Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
wrong file up loaded Botanyict (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 18 November 2009 user:Túrelio deleted "File:Full cast.jpg" (Uploader request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full cast.jpg; uploaded only today, unused)
I suggest that all usages of this low quality image which failed flickrreview be replaced on wikipedia with this higher resolution image: File:Faro di Bari (Punta San Cataldo).jpg which Passed flickrreview. The original uploader was indefinitely banned for abusive behaviour and we cannot trust that he knew what license was acceptable here. Leoboudv (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
_______________
Deleted by user:Túrelio
This is a 'official Promo-Shot by Gernot Eder.' So Eder has the rights as the flickr source says. Not the uploader. The flickr license should be ARR. Leoboudv (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader on flickr is the band itself. This image is correctly licensed.
Keep. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Yes. I missed that the photo is from the band's own site and all their other images have non-Commercial restrictions. So, the band should hold the rights to their own images and can likely license them as they please. So, I withdraw my nomination. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Swiss military insignia, no source and no license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Image with no license since May 2007 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The uploader, Fleshgrinder, never typed in a {{Flickrreview}} when he first uploaded the image here to prove it was licensed freely. So, no flickr bot or Admin/trusted user checked its license. Today, the flickr license is 'All Rights Reserved.' Leoboudv (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't think we can assume it was ever freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The image was uploaded to en.wikipedia with no source and also under fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Low quality, out of project scope. Abujoy (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom and probable copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
2006 Bookcover with three photographs. Uploader is not writer of the book. The photographs look like they could be in the PD, but there is no indication of when they were taken. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete No reason to believe the uploader has the right to license this image. --Simonxag (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that all photos were taken by the uploader. Uses a probably unfree logo. Leyo 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to what the uploader claims, the source of this image states "Copyright 2009 Daimler AG. All Rights Reserved. The text, images, graphics, sound files, animation files, video files and their arrangement on Daimler Internet sites are all subject to Copyright and other intellectual property protection. These objects may not be copied for commercial use or distribution, nor may these objects be modified or reposted to other sites. Some Daimler Internet sites also contain material that is subject to the copyright rights of their providers." [1]--Midgrid (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
_____________________
Deleted/Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Non free image --Kanesue (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete File:Jeff Francoeur nym.jpg is Non Free Image [2]--Kanesue (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Non free image[3] --Kanesue (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete No camera data, web sized snap and similar image File:Jeff Francoeur nym.jpg has been found to be a copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: not realistically useful for educational purposes. Pruneautalk 12:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted statue. Where is this, maybe FOP applies? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at Jaden Stapor's images on Flickr, he may be the creator of the copyrighted content. Someone might want to get hold of him & sort this out (unless we simply know someone else created it).
- still would be a work for hire. --rtc (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW --rtc (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No treshold of originality.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? This is definitely copyrightable under US law and IMHO even under German law, where the threshold of originality is significantly lower than in the US. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but the guy probably voted because of the discussion on de:WP:UF#Bild aus Spiel --rtc (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? This is definitely copyrightable under US law and IMHO even under German law, where the threshold of originality is significantly lower than in the US. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The statue is, of course, copyrighted. --Gnom (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Spider pig (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:DW.--Trixt (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Borderline. It's an imaginably useful image regardless of whether it's subject is notable as an individual. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete screenshot - you can even see the lines on the full size version of the image. --Simonxag (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Borderline. Assuming it is accurately captioned, it is a photo of a violinmaker holding a violin. We'd certainly accept an image of this that was not present-day; why not allow this one? - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep useful image of violin maker with instrument. --Simonxag (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu doesnt allow any commercial use of logo [4] Justass (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- File:Ubuntu logo.svg is a derivative work of this image.
- They're talking about trademarks not about copyright. Can't find anything about the copyright of the logo though. Multichill (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
To sum up what I've learned so far on this issue:
On german Wikmipedia there was once the decision that this/those logos don't qualify for Copyright (or Urheberrecht) because of lack of originality. So from that point of view we should/could tag them as {{PD-textlogo}} or something the like and be happy we can keep that stuff. (Has somebody got objections? - It's merely a intersected circle with three dots around it. Have we got a different situation with the Xubuntu hamster?)
However, a deletion request on that matter once had a different result...
