8) A day or so later he erased all his images; (9) A day or so later he asked flickr to remove his flickr id. This is the only flickr-id I personally know of to disappear, and it was not due to a breach of their rules. FWIW I think this shows that all of us should leave a thank you on the flickr page of every image we upload. Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation please -- We trust flickrreview, don't we? Flickrreview confirms that the liscense the image was available under was correctly transferred here. So, why is whether the original flickruploader is still online significant? Suppose, for the sake of argument, law enforcement officials become interested in an image we transferred from flickr? Does flickr confirm the real world ID of its clients? I don't think they do. But, if they do, they would keep that forever, wouldn't they? If clueful law enforcement officials try to trace the provenance of a flickrreviewed image, they won't even contact us -- they will go straight to flickr. If clueless law enforcement officials contact us first, we explain they need to contact flickr. Why would the retirement of a flickr-id be any of our concern? Note to closing admin, if no one answers this question, please consider this comment equivalent to overturn deletion.Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support undeletion Flickr uploaders retire for lots of reasons. As LPfi responded to the deleting administrator assertion, above, that this was a "high risk" file, that can't now be checked -- if there are checks to be performed, they should have been checked at upload time. I don't really know what was in this image -- no one in this discussion has clearly laid that out -- but images related to sexuality are important. We live in a world where sexually transmitted diseases are rampant. We live in a world where large numbers of mothers die unnecessarily in childbirth. Better education about human sexuality is important. That makes it important for the commons to carry a broad range of images related to sexuality.
There was a NYC newspaper published by orthodox jews, who removed Hilary Clinton and a female aide from the image of President Obama and his senior advisors watching the Osama bin Laden killing. The publishers of that paper's interpretation of what kinds of images were too provocative included the image of the fully dressed 60-something Hilary Clinton. What is "too provocative" is highly subjective. I will agree to specific criteria for deleting images, but vague claims certain images are "high risk", concern me. Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletion request was raised with the following statement:
"Flickr account no longer exists, so the required record keeping chain is broken. That also raises the likelihood that it's a flickrwashing copyvio. Also no statement of consent of both parties to publish (which in my view is an important principle)."
All three statements do not seem to be valid reasons for deletion:
1) The reason we use the Flickrreview process is to be independent of Flickr. So it does not matter if the Flickr account owner removes the picture, changes the license from free to restricted or closes his account after the file has been uploaded to commons and the license has been checked.
2) "That also raises the likelihood that it's a flickrwashing copyvio." There is no proof, enhanced likelihood or any other sign of copyright violation shown for this picture.
3) A statement of consent is not needed for any pictures on commons. That this constitutes an important principle is a personal view of the initiator of the deletion request.
The arguments on the original Deletion Request [7] discussion where mainly in favor of keeping this image.
There is no requirement to request and publish the ID of the persons on such pictures.
I do not see the aspect of high risk with this image, since the persons on the picture are anonymous and have adult bodies.
The supporters for undeletion brought the more convincing arguments in this case.
These files were deleted out of process with an incorrect explanation that they are duplicative of other files. They are not, each one shows a different highlighted municipality than the claimed duplicate. The deleting admin will not undelete them, so here we are. I want to use these on the English Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the history you can see that it is only a duplicate because a new version was uploaded just before file was deleted. So if file is undeleted and lates upload is reverted then it is not a duplicate anymore. Perhaps that is what Carlossuarez46 wants. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that many of this images had been reuploaded by the initial uploader to make them a duplicate and that he wanted to delete them to maintain the set of locator images. He may comment on the process too.
At the moment we have a complete, maintained and similar quality set of most recent locator maps of this Mecklenburg-Vorpommern municipalities. I also disagree with the deletion, Commons would be best with having also sets of the former situations, so the best sollution for updating sets of locator maps is not to overwrite the old ones and delete those whose name is not longer existing but to first move the complete set to an appropriate new name and indicating the time span and then upload the new set of images. For one particular file see File:Landkreise, Kreise und kreisfreie Städte in Deutschland.svg (lead image, older versions with time in filename in the other versions), of course we are talking of some more files here.
Back to the topic: With restoring this locators now you will not do an improvement of Commons. You will mix up the set of locater maps we currently have with outdated locators. As long as you not maintain the full set of outdated locator maps and update their descriptions you will create a terrible mess and mix up of old and new, bad quality and good quality, correct description and outdated description. So we should stay with the current maintained and complete set. Maybe sometime someone will create a new set of locator maps showing the old situation and directly upload it under a correct filename including the time span and with a correct description, that would be much, much easier. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after my initial quick look, I took a longer look at a few ---- and got thoroughly confused. Someone will need to simplify this case I think. File A became B, then became C ---- File X became Y, then became C ---- File B became X, then became A, then B. Then all got deleted. Ugh... Wknight94talk19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the deleted files, but when they were used on the English Wikipedia before wholesale delinking took place, they were different, if someone updated them to be duplicates so that someone could delete them, that's troubling. In any event, they should be undeleted (and can later be reverted to be useful), and if anyone still thinks that they ought be deleted it can be discussed properly rather than just speedied. Because the English WP (where I am an admin) and probably other Wikis rely on maintenance of files on commons even if nothing is currently linked the histories of articles cannot be fully viewed if the files are deleted because they are delinked (currently). That's a bigger process issue than we need to resolve here, but were these local on the English Wiki, any admin here could see that something has been changed to be duplicative and revert the change and save the file from deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Wknight94(1926) There were and there will be several restructurations of municipalities mostly in eastern germany to reduce the number of municipalities, 4th administrative level. The 3rd level (Landkreis/district) is also indicated in the filenames with an abreviation (the vehicle plate code). So far the outdated locators where deleted due to this bad replace and dupe process instead of renaming the whole set and upload a new set.