All in all from what I've read I got the impression that in this specific case there is lots of uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Maybe we should give it a try and ask the maybe-copyright holder... (They also seem to be somewhat unclear in their statements on the usage of the trademarks.)
And there is an additional question arising from that:
There is a whole lot of files that are most likely to be in the same situation as this one:
- File:Goobuntu-icon-pd2.png, File:Helubuntu.svg, File:Gnubuntu logo.png, File:Mubuntu-Logo.png, File:NUbuntu-icon-pd2.png, File:Pentubuntu.svg, File:Pucbuntu.png, File:Quadrubuntu.png, File:Tribuntu logo.svg, File:Ubuntu logo copyleft_1.svg, File:Ubuntu sticker.png, File:Ubuntu-glossy-logo1.png, File:Ubuntu-icon-pd2.png, File:Ubuntu-sur.png, File:Ubuntu02.png, File:UbuntuEeeLogo.png, File:Gobuntu logo no text.png, File:Gobuntu logo.png, File:Gobuntu logo.svg, File:Lubuntu-icon.png, File:Edubuntu logo png.png, File:Edubuntu logo.svg, File:KubuntuCoF.svg, File:Kubuntu pd vector.svg, File:Kubuntu-icon-pd2.png, File:Ubuntu Studio-icon-pd2.png, File:Xubuntu-icon-pd2.png, File:XubuntuCoF.svg, and maybe also File:Ubuntucat deg.png, and maybe more files.
What about them? Is this indeed an all-or-nothing thing? (Why not? Objections?) Should we have deletion requests on these files too so users of these will notice this discussion here more easily...
Even if it is a clear thing for the stuff on above list - what about all those photos of CD covers, for example, that show prominent depictions of the logo? --Wondigoma (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There were same cases here and here, both resulting in deletion. Ubuntu logo is registered trademark by Canonical thus trademark policy covers logo usage too. Even if copyright law may cover logo as {{PD-textlogo}}, trademark law require trademark licence from Canonical, thus logo cant be called "free". Some Ubuntu representative stated in mailing list that logo is released under CC [5] (without mentioning particular license), but from no comercial usage statement, it most likely is covered by NC tag. As Wondigoma pointed, maybe it would be wise to contact Canonical directly as it seems they encourage such questions in doubtful situation [6] --Justass (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't forget we don't care about trademarks, we care about copyright. Multichill (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The image is part of the "ubuntu-artwork" package (or at least a 48x48 png version). The license in the package says "Unless otherwise indicated, artwork is available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license v3.0 or any later version." There was no indication that the logo wasn't cc-by-sa. Austin512 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't forget we don't care about trademarks, we care about copyright. Multichill (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. Not original enough for copyright protection, and we don't care about trademark restrictions; only re-users should be careful about those. –Tryphon☂ 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. No copyright protection since it is not complex enough (similar to ARD or Gamescom logo. Trademark is not an issue for us since there will be a trademark warning in place. --Neozoon (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: non-notable individual. This user's only contribution on Wikimedia projects. Pruneautalk 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.wervel.be uses these same images, and the one on commons is used to illustrate the work of this company. Their website doesn't say anything about licensing. As this is a composite of four international looking images, I doubt the uploader is the owner (although they could be connected to the company). ---- Deadstar (msg) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete User's only upload. Their name sugests a company connection, but we'll need OTRS confirmation. --Simonxag (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - no COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete but how about thousands of other images from former USSR --Justass (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the DR will make the contributor stop uploading this kind of images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- If so Delete. --Gaeser (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the website from where this picture was taken http://www.anp-archief.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=3228891&pos=1 "all rights have been reserved"
Click on "Auteursrechten", and a window appears saying "Copyright De auteursrechten op alle werken (tekst, afbeelding en audio-files) die toegankelijk zijn gemaakt via de website van ANP Historisch Archief berusten bij of worden beheerd door ANP Historisch Archief. Alle auteursrechten en databankrechten op de inhoud van deze website worden uitdrukkelijk voorbehouden", meaning that all copyrights have been reserved explicitely JdH (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as it's impossible to determine actual author it's hard to say for sure, but most likely photo in public domain. For license maybe it would be better to change it to {{Anonymous-EU}} --Justass (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- {{Anonymous-EU}} does not apply since copyright owner is known: the ANP Historisch Archief JdH (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Original author - person who pressed the button is unknown :) We only know copyright claims from ANP Historisch Archief, but it doesn't matter if image is in public domain --Justass (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The photographer was most likely an employee of the ANP (=Dutch news agency), and therefore copyrights resides with them JdH (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Original author - person who pressed the button is unknown :) We only know copyright claims from ANP Historisch Archief, but it doesn't matter if image is in public domain --Justass (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- {{Anonymous-EU}} does not apply since copyright owner is known: the ANP Historisch Archief JdH (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Exactly, and then Article 38 of the Dutch copyright law is in effect: "1. The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public. 