Roughly simplyfying what this means for the above images: All links above beeing blue are municipalitie locators that exist under the same name before and after the reforms, they ar of course updated because the surrounding municipalities changed. All red links are outdated locator maps of municipalities that no longer exist. Those shouldnt end up in the categories or sets showing the current sittuation, this requires correction of the description, maybe a change of filename to open a new set and it requires to categorize them appropriately. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the users perspective maybe it was the sollution. Bad process, and as I suggested: Move the whole outdated set to a filename that indicate that it is outdated (e.g. Foo in XY, yyyy-mm-dd - yyyy-mm-dd.png) and then upload the new set, do not replace files with something different (a changed subdivisioning is something different), do not delete them. That was not done (maybe not known at this time) and i admire that it would be terrible much work. If we now restore the files we obviously must correct this, otherwise we will do more damage to the existing set and then doing any improvement. So the best sollution would be to create a new set of images or extract them from all this version histories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is possible: Yes. Is it possible? It also requires some human work I think, the reforms not toke place at one date but on various dates, so far the uploader was the only one who spent his time in this low interest and odd work field. So he must be involved, I dont want to have him stoped contributing to Commons and move to de.wp, that wouldnt be an improvement either. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easi to do. A bot can undelete the images. A human must check the images, revert to older version if needed and delete/mark images that are dupes. Once that is done a bot can rename all the images. --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not revert anything and not delete any duplicates. The files that exist at the moment with the name "foo in xy.png" are the lead images, they are in use all over and they present the current status after the reorganisation/reform. This undeletion request targets the locator maps before the reorganisation. So only extract that old revisions and move them to different filenames indicating that they represent a stuts before the restructuration. --Martin H. (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As these maps are subject to change frequently, it might be worth adding a date (read: year) of reference to the filename. Check, e.g. User:Tschubby's uploads for a way how it can be made to work. -- User:Docu at 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sense? why were things overwritten? Now we have garbage like this File:Lewitzrand in PCH.PNG which shows Stadt Parchim (see File:Parchim in PCH.PNG) not Lewitzrand. If we had the maps of the former gemeinden we could clearly see the problem.... There has been no real reason why these were deleted (or overwritten to be duplicates and then deleted), and now we're left with wrong maps that even the German editors cannot figure out because there is no back up to try to understand them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have adobe illustrator, so I point them out and someone who does may fix them. But my point remains, deleting these has obscured the fact that this error sat unreported for quite some time because no one had backup to check. Transparency is the hallmark of the Wikipedias; deletion of back-level versions, whether used or not, removes the transparency and allows errors to creep in and go undetected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion. The DDR existed, those municipalities existed and articles about former municipalities are very well conceivable (e.g. people were born there, died there &c.). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion. This is a mess, and the only reasonable answer is to undelete them so we can see what's going on. If they had been properly deleted, I wouldn't say anything, but uploading new images over the old and deleting them as duplicates lacks transparency. I have no objection to a DR, but the defense should get to point to the images in question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only repeat: If we undelete this we will create a mess with outdated and current locator maps, so the result of undeletion will be a downgrading from a current, complete and maintained set to a an mixed, incomplete and outdated set. The files was treated the normal way on Commons, just look what mess people created with e.g. country maps and the Kosovo, thas country level and not the lowest administrative level in Germany we talk about here. From this file overwriting Commons lost locator maps of municipalities for some periods of time, but in opposition to even country maps the locator maps of this lowest administrative level in germany are maintained, accurate and complete. The very best sollution to recreate the lost time periods is to recreate new sets of locator maps for the outdated situation and upload them under an appropriate filename (including a date). So we e.g. need for the German en:Landkreis Stendal locator map settings showing the situation:
1995 - July 16, 1996
-January 1, 1998
-April 15, 1999
-January 1. 2002
-January 1. 2005
-July 1, 2009 (for example the first mentioned file, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png is probably, didnt read literature on this, a part of this set)
-January 1, 2010
-May 31, 2010
At every date something happened. A change in one part of the area required, that we need a complete new set for all parts of the area because every locator map shows the whole area. We have a current set (26 municipalities +1 blank map) for the lates situation. Undeleting one single file from the Jan2005-July2009 set and adding it to the current set would create a mess and obviosly noone wants to fix that mess. So dont undelete, create new sets. If you need a base map for an outdated set you may ask for assistance. --Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to undelete the files, with a sensible arguments to create a new set of images to get a collection of well maintained data. No more discussion since 2010-07-01. --Dereckson (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I had a look: we have between 50 and 100 images which use this license template ({{PD-Switzerland-photo}}). I think there should be a general discussion about it on Commons talk:Licensing. Also regarding this sentence from the header of Commons:Licensing: "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
However it would be strange if we would not use the template since we are also using (e.g.) source country specific FOP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen case law on cross-country FOP, but I would bet (maybe 60-40) that a US court would accept a photograph of a statue in a country with full FOP for statues. (Much lower odds on the rare countries that have full FOP for 2-D art; I think we might be in trouble if we couldn't argue fair use or de minimis there, because a photograph effectively reproduces the 2-D art, not just an image of it.) On the other hand, I think a US copyright examiner wouldn't even pause when registering this image for copyright, and given the lack of the rule of the shorter term, I think a US court would agree with that analysis. I think there is legitimate reasons to analyze these cases separately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The home country's courts have said this is ok. Prosfilaes argues this could be registered for copyright in the US. This is true. But it is also true that this has not happened. Until somebody does that and then sends us a takedown notice, it makes a lot of commons sense to just apply Swiss law. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image, which appeared in the article about Mordechai Rotenberg, was deleted despite my statement that the family had provided it and gave their permission to use it. I have now received a letter from Mordechai Rotenberg acknowledging that he allows the photo to be used, which was forwarded a few minutes ago to "permissions." --Gilabrand05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That file has never existed on Commons. If you wish to appeal English Wikipedia's deletion of the file by that name, you need to do so on that project. If you wish to upload the file to Commons, you must obtain a license from the photographer allowing anyone to use the photograph in modified or unmodified form for any commercial or noncommercial purpose and send that permission to OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs)08:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore this category, it's a useful redirect. It's bad enough to see Nossa Senhora da Piedade turned into "Our Lady of Sorrows", please keep the alternate form, as it really is of some help.--DarwinAhoy!06:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do not understand why this category was moved to "Our Lady of Sorrows churches". Churches of Our Lady of Sorrows seem to me much more intuitive, and in line with what is generally used here in Commons, or am I missing something?--DarwinAhoy!06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recently deleted by User:Jcb. His justification was subjective ("disturbing") and highly speculative ("could be dangerous"). Both these arguments had already been effectively rebutted in some detail in the discussion, and have no basis in policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportCould be dangerous? What kind of rationale is this for that picture? The more dangerous (if you can call it that) is the kept one since it explains in detail how to prepare such a bag. The deleted one would be less dangerous if we kept it we then have one showing how it looks like and maybe prevent others from creating another picture for Commons to illustrate it. And IMO disturbing is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Cecil (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support administrators should attempt to follow guidelines when deleting images. This even if the have never seen a plastic bag. -- Docu at07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted after a long discussion with many delete-votes. It's quite impudent to speedy restore the file without have the decency to wait for some more comments - Jcb (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No new arguments in comparison to the deletion debate. Not every shit is "in scope", or are you missing snuff videos? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - picture is that explicit that it could form a serious danger to depressive people. Also it doesn't have educational purpose, because education is a way to enhance somebodies capabilities, while suicide obviously causes the contrary. Jcb (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this picture i would strongly assume the opposite effect, showing a rather uncomfortable ending. I also have to remind you, that the deletions have also to follow the same rules as undeletions. So it shouldn't had to be deleted in the first place. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係18:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had the impression that you cared about re-users (even more than about our contributors). Seems to me now, Wolfgang should consider himself lucky to escape such kind of care. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jcb, you deleted this image, correct? Didn't you do so without even one word informing the rest of us why you discounted the keep arguments? No offense, but all we have is AGF for the rest of us to trust you actually read the keep arguments. You had to know this would be a controversial closure, since the "keep" opinions outnumbered the "delete" opinions. As an admin you are not bound to go strictly by counting opinions. Rather you have an obligation to discount opinions that are counter-policy; that seemed based on mistaken assumptionsl or have been superceded by improvements to the material. But, surely, when you do discount civil and coherent opinions, you have an obligation to say why you discounted them? Surely, if you don't have the time or energy to explain why you made a controversial closure, you could always just ignore that discussion, and allow some other administrator who did have time to administer the closure? Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This file was undeleted by user:Dereckson: "File:Suicide bag.jpg" (17 revisions and 4 files restored: In COM:SCOPE." . For the people who don't agree: Please open a new regular deletion request. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way things work here. Undeletion may take place after reaching consensus, which was not awaited in this case. In other words: undeletion was inappropriate that quick. Jcb (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1! What the hell is going on here? I donna see any (new) argument for keeping it, so just face it. Undeletion requests should not be a second chance in that respect, only if NEW arguments are provided. Otherwise we can get rid of deletion debates cos everytime you will find someone criticizing the admin's decision. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the logical eventual outcome of the argument you've proposed is that whenever an admin makes a deletion closure which we (some sizable chunk of commoners) believe to be obviously wrong that we must go request to have their adminship removed, right? Because if all the good arguments were already made then the only way to review an admins actions is to pressure him to reverse. I think thats terrible. It's okay if admins occasionally reverse each others decisions. Commons will eventually settle on a solution. However, I don't agree with Multichill's decision to close this discussion after people had begun participating because doing so has inspired commons like yours and mine: Arguing about process instead of the image, and thats bad for commons. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with undeletion requests, but it must be given some time (e.g. at least a week) to see if there is some consensus to undelete or not. This undeletion was premature and disrupts the process. Jcb (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion -- This was a bad deletion, the closing administrator appears to have lapsed and failed to bring objectivity and neutrality to this closure. They didn't even explain why they discounted the "keep" arguments.
Shouldn't the closing administrator instead have weighed in, in the discussion, with their opinion, and relied on another administrator, one who could cite policy, and explain why they closed in favor of one side, not the other to perform the closure?
WRT whether undeletion was premature, surely it was the bad deletion that was premature, and the undeletion was a fix to the premature bad deletion? If non-administrators are going to be offering informed opinions of the future of the image then it should remain undeleted at least until the original deletion discussion is properly concluded? Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I do accept images should not be deleted per "personal opinion", this image is IMHO, beyond just personal opinion. We should not keep every single media that seem to be "educational", or as one user said more clearly: Not every shit is "in scope". This image has the potential of actually supporting a real suicide (aka "could be dangerous"); just because we "don't have enough coverage" on such a topic doesn't necessarily mean that we should fill in; some parts of the knowledge grid should be left hidden/empty, especially for a project like Wikipedia/Commons. I think it is time to work on a policy to deal with such images in the future. Rehman01:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What qualification do you have, to judge about this? Alone the wording "IMHO, beyond just personal opinion" can be considered a joke. What makes you sure to believe that this image supports suicide? Looking at the image, i see exactly the opposite effect. If you treat this as an instruction to do suicide, then what about firearms or actual combat footage? Does it inspire the viewer to grab a gun and run amok? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係11:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically censorship -- shying away from controversial topics. Under that rationale, we should probably avoid having Wikipedia entries or Wikibooks discussing the subject -- because some "information should be hidden". Wikimedia Commons is honestly the *last* project which should be doing that, as it is a technical service to support all the other Wikimedia projects. If *they* need or want an image, we host it, period. If a work is in legitimate use in one of those projects, then it absolutely needs to stay (unless there is a copyright or other legal issue) without question. Otherwise, we are using Commons as a medium to dictate policy to other projects, and we just can't do that. I will tend to agree with you if someone is just uploading stuff to see how gross an image Commons will accept or games along those lines, but if a work is in legitimate use on a Wikimedia project, and the license/other legalities are OK, that should be the end of the discussion. If it is OK under the policy of that project, then we need to host it for them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the editor at Wikibooks that made use of the image I must say that the reasons for support the deletion process are extremely flimsy and personal. One must accept that the image is just that an illustration, it does not promote nor condemn nor even teach anything, only the viewer can make those interpretations and so promoting the view that this picture can help someone to suicide isn't rational but emotional and so personal. In any case after the deletion I made an effort to find another image that would illustrate suffocation and I couldn't find one, deciding to enforce the deletion at Commons would therefore force Wikibooks to host the image locally or a recreation of the act of suffocation, this is something that is not beneficial or wanted, we can even argue that it could promote someone to incur in a risky activity, if we were to support the rational that lead to the deletion in the first place. --Panic2k7 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we're deleting images based on what is "disturbing", I've got a long list of others I would delete well before this one. Frankly, it's a bit odd that the closer chose to keep the first image in the DR - the one that actually explains how to create a suicide bag. That image actually disturbs me more. Wknight94talk15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image serves to illustrate a particular subject and was being used by a Wikimedia project and so is therefore within scope. Personal sensibilities are not grounds for deletion in policy, and definitely shouldn't override the desire to use the image in one of our projects. The closure was made with a personal opinion with no justification provided as to how positions for deletion outweighed those for keeping. There are a lot of deletion requests, yes, but controversial ones need additional care. There were a lot of complaints at Wikipedia about images being deleted as copyright violations. Well, what if we started deleting perfectly legitimately licensed images that were in use at Wikipedia because we didn't like them? How long would Commons last as the image repository of choice? Just because Wikibooks is smaller, that doesn't make it any less legitimate a user of content and this would set a poor precedent. – Adrignolatalk16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info For all who push the "it is in scope"-buttom: Please provide us with some pictures of a rape or murder since it can be used for the corresponding articles.