2. The same shall apply to works of which a public institution, association, foundation or company is deemed the author, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as the author on or in copies of the work which have been communicated to the public." Hence 1900 + 70 = public domain. Tekstman (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have proof that the photographer wasn't mentioned when the picture was first published? Did you write to the ANP to ask them? Or do you have a copy of the original publication? JdH (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I found the original source (ANP is just a distributor) and changed the license accordingly. See the "credits"-section. "Fotograaf onbekend" is Dutch for "photographer unknown". Tekstman (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good try, but it doesn't work; all Spaarnestad says is that they have the picture in their collection, but they don't know where it came from. JdH (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true. They specify the collection as collectie Spaarnestad, that is "Fotoarchief...van de voormalige rooms-katholieke Drukkerij en Uitgeverij De Spaarnestad". Spaarnestadphoto bought a lot of collections in the pass of time and "Spaarnestad" is their root collection. This is the original source and they always state the photographer if known. Tekstman (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- The proper thing to do is write them and ask them what they know about copyrights JdH (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I doubt their expertise (and of the National Archives with which they have a joint venture) not one bit. Tekstman (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good try, but it doesn't work; all Spaarnestad says is that they have the picture in their collection, but they don't know where it came from. JdH (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I found the original source (ANP is just a distributor) and changed the license accordingly. See the "credits"-section. "Fotograaf onbekend" is Dutch for "photographer unknown". Tekstman (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have proof that the photographer wasn't mentioned when the picture was first published? Did you write to the ANP to ask them? Or do you have a copy of the original publication? JdH (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the image was initially uploaded with a valid and free license, the uploader added a {{Noncommercial}} restriction contradicting the licensing less than an hour after uploading it. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep licenses cannot be revoked, image was released under cc-by-sa 3.0 and should be kept like that --Justass (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not freely licensed. The license is effctively "CC-by-sa but no commercial use". The change was made shortly after the initial upload showing that this was in fact the real intention of the uploader. You can't enter into a legal agreement by mistake and the initial fully free license was clearly a mistake. --Simonxag (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. Powers (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ronald McDonald is main subject in image --Justass (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Could someone with some copyright expertise weigh in on this one? I'm not sure if Ronald McDonald is copyrighted—certainly trademarked, not sure about copyrighted—and while the balloon takes up a large portion of the image, the main subject seems to be the people struggling to control it. And it's an awfully good photo, I'd hate to lose it if we can justify it at all. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would think the balloon would be a copyrightable piece of work on its own part, regardless of whether the underlying character is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well. Powers (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would think the balloon would be a copyrightable piece of work on its own part, regardless of whether the underlying character is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The image uses a deprecated license. I also tried to look at the sources of the two images, but do not have admin rights on de and it wikipedias. There is also no mention of the author. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep image is used to illustrate some meeting of vietnamese community in Astrakhan [7] --Justass (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep used --Simonxag (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be original uploader own work. Original description says Leah performing live in 2008, but it does look like a publicity photograph or video clip to me though. --Klodl (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not even Ms. Dizon. She has been pregnant for most of the year and, I can tell by this photo, she ain't pregnant. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- My opinions are that she doesn't usually put on blonde wig and it doesn't show that the background is during concert. --Klodl (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete based on the exchange I had above. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Some of the original Wikipedia user's other uploads look very iffy. --Simonxag (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
All the flickrowners images appear to be copyrighted. Some are even from TV shows. So, its a copyright violation. Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete random image collection, very unlikely to be "own work" of flickr user --Justass (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- not exactly random, all the images are of a particular artist and some would be difficult to get without contact with that artist. But some have to be copyvios and so we can't be sure of the license for this one. --Simonxag (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of Project scope and bad quality file. --Asio 20:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) --Asio 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No hint at the author of the image, using deprecated license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the sense in which this is "own work". It looks like it incorporates graphics that would be copyright by Bacardi; it might even consist entirely of graphics that would be copyright by Bacardi. Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the description the author was living in 1940 and took this picture :-) --78.55.244.127 23:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The source is given as the Nazi propaganda Ministry in 1940. Even if the author were truly anonymous (and we don't know that) the image would still be in copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