2nd: We donna need now another deletion discussion, and the scope-issue WAS discussed in the last one, so we need new arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was improper. And you're still using the same argument as before. I do not need to come up with new arguments if the admin who closed the deletion request ignored them. – Adrignolatalk17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting that none of us can argue this image is in scope unless we first upload images of rapes and murders? Frankly, this does not seem to be a serious suggestion.
As Niabot and Adrignola pointed out while many good faith contributors offered civil, collegial and coherent arguments about scope and educational value, the closing admin ignored those comments, and, for all we know, couldn't even be bothered to read them. So far as I am concerned, our administrators should see their closing arguments as being an educational tool. For all we know the closing administrator here may have been able to offer convincing explanation as to why they discounted the "keep" arguments. If, for the sake of argument, the closing administrator could offer that compelling explanation, and couldn't be bothered to write that explanation down, they are doing a grave disservice to the project. No good faith contributor wants to keep making mistakes, even innocent good faith mistakes. Yet, by failing to offer that theoretical convincing explanation as to why they discounted the keep arguments this closing administrator is leaving the rest of us in the position where we are going to be making the same mistake, over and over again.
I just took a look at the closing administrator's contribution history. So far as I can see they STILL have not offered an explanation as to why they discounted the "keep" arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not, maybe, ...
Arguments inside deletion discussions usually don't count for JCB. I came to this conclusion after watching some of his recent closing procedures. Deleting or keeping images without any given reason. Changing his mind rather quickly if arguments are collectively put on the table. I'm wondering if he even reads the discussions or arguments. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should emphasise that when closing a deletion request, if there has been some dissension you should really explain your reasoning when closing. My personal opinion (note I have not actually looked at the image in question) is that an image being "dangerous" or "disturbing" is not a reason for deletion, especially since the image was automatically in scope since it was in use. We host lots of pictures of war, disease, etc, all of which may be disturbing (ignore for now that disturbingness is relative) but are still educational. I support the undeletion in principle, but since I don't want to actually look at the image I can't give a full verdict. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't believe the image is more shocking that the kind of stuff you'll frequently find without special warnings on sites like reddit. It's an image of a person with his eyes closed with a plastic bag over his head with the air sucked in and the bag pulled so the plastic is firm against his face. He looks rather uncomfortable. I think it would be fair that to say that the image would be in poor taste in most contexts, though that is also true for many of the classes of images you just enumerated (war, disease, etc). The image was created as part of what appears to be an art project where each day the photographer simulated a different method of suicide. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Dco: This is a photo of a murderer, and the cat does not contain any photo of a murdered person (quick look)- except of picture in art (likewise for rape, we have "only" paintings and related arts). --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you claim, that photo is of William Jay Gaynor, right after he was shot by an assassin. It is quite literally a photograph of murder happening. Or does it have to have blood and gore to count? Another famous example is the en:Zapruder film, which has been shown in numerous educational documentaries. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a stupid hoax image that doesn't even depict a suicide bag. It's just some dumb child who went to his kitchen, got a plastic bag, and put it over his head to make his friends laugh or something. Not everything is in scope and not everything needs to be kept. - Uhai (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a crazy agurment. Of course it is in COM:SCOPE. Want to forbid cars, too? Probably more people are killed by cars then by plastic bags... Commons is not only about things all people will like. --Saibo (Δ) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was said long before at en:Talk:Suicide_bag#Image that the description of this file is almost entirely wrong. The argumentation by Uhai is not crazy. The file needs a rename to "fictional demonstration of how suffocation with a plastic bag may look like" or "Keep bag away from children, Danger of suffocation! as playfully demonstrated here". I doubt that especially this file serves any purpose to illustrate such topics or that a topic (the photographers fiction) is educational. Therefore I also give my "vote" here to Oppose undeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if it is a real attempt of suicide or at least a possibility or a simulation of what not to do: There is no reason to randomly delete images here (which even are in use) without valid reasons just because of I do not like it. If the name/description is wrong there are other ways to change them. We do not need to delete a image therefore ... as you might know. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin: Do you mean "arguments" like "You will end up having your IP banned if you continue this!"? If you want it rename to "fictional demonstration of how suffocation with a plastic bag may look like" or "Keep bag away from children. Danger of suffocation! as playfully demonstrated here.", you can try it. I am not against. --Dezidor (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The true reason why hosting these images is irresponsible is well described in en:Copycat suicide, de:Werther-Effekt, and in 12 other wikipedias, in case somebody really didn't knew it already. >90 percent of suicides happen in people suffering from undiagnosed, untreated or undertreated depression or other mental disorders, not in fully conscious persons who made an informed decision. Therefore, responsible media refrain from detailed reporting about suicides, let alone showing suicide instructions. Correspondingly, many countries have journalism codes or guidelines for that. However, responsible behaviour was never a strength of this community. --Túrelio (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We surely are not responsible for the reactions of people looking at an image. Used in context it is no instruction to suicide, it is the opposite. Does this image look like as if it would be nice method to end your own life? Surely it doesn't. If the german article should be an argument, then it shouldn't start with: "Als Werther-Effekt wird in der Medienwirkungsforschung, Sozialpsychologie und Soziologie die Annahme bezeichnet, [...]". Calling the subject itself a hypothesis. The quite well sourced article even states that self censoring of media and freedom of press are contradictory. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the arguments against amount to censorship. It is not the only image on Commons that I find disturbing, but that is not a reason for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk16:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image restored on COM:SCOPE basis 2011-05-08. No consensus to deny this restore operation between 2011-05-08 and 2011-05-14. No more discussion on the topic for one week. --Dereckson (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yes, with a piece of art on it. You know well that it's the artwork that's the problem, not the building. I'm open to arguments that the artwork is de minimis or some other explanation, but you do actually have to provide something to go on. Powers (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looked similar to [8] or many recent images of the building as there is an ad space located in the center of its main facade. -- Docu at21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the photo looked like, but if it's only the poster, i could make an edit to remove the poster if needed, as suggested in the DR. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of any interest, I have created a blank canvas version of this one, if the page is restored (without image) I will upload it, or email me if you want a copy. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above. These are images of the same building. It is clearly within Jim's capacity as an administrator to apply this sort of discretion to delete. -FASTILY(TALK)22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question If I upload a new version with the artwork blanked, or replaced with a simulated piece of artwork, would that satisfy everyone? --Tony Wills (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I had written in the DR (but got no response): "I can retouch the image to blank the canvas if there is agreement that the original version is not allowed." Yes I think a blanking would be best. Of course it should not be a 100% white. ;) It needs to be the color of the canvas.