dieses bild ist mein werk und ich möchte es aus privaten gründen gelöscht haben.danke Expert19612005 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
bitte löschen bild hat keine Lizenz Expert19612005 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(keine lizenz) --Expert19612005 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Expert19612005 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
falsche datei hochgeladen Expert19612005 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
falsche datei hochgeladen Expert19612005 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Files by Kamikuto
[edit]All files by Kamikuto seem to have been uploaded solely for the purpose of promoting his non-notable band. The article w:Kamikuto was deleted and the following images are out of scope:
- File:Kamikuto.jpg
- File:Kamikuto2.jpg
- File:Kamikuto3.jpg
- File:Kamikuto4.jpg
- File:Kamikuto5.jpg
- File:Kamikuto6.jpg
- File:Kamikuto7.jpg
I suggest we only keep File:Kamikuto1.jpg, which might be useful despite its low resolution as a picture of a guitar. This user has not made any other contributions on Wikimedia projects. -Pruneautalk 13:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete 7 unused personal images --Simonxag (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, except for File:Kamikuto1.jpg. Not outside of our project scope. –blurpeace (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
its too low in resolution Vs.subash (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader has requested deletion on same day as upload. We should treat upload as a mistake. --Simonxag (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
its too low in resolution --Vs.subash (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Photograph is owned by the Leeds Russian Archive at the University of Leeds. It is part of the Grand Duke Michael/Brasova Collection (MS.1393) donated to Leeds by Pauline Holdrup in 1987. --DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete No reason to assume this photo, taken in 1931 is PD. The 2 licenses given are a joke. --Simonxag (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Modern sculpture in the US - no FOP applies -- Deadstar (msg) 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The sculpture is by living artist Zurab Tsereteli and was a present from the Russian government, so it seems unlikely that the copyright belongs to the US government. --Simonxag (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no COM:FOP#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no US government copyright issue here. The original en:Wikipedia file was tagged {{PD-self|date=October 2007}} as uploader AdamFirst's own photograph which he released into the public domain. I updated the Commons tag with Template:PD-user-en accordingly (diff). Athaenara (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the problem lies with the artwork itself, not the photographer. Please see Commons:Derivative works. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The license is wrong, Google Text is not a free software. On the other hand, the content of this screenshot seems to lack any originality. Is it okay to keep with {{PD-ineligible}}? –Tryphon☂ 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ich komme nicht ganz nach weshalb Google Text & Tabellen keine freie Software sein soll!? Nun, wie dem auch sei - sollte die Lizenzierung tatsächlich so derart falsch sein kann man diese auch gerne ändern oder anpassen bzw. die Datei löschen. Beste Grüsse; --Domser (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- GoogleText mag zwar gratis sein - es ist aber nicht frei im Sinn von "freie Software" [8]. Das ist ein ganz wesentlicher Unterschied! -- 194.48.128.75 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Image from 1944, unknown author. Not PD-Old. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The poster in the background is non-free, the source on de.wp has been deleted due to copyright infringement. Berntie (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest we either pursue OTRS or re-upload with a Gaussian blur over the offending portion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, we could try OTRS. But since Ephesos didn't answer the notification, someone else has got to do it. I won't. Explaining the OTRS procedure, relevant copyright issues, etc. to people is too cumbersome for me, sorry. We have enough pictures of Strache. --Berntie (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that all these logos and designs can be considered de minimis. Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It looks as if the whole ticket is a piece of graphic design, not just a document that happens to have a corporate logo stuck in the corner. There is artwork covering the whole thing and this is at leats as important as the printed text. --Simonxag (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for now. Person has article in ru-wiki, which several people have edited. Uploaded own photo. Unless ru-wiki decides to delete the article, I see no reason to delete the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I must have overlooked that article. Tekstman (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, subject of the picture cannot be the copyright holder. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Banner in the center says "Freedom for Enco Segio", article for Enco Segio was deleted as a fake on de.wikipedia --83.77.16.196 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This building is a work of architecture, taken inside the building no COM:FOP sугсго 13:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The image is used to illustrate a licensing concept on de: wiki de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache, showing how it is possible to publish it under a free license. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- keep ich kann nichts schützenswertes entdecken. Nicht alles, was irgendein Architekt zusammengekritzelt hat, ist auch Kunst. Vor allem nicht in D, wo die Architekten ausdrücklich keine Künstler sind. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ralf, nur weil Du nie hwas vernünftiges gebaut hast, heisst das nicht, dass preisgekrönte Werke der Baukunst nicht geschützt wären.
- Syrcro, you are known for your rude manners on de-WP. However, there's no reason to continue your strange behaviour here. --Eva K. is evil 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The UrhG reads: § 3§ 2 Geschützte Werke : (1) Zu den geschützten Werken der Literatur, Wissenschaft und Kunst gehören insbesondere: [...]4. Werke der bildenden Künste einschließlich der Werke der Baukunst und der angewandten Kunst und Entwürfe solcher Werke; [...] In English: Article 2 Protected Works [...]4. works of fine art, including works of architecture and of applied art and plans for such works;. sугсго 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Du sagst es, Baukunst. Der Flugplatz ist kein Kunstwerk sondern schlicht Gebrauchsarchitektur. Du kannst auch schwerlich einschätzen, was ich gebaut habe und das tut hier auch nichts zur Sache. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Du weisst doch selber, dass die Rechtsprechung alles, was nicht reine technische Umsetzung von Notwendigkeiten ist, als Werk der Baukunst sieht. sугсго 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ja eben, ich sehe hier nichts weiter als technische Umsetzung. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Du weisst doch selber, dass die Rechtsprechung alles, was nicht reine technische Umsetzung von Notwendigkeiten ist, als Werk der Baukunst sieht. sугсго 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not primarily an image of architecture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nein, was ist denn dann das zentrale Motiv des Bildes, wenn nicht die Architektur der Halle. Die Luft in der Hall? sугсго 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Versuche doch hier nicht, den Leuten einzureden, daß in D das Fotografieren im Inneren von Gebäuden verboten sei und daß jeder Betonklotz ein Werk der Baukunst ist. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nein, was ist denn dann das zentrale Motiv des Bildes, wenn nicht die Architektur der Halle. Die Luft in der Hall? sугсго 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No artwork, no reason for deletion. RfD is just heckling. --Eva K. is evil 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- keep cannot confirm that a copyrighed thing is the main topic of the picture --FrobenChristoph (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, architectural work is not the main focus of the image. Kameraad Pjotr 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Permission given by Megan Robertson to User:PalawanOz on 22 Apr 2007 for the use of this image in Wikipedia articles" not enough for commons. Then it also has a GFDL as well as a PD-self license on it. The source website credits several contributers and does not have specific licensing. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, PD-geometry. Kameraad Pjotr 18:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
copyvio, see embedded url Tekstman (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment This user has uploaded 2 photos, both with the same watermark. Benedict from that webpage [9] looks rather similar to the uploader Bob Andrews [10]. --Simonxag (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
solved, domains deleted! benedict
Keep Benedict has contacted me to say that he owns both webites. I have asked him to email OTRS. --Simonxag (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
On hold Benedict has confirmed he owns the domains but requested a non-commercial license. I have advised him that Commons cannot accept items licensed in that manner and asked if he would like to have the image deleted or choose an allowable license. Shell babelfish 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Copyright holder has decided to release under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Shell babelfish 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS-permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a license tag (despite its appearance and categorization), and hardly useful. Instead, it's rather confusing: "This image comes from www.ngw.nl, but is scanned from another source." So it doesn't come from www.ngw.nl, and what do we care where it doesn't come from. It goes on saying one should specify the real source, which is always the case, no need of a special template for that. –Tryphon☂ 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Neither a license tag, nor a source tag. Could be misleading. Sv1xv (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep but change it to a source template and change the template to:
|
This image is available from Heraldry of the World website.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information. |
or something similar. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are right the statement "This image comes from www.ngw.nl" threw me off. Delete --Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are right the statement "This image comes from www.ngw.nl" threw me off.