The ad is already hardly recognizable (at least Saibo didn't recognize the Dutch queen), so there isn't really much us in blanking a part that is secondary. The problem with blanking is that it destroys the photograph for an practical use. -- Docu at04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think blanking the canvas will 'destroy the photograph'. I have forwarded a copy of a carefully edited version, that just looks like there is a blank canvas awaiting a new advert, to the deleting admin and asked for the undeletion request be closed. I you want to see what I propose, email me. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the the artwork is de-minimis as it is so faint and washed out, but I couldn't find any other copies of that artwork to compare, so maybe that is what it really looked like, all the other images of the museum depict Escher artwork, maybe the author of this photograph actually substituted that image (his full size version on flickr is a PNG), might conceivably be his original artwork ....?. I have uploaded an edited version as File:Escher_museum-edit.jpg, so that there is something to use while this undeletion is considered. The canvas might look very white, but it is the exact colour (cloned) of the original canvas (compare [9] or [10]) and is as the museum would look with a clean advertising banner awaiting a new image. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually better than I had thought. The problem is that it's still an edited photograph. I suppose we could have both the edited and the original version. -- Docu at08:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion of all. It doesn't matter if the artwork makes the building look better. The Louvre Pyramid, some may argue, makes the Louvre Palace look better, but it is allowed because its inclusion is unavoidable unless you cut out a whole piece of it and not show the building as it occurs naturally. DM is designed to allow such accidental use. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Day and Night which was the resaon why the image was deleted is PD as it is located in a public area of Schiphol Airport (wing H I believe).--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork in question in this undeletion request is not Day and Night, it was a portrait of Beatrix of the Netherlands (the deleted photo is still available at flickr: [11]). Anyway one can't put something in the public domain simply displaying it in a public place in a country with FOP. Trycatch (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The image is still copyrighted. But it is DM because there is no way of taking a picture of the whole building unless you include the image. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Particularly if the portrait is as faded as in the Flickr photo. It is a photo of the entire building, not mainly of the portrait itself (especially as the portrait is virtually blanked out anyways). The Louvre pyramid case is pretty much the same -- taking a picture of the entire square is fine, even if the pyramid is in the center, as there is no way to avoid it. There was another French case a while ago -- a photo of the street the Tour Montparnasse was on, which happened to include that building, was ruled to not be a derivative work. As long as the advertising or portrait is not really the point of the photo (and given the fadedness this one is definitely not), I think these should be fine. The only other situation maybe would be if the portrait was being used by the museum without permission or something like that, which isn't too likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks pretty much like a de minimis case, the (faded) portrait of the Queen seems to be there by causality, rather than being the subject of the photo itself (building and immediate surroundings).DarwinAhoy!14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been deleted yet, so no need to ask here. Also, it has an explicit copyright credited to "FRANCIAGE", so you need to be a representative of that company (or whatever the name refers to) in order to be able to give permission in the first place. It appears to be a screenshot of a flash app seen on igou.cn, for example here... just so you're aware, making the screenshot does not make you the copyright owner; you must have been the one to actually draw the images in question. Anyways, if the OTRS checks out, then it will be cleared up, if not, then it will be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though I had initially deleted it, I agree to undeletion to allow for discussion of all 3 related images. --Túrelio (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I see now. The confusion came because File:Sari-and-Mundu.png is a collage and did not give credit to either of the images that make it up.
I am not a particular fan of collages -- you can simply set the two images together on the page if required, so, in my view, they are a waste of time and space.
However, we do permit them -- if you want to recreate this one, go ahead. Be sure to credit both of the constituent images. The licenses on the two parts are the same, so there is not problem there.
Oppose I do not support simply undeleting this one because its history and attributions are messy and best left behind -- since both of the parts are available on Commons, start with a clean slate rather than carrying the messy history forward. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that cleaning the page after undeletion is much more easier than making the same image again and then uploading it. The page contents will obviously look the same, so why duplicating the file in the database? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its better to re-create with correct orientation and license tag with attributions...or can be undeleted if all the informations are available in the picture page......Captain......Tälk tö me..04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Both pictures and the collage were created by the same user, w:User:Kjrajesh. There is nothing to fix, the original attribution and license tag were correct. So if Sreejith K thinks this collage could be useful, I've undeleted this picture to avoid further mess and further waste of space & time. Trycatch (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Support. Not much purpose served in deleting this at all, let alone against consensus. If I'd seen it at the time, I would've voted keep. It's not like there is some ulterior motive to the picture. Wknight94talk20:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, the closing Admin is not required to consider the number of comments on each side of the debate -- the comments are there only to inform his or her decision. Closing Admins are required to apply their knowledge of policy and law to each decision.
Second, the comments were tied at two each (nominator and closer on one side, uploader plus one other on the other side). If you discount the uploader as naturally biased, the comments were two to one.
Third, any photo has something it can illustrate. If you point a camera down, no matter where you are, and push the button, you will get a picture that will illustrate "earth", "paving", "floor covering", or something similar. That does not mean we need to keep the result.
Lastly, "There are limits to our willingness" referred not to the comments in the DR, but to Commons. While I probably should have said "There are limits to Commons' willingness", accusing me of "false comments" is out of line. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, in case of file which is OK by copyright and does not contain any child porn or something like that, the admin should not ignore the voice of the community and arguments that users write. The question was whether the file is out of scope or not. There were two reasoned votes why it is not out of scope, one unreasoned and very generally worded nomination. Jameslwoodward deleted the file with meaningless phrase about limits to his willingness.
Second, the uploader is naturally biased like every other editor. We have no rule why somebody should discount the uploader or that his/her arguments are less valuable.
Third, the world around us is beautiful and interesting. You did not explained why photos of floor covering should be excluded from Commons. 94.199.40.135 is right.
Lastly, you falsely wrote about our willingness. In this case it was not about limits to our willingness or limits to Commons' willingness but about your personal limits. You should wrote concrete reason why you want to delete this file not hollow and vague phrase like you wrote. --Dezidor (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The four proposer's reasons were: 1) Personal image 2) no encyclopedic value 3) no notability 4) no use. The first reason was disproved, the second and third reason were opposed and disproved, the fourth reason cannot be the sole argument for deletion and therewithal, the photo was used (in two relevant categories).
Above all, if the admin had read and not ignored the filename, the description, the discussion and watch the photo, he cannot omit, that the point of the image is not the pavement or the floor but the "umazané dítě" (= the soiled child), more precisely - his soiled clothing. Thus, the main discussion is about the question, if a soiling (pollution) of the clothing is a relevant and important theme and if the image can be usable to illustrate them. I reply "yes" to both these questions (dirty clothing is the main subject of laundry industry), the closing admin repeatedly and impenitently ignored both these questions and didn't consider them. --ŠJů (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with arguments written by ŠJů and Dezidor in original request. "Paving", "floor covering" Category:Floors... can be also subjects of photos with educational value. That photo was exactly the same case as File:Longboots1.jpg. The only difference is that one is currently used by many projects and the other one is potentially usable in a similar way. --94.199.40.13512:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No single valid reasoned vote for deletion was written. Claims about personal willingness of one admin or unjustified claims like "out of scope" can not be taken seriously. Some people speculate like "no foreseeable use". I can give you practical evidence. Undelete this file, I will crop it and if it won't be used after three months by some Wikimedia projects you can delete it. --Dezidor (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I'm extremely skeptical that this low-quality image has any conceivable educational use, but if Dezidor wants to use it on a real project (and there is no clearly superiour alternative) then we should let them. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The educational purpose has not been demonstrated. If you like to upload personal photos, go to FlickR. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just looked at a cached version of this image. What is damn reason to delete it? It was used, it was in Scope and no one explained a valid deletion reason. Im getting a little pissed here. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係07:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same. I am always amazed at the contempt this project shows to long-term good-faith users. And we wonder why so many Wikipedias hate Commons... Wknight94talk10:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dezidor, if you accuse me of lying again, I will ask my colleagues to block you. I may disagree with you. I may be wrong. I may be misinterpreting Commons' policy. But I am not a liar. Accusing me of lying is a serious violation of our policy. I cut you a little slack the first time you did it because I know that English is not your first language. But you should know that "false" and "falsely" apply to lying. If you want to say that I am incorrect, then use words that are not accusatory.
As for my "point the camera down" example, Yikrazuul's blue sky example is better. We can put a category on any image. The fact that an image has an applicable category does not make it within scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to debate the topic that attracts attention on something different than undeletion. I used words false and falsely in the meaning that also Wiktionary explains them = Untrue, not factual, factually incorrect / Based on factually incorrect premises. [12][13] I don´t think that you are liar but I think that you deleted the file with vague phrase, without any factual reasoning (no one explained a valid deletion reason) and you incorrectly identified your personal opinion as consenual limits to Commons' willingness. --Dezidor (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To best undestand the scope issue, Dezidor, could you list the articles you wish to use the images on, and the caption you'll apply? --Dereckson (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my oppose above. I still think it is a picture that is poorly laid out and not a good illustration of anything, but it is not worth this level of discussion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your re-reflection. Btw., nobody impugned that there may exist many better photos covering this theme. One of my 3 arguments in the discussion (all ignored by you originally) was "there are not many better photos of dirty clothing on Commons". I noticed that you are clear-cup deletionist - it would be OK if you will be considering also arguments of others. --ŠJů (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image can also ilustrate a disavantage of white clothing in some article about clothing colours or about laundry, or typical themes of child care (small children are often falling and soiled) etc. Usabilities of the image are not difficult to discover and understand. --ŠJů (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think when deleting images for other than copyvio reasons we have to consider what is the advantage given to this project, or other wiki[p/m]edia projects, by hiding the image (given that no space is recovered etc, 'hiding' is all that a 'deletion' really entails). One principle might be that we don't want to bring the project into disrepute (good rationale for getting rid of excessive porn and really low technical quality images), another might be that we don't want to encourage 1000's of similar uploads of marginally useful images (eg you might want to dissuade people from uploading type faces, if you allow the letter 'A' in a particular font, then another 25 are sure to follow and you might not want to be a repository for fonts). I tend to take the view that if it is a good quality image and properly licensed and there is no compelling reason to delete it, then there is no harm in keeping it. Also remember that illustrations don't have to be boring to be illustrative, a photo of a small kid in front of a safety fence is more interesting than just a photo of the fence, even if all you are illustrating is the fence. Similarly a photo of a small kid with dirty clothes is much more interesting than a pile of dirty washing :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. Particularly for good long-term users. Someone with hundreds - or in Dezidor's case, thousands - of good uploads should be afforded some extra leeway. Wknight94talk15:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With several established users saying a non-controversial non-personal photo is usable, I cannot see how it would be out of scope. --LPfi (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done per above. It was demonstrated that there is some potential use of the picture. Personally I doubt if the picture in question is in scope and I don't think it has a good quality, but opinions of administrators don't have more weight than opinions of non-admins. There is no better way to piss off users than to ignore their opinions and delete their contributions, so I think that at the very least this image deserve a full-fledged DR. --Trycatch (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file (which had been in use on many wikis, including the English article "Homosexuality") was speedy deleted at 03:36 20 Jul 2010 by Nuclear Warfare. The reason given was "Living persons global foundation policy violation: No evidence that the two are gay." The photo was innocuous--two men, fully clothed, standing close together against a green screen. The file's title--and the photo itself--is unambiguous, so I don't understand the rationale behind this deletion since there was apparently no request to delete by the uploader or either of the subjects in the photograph. I left a note on the admin's talk page, but since then he has opened a doppelganger account and I can't find my request (which was only made about 36 hours ago). Therefore, I'm requesting here that this file be undeleted and restored to the wikis in which it appeared. Wi2g (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand why it should have been considered for deletion at all; it doesn't seem to fit any of the deletion-policy criteria. Wi2g (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it remains unclear whether the couple consented to the publication of this photograph, this is a possible violation of COM:PEOPLE as this has been photographed in a private setting and the two persons can be identified. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFBorchert's point here seems reasonable to me. The people are very clearly identifiable - I'd be happy if explicit permission were granted via OTRS I think. --Herbytalk thyme17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that homosexuality has various degrees of negative complications in some parts of the world, which ranges from disapproval to the death penalty. Therefore identifying these men as a gay couple is potentially problematic for them. It falls in the same general category as recent discussions of images that labeled a woman as a prostitute, a man as an alcoholic, and a family as immigrants. It is one thing for a gay couple to be together in public; it is a very different thing for them to be an example in the WP:EN article Homosexuality. Unless we are very sure that these men are willing to have their picture used there and all the other places it may be used, we should not keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the educational value of such a photograph is to have examples of gay couples, then a simple search will find alternative copyright free alternatives, several already on Commons. This particular image could be kept on Commons without any issue if there is a verifiable release. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be much clearer instructions on this matter. To upload such an image one should clearly have consent from the persons. The uploader knows this if he or she has read our policies. But I have not heard that one must state that consent explicitly. In the discussions about COM:SEX such a requirement was received as very controversial.
The least one could ask is that the uploader be contacted.