- No, because this template actually says that the image is not from ngw.nl. It's not a source template, it's a non-source template; and we don't need that. –Tryphon☂ 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, for files coming from ngw.nl, a license/source template already exists: Template:NGW. –Tryphon☂ 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I created this template after some discussion a few years ago. There are two types of images on the Heraldry of the World site; the ones that I made myself and thus have copyrights; these are covered by the Template:NGW. However, there are also thousands of images that are scanned from books etc. Not always these are copyright free. I do not want to be held responsible for misues (as has happened) and the template basically thus is a warning to the uploader to use the proper reference (the book(s) given on the page on www.ngw.nl where the image is taken from. If you look at the images on wikipedia with the ngw2 template [[11]], you will see that only very few refer to the original source as should be. And there are thousands (really !) that are taken from my site, but where I never bothered to add the template/or have not yet found them. So what to do ? Mass delete all those as no proper source and no permission of the copyright holder (publisher of the book) has been given ? Or keep the ngw2 template ? Actually I don't care... as long as I am not held responsible for misuse. As an example see [[12]], there are many things lacking and the source is the book series of Stadler as shown here : [[13]]. If you want Commons to be clean, the image should be deleted or revised. And the publisher, Angelsachsen Verlag, should be asked for permission. In this case it is a German arms, where the use is Gemeinfrei (free of use), but that does not mean it is free of copyrights to the author....Knorrepoes (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we want Commons to be clean :-) There are cloudy cases though, like when countries say that coats of arms are not copyrightable. I think there are 600-700 images using this tag alone. First... is it easy to tell which images on your site were made by yourself, and which were scanned? If so, I would augment {{NGW}} to have a description of how to tell, as well as making better link to your site (probably best to have a box, which embeds the creative commons license template) -- and you may want to specify yourself as the author. That would let people know which items are freely licensed, and which ones can't be taken. As for these others... if you scanned them, as opposed to taking them from other websites, then I think having {{Ngw2}} as a source template may be the correct way. Even better if there could be a short argument which would then construct the full link to your website. It should not look like a license template though, and all images using it should need a separate copyright tag. It would be best if the place you scanned them from was documented, at least on your site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Carl, if you look at any page on my site you can see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It also syas "Use of the images in Wikipedia is allowed with reference to this site and/or the original source as mentioned on the site. Use template ngw for Dutch images and ngw2 for non-Dutch images and always add original source. It is not allowed to use texts of this site on Wikipedia without permission !". I think that already covers a lot of what you wanted. That nobody reads the disclaimer and/or does not pay attention to it when uploading is not my fault.... The original sources are listed on each page (unless I received the images by mail or similar, but 90% or so are known, that means over 40000). I have fixed url's, so iut is easy to make a proper page link. Of course feel free to rewrite the template to make it more clear. Nevertheless, there are thousands of coats of arms without proper license and a good cleanup is really needed...Knorrepoes (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- This disclaimer was added in 2008, before that there was a more general text, without mentioning the templates, and quite a few images on commons are pre-2008... still in most cases the original sources are not mentioned. And, whether or not the images are free of copyright (and there are discussions whether it means free of use, or free of copyright), the original source should be credited.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Few things there though... first, you are aware that your images licensed here can be used by anyone under the terms of the CC license, and is not limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, correct? If that is fine, then the NGW template should ideally mention that (and the conditions) explicitly, so that users can see the conditions required to re-use it directly on this site. Second, is there a way to tell for a particular image on your site if it was made by you versus being scanned? That way the template can have that information as well, so it is obvious if the template was used on an image where it was not supposed to be. Great that the sources are mentioned on your page; that means links to that page should be preserved, and is a good rationale for keeping Ngw2 as a source template only, since it sounds like you are the source of the digitized versions at least. Ideally, yes, the original source info should also be added, but keeping the link to your page means that others can add that info gradually. For images which you did not make, many of them will probably have to be deleted, unless they are very old representations, or there is indications that they are not eligible for copyright at all (few countries seem to do that). Making Ngw2 a source template will help start that process; it is not a valid copyright license as it stands, as only the actual authors can declare a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we want Commons to be clean :-) There are cloudy cases though, like when countries say that coats of arms are not copyrightable. I think there are 600-700 images using this tag alone. First... is it easy to tell which images on your