My read was that there was a clear consensus for that aspect of COM:SEX, even in the final vote. The two things that got controversial were scope-speedy and US-law. You're right that contact with the uploader may fix this whole thing if anyone gets around to doing it. --99of9 (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support undeletion if the uploader could supply information to address the COM:PEOPLE guideline (regardless of the presumed sexuality of the people in the photograph). The main reason that this photograph would attract attention against these guidelines is the word "gay" in the file-name which could easily be fixed by renaming the file. --Fæ (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered how problematic the filename was, and renaming it seems like the simplest fix. I'd be happy to contact the uploader, but don't remember who he or she is and don't know how to access that information. Can anyone help? Wi2g (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we cannot trust neither good faith nor knowledge about our policies when somebody is uploading only one, problematic, image. If the photo was taken in a private setting, where the persons could expect privacy, and they show something they wouldn't show in public, then we cannot host it. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can not mark two identifiable persons as gay if we are in doubt if they agree with putting their face up in Wikipedia. Since it is a single upload and the consent is not explicit given, I am against undeletion in this case.
I was the closing Admin. My comment was, "This is very nice work, but I doubt that the base map was self made and no source is given." I don't think that any of us can seriously believe that our uploader drew the base map used here -- it is a complex, detailed map of the counties of Poland. The uploader did not give any source. There are some things that don't need discussion and it seemed to me that this was one of them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if you had raised the issue in a manner where it could have been discussed, instead of adding it in the last minute in a way which made your comments unanswerable and undiscussable on the deletion nomination page... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, but please consider that Commons Admins make about 1,000 administrative actions every day. Seven of us do half of those and we have a backlog which is not shrinking. Please understand that while my active colleagues and I mostly try very hard to avoid upsetting people, we also, of necessity, work very fast.
It is very hard to determine which actions will upset someone, requiring further discussion, and which can simply be done without further discussion. Since this one appeared obvious, I deleted it and left a short explanation. I'm sorry that upset you.
And, by the way, you've been around a long time, have over 70,000 global edits and 30,000 on Commons including 1,800 in Commons: space, and seem to be reasonably easy to get along with -- why not run for Admin yourself? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm really not always patient when I feel people are belaboring phoney or irrelevant issues, and in the past I've been outspoken in pointing out that Wikimedia Commons has something of a "Jewish problem", while some people who have much more privileges here than I do have been very insistent in claiming that Commons has no Jewish problem, so that I feel no particular motivation to nominate myself for any upgrade in privileges... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of good PD sources for maps, or even tools like GMT which generate them, and often people don't think about mentioning them as sources. Is there something to suggest that the map background was copied from somewhere else? "own work" is a source, technically, and we normally prefer to actually find a source version they are infringing rather than just assume it. I can't see the image in question, to see if it looks like a scan or not... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying map contains a lot of boundary data, but it's really not visually very fancy -- first-order administrative subdivisions are demarcated by contrasting plain solid colors, second-order administrative subdivisions are divided by thick white lines, while borders of third-order administrative subdivisions are shown by thin light color lines (and are not relevant, since the map shows the various coats of arms of the second-order administrative subdivisions). It doesn't scream "product of commercial mapping company" to me... I have the file on my hard drive, and could e-mail you a derived JPEG so you could judge for yourself (the original 5-megabyte PNG is a little unwieldly for my e-mail setup). AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion will be easier if both of you can see the map, I have undeleted it for now. Please note that I still believe it should be deleted at the close of this discussion -- I've done this only for ease of intelligent discussion.
@Carl, that's all true, but almost all base map sources require attribution. My guess is that it is not a scan, but a digital version grabbed from somewhere. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same base map. The two images are also done by the same author, so it would appear that person has a vector source map which they use for various purposes. I think I'd support undeletion here... we usually want a source for the map *data* if that type of thing is relevant (sometimes that can be copyrighted), but when it comes to the map itself, the copyright is on the design. Borders are largely common property, so short of evidence of direct copying from a known copyrighted source, I would tend to avoid deletion. While it's possible the user has access to non-free vector map outlines, I think it's unlikely -- better to assume good faith here. The majority of the work does appear to be the uploader's. I would prefer to know where the outline data came from, of course, but the user is claiming that all copyrightable elements here are his own work (or PD), and I can't find a good reason to doubt that. The user appears to have been doing them for years (see pl:User:Qqerim/mapy) and those mostly look to be generated from vector sources. SupportCarl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This pic is of the second hatbadge (of 5) worn by RCEME personnell. I am the National Secretary of the RCEME Assn. of Canada & am authorized to use any pictures from our website. http://rceme.com/badges and the main website http://rceme.com/ where you will find me under the contact link. Hope this proves satisfactory and that you will undelete this image. Thank you.
It also says "Not to be used for commercial purposes", which means we can't use them. We need specific and unambiguous permission from the rights holder to use them in any way for any purpose. Powers (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, your company thinks different regarding the freedom of this files. Quote from the website: These images are free to copy by members for individual or public use. Not to be used for commercial purposes. Thats not free. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The underlying image in File:Osama bin Laden (CIA photo).png is, apparently, the subject of several other ongoing deletion attempts 1, 2. Like this speedy deletion the other deletion attempts are all based on the false premise that photo image republishing services never add public domain images to their libraries, and that if an image is available from their library it is a proprietary image and that the service owns the intellectual property rights to that image.
The deleting administrator apparently thought the image was a copyright violation because they saw an instance where the image was credited to the Associated Press. However, this widely republished image is also credited to at least four other image republishing services, Reuters, GETTY,AFP wire service, SCANPIX. As I noted in the village pump, wire services add images to their libraries from several sources, including new images taken by their employees, images purchased from freelance photographers, and images released into the public domain.
I urge administrators considering exercising their discretion to speedy delete material that looks like a copyright violation to see this as a cautionary counter-example, and to show more caution. Geo Swan (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where I can read more about these GETTY lawsuits?
How often do these GETTY lawsuits fail?
Has GETTY ever threatened to sue the WMF?
With regard to this particular image, did you give any thought to my suggestion that being credited to at least five different photo republishing services is sufficient proof that an image is in the public domain, as, otherwise, it would only be offered by a single service? Geo Swan (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it seems you didn't get my comment at all. I was actually with you, but tried to offer an insight/understanding to the problem admins are facing in such a situation. Now I will not put any more effort in this thread. Just that, 1) you know how to use Google and 2) my concern is not about the WMF, but about our re-users. To get an idea, € 10,000 (=US-$ 13,900) for 6 unlicensed images from Getty. Feel free to ignore my comments as they only refer to the last sentence of your initial posting, not to the undel req. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Difficult, but there's not really anyway to bypass having to prove that they are public domain. There are many photos that we don't accept which are very likely to be public domain due to apparent age, but we can't use because we can't show when they were first published and/or who the photographer is. Who do we suspect the photographer is, where do we suspect the images came from? If we suspect it is a US Govt source then surely the images are available from that source direct? How does an agency get to hold copyright, do they not need to show who the photographer is, and hold some sort of transfer agreement? Isn't it about time these agencies were taken to task for copy-fraud if it is a common occurrence with these agencies? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legal requirement to identify public domain works as such. There is only a prohibition against attaching a fraudulent copyright notice to any work, including public domain works. Photo agencies typically do not actually attach copyright notices to public domain works. In the case of Getty Images, they watermark images with their logotype (not the same as a copyright notice), label them as "rights-managed" (not the same as copyrighted), offer them under a license with an indemnification clause (not a pure copyright license), and insist on "credit" (not the same as a copyright notice) being given to Getty. News organizations use them as a source, probably for the convenience of having a central repository and for the indemnification. In order to gain these benefits, the news organizations have to pay the fees and comply with Getty's other requirements, including crediting them as the immediate source. Nothing in this procedure actually constitutes copyfraud, although it certainly appears to be deliberately designed to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in anyone wishing to use genuine public domain works without going through an agency.
With respect to this specific image, a likely course of events is that the photo agencies collected a photo distributed by the CIA or other government agency. Given Osama bin Laden's situation for the last several years, it is likely that the photo was taken by an al-Qaeda member without the means or inclination to defend any copyright that they may hold. The CIA and the photo agencies may well be distributing the photo as if it were in the public domain, without regard to its actual copyright status, based on a simple risk-versus-benefit analysis, concluding that they are unlikely to be successfully sued. We do not allow ourselves that luxury. While it is quite clear that the photo agencies credited are not copyright holders, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the photograph is in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs)08:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW while OBL and other senior al Qaeda members are routinely identified as Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, they became Afghan citizens. So if this image was first published in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be {{PD-Afghanistan}}? Geo Swan (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- When I initiated this deletion review I thought the image had been deleted in response to a speedy tab, or on the sole authority of an administrator who felt authorized to do so on their sole authority. I learned later a full deletion discussion was initiated -- but was closed early, after just a day or so -- FWIW. Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. It does not matter how many agencies distribute the image, claiming credit for it and/or doing copyfraud. We certainly know that the photograph was not created by an U.S. federal Government employee (as claimed with {{PD-USGov}} on the file description) and that there is no other evidence that it is freely licensed or public domain. LX summarized it well. The same argumentation of this undeletion request - targeted on agency copyfraud - was already followd in Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBIS Report - Compilation of Usama Bin Ladin Statements 1994-2004.djvu which included exactly the same photo. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, please undelete this file that I as the author have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Take in consideration the discussion log with the recommendations to keep from more than one user of Wikimedia Commons:
I quote from the Wikimedia Commons guidelines for administrators:
"Instructions for administrators
Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for him or her if you want to, or leave it to him or her to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file."
I ask for a treatment of my work in a common sense guideline and what other websites may or may not be doing with this work doesn't change the fact that I am the author and that I have uploaded that work here with a proper licence given.
There is no question at all about the author (me) of this work. So please, consider following the common sense aproach and therefore proceed to undelete this my contribution to Wikimedia Commons.
Olympiahytta is shown on most maps in Norway and is a place of interest.
It once was a famous place where the Norwegian Olympic Committee had their national and international meetings in the 1960ties and 1970ties. A lot of Norwegian athletes used Olympiahytta as basis for training. Quite a few of them became gold medaillists in the Olympics. Hallgeir Brenden (se wikipedia) and his wife were hosts of Olympiahytta in this period.
I planned to make the appropriate references in the text later.
I have spent a lot of time to gather the history of Olympiahytta and I think this history should be saved and made available. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for this.
best regards
Hans Frisak
MSc.
This is Wikimedia Commons, a repository for media files. We do not host articles. You might want to create an article at Wikipedia. For more details, please read the message at your talk page. --rimshottalk06:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These pictures are taken of the Infecting the City public art festival held in Cape Town, South Africa. I asked permission of the Africa Centre to upload these files and Isla Haddow-Flood (Marketing and Communications Manager) send a permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Today I added the information required for the summary (including the source). I would like the deletion request to be withdraw. If not, I hope to receive feedback to make changes. Riannedac (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a tag {{OTRS pending}}. If I understand how it should be used, once someone authorized to release the photos from the Africa centre writes that email, you are authorized to place the tag on the image. There are two more tags members of the OTRS team use, one to confirm that the email from the photographer has been received, and the second to confirm that email from the photographer that fully satisfies our critieeria for inclusion has been received. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It appears to qualify for PD-Art -- there's no frame showing and it's old enough, but it's from the Tate. Question I have a vague memory that we have a problem with the Tate -- anyone?
The subject image is much redder than the one Túrelio cites -- but they are both 734x427 which can hardly be a coincidence. If we do undelete this, let's change the name -- we don't need two images whose name differs only by the capitalization of the file extension and a space before the hyphen. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. –Tryphon☂ 11:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Done by Adrignola. –Tryphon☂ 11:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support undeletion, or, if there's a legitimate concern about the validity of {{PD-CAGov}}, nominate it for deletion. But deleting this single image while keeping {{PD-CAGov}} doesn't make any sense. –Tryphon☂ 08:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The Tour Montparnasse is far from being just another office building. It is quite distinctive and emblematic, and I doubt a French court would deny it copyright protection. –Tryphon☂ 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment The deleting admin seems to have been convinced to revise his keeping decision by the argument that it would be "impossible to use the image within our projects". This is not right. Wolfgang Pehlemann fully accepts the indirect credit inside Wikimedia projects and integrates them himself as usual. --Martina talk 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
is PD-Text, then the cover should also go as PD-Text. Therefore, weak 
Info For all who push the "it is in scope"-buttom: Please provide us with some pictures of a rape or murder since it can be used for the corresponding articles.
Question If I upload a new version with the artwork blanked, or replaced with a simulated piece of artwork, would that satisfy everyone? --Tony Wills (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coital_Play.png){kind=link}
_in_SK.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_SDL.png){kind=link}
![[9]](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4GUN9HJVKg8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher_museum.jpg+File:Escher+museum.jpg&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&source=www.google.co.nz){kind=link}
![[10]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/31674375_376cc51c43_b.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-c.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