site were made by yourself, and which were scanned? If so, I would augment {{NGW}} to have a description of how to tell, as well as making better link to your site (probably best to have a box, which embeds the creative commons license template) -- and you may want to specify yourself as the author. That would let people know which items are freely licensed, and which ones can't be taken. As for these others... if you scanned them, as opposed to taking them from other websites, then I think having {{Ngw2}} as a source template may be the correct way. Even better if there could be a short argument which would then construct the full link to your website. It should not look like a license template though, and all images using it should need a separate copyright tag. It would be best if the place you scanned them from was documented, at least on your site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just searched in commons on "www.ngw.nl" and got no less as 7000 hits, so the template(s) cover only a small part of what actually is taken from my site.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- To stop this discussion hopefully for ever, as per Commons:Coats_of_Arms ALL images with the ngw2 template should be listed for mass deletion as well as the other images taken from my site, with exception of those with the Template:NGW as I have the copyright there. As there are so many, this probably needs a robot to do so.Knorrepoes (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think I have all my own images properly tagged with {{Ngw}}.Knorrepoes (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought... I believe {{Ngw2}} can actually be a useful source template. One solution would be to do the same as that which was done for {{Vector-images.com}} i.e. require it to take a valid license template as a parameter. But then I'm not sure how effective the {{Vector-images.com}} transition was and how many copyvios are hidden by an erroneous/false parameter. /Lokal_Profil 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I cleaned out the category, all files still at commons are PD because of local laws regarding coats of arm. The template should be changed, imho, to something like "This image comes from ngw.nl, but was originally scanned from somewhere else. Unless that source is in the public domain, or the image is according to local laws in the public domain, this image will be deleted." Kameraad Pjotr 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The PD statements are not always correct, the Dutch one for example states that the images are not PD, unless you make them yourself. This is probaly true for more countries, but nobody actually reads it properly. Often the use is free, but there are still copyrights on the actual image. Knorrepoes (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The laws of some countries do appear to specify that copyright does not protect any versions of municipal or other governmental coats of arms... but yes, many don't, and treat each particular version as its own artistic work (the design is never copyrightable). If the Dutch tags are incorrect, that would be a separate deletion request though. But as long as there is a copyright tag other than this one on all images which use it, then it can be converted into a source tag. If any of the other tags turn out to be wrong, the images will be deleted at that point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The PD statements are not always correct, the Dutch one for example states that the images are not PD, unless you make them yourself. This is probaly true for more countries, but nobody actually reads it properly. Often the use is free, but there are still copyrights on the actual image. Knorrepoes (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Closed per Kameraad Pjotr & Jarekt. Template is only source template. Mass deletion look unnecessary, since the category seems rather clean, but any image w/o a proper license will obviously be deleted. --DieBuche (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
GPL screenshots
[edit]- File:Slide fgfs-screen-002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:F-14 Phanton Flying in Flightgear.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Those files are screenshots of a GPL program. However, they were not made by the uploader, but grabbed on a website (see the watermark). Several people think that the screenshots are automatically GPL. I disagree with that. My analysis is that the viral part of the GPL licence does not apply to the output of the program. What Commons:Screenshots tells us, in the principle, is that if a program is freely licensed (ex GPL), then their authors may not put restrictions over the content visible in a screenshot (at least, these restrictions would be at least as permissive as the license of the program), therefore is it safe for the creator of the screenshot to license the screenshot under the same license as the program. It does not mean that the output is automatically licensed in the same way, otherwise any gimp-generated image would be GPL, for instance. Therefore, if someone else has made the screenshot, they may have themselves put copyright-related restrictions over it ("all rights reserved" by default). This is why I think a permission from the website is needed in the case of these two pictures.
Comments are very welcome, especially from software licensing "experts"... --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- KeepI think there is some misunderstanding about software rendered output (in out case screenshots).
- First case when someone using freely licensed software, absolutely same as using proprietary software creates original artwork - soft is just a tool to implement persons ideas and newly created work is copyrighted by person due to its iniquity. In this case author is free to put any license on his work no matter what tools where used in process of creation.
- Secondary case is the visual output of software itself. Lets say for example Gimp, I think everyone agrees that of program itself isn't a unique artwork of person who pressed start button, it's is programicaly generated boxes and menus based on GPL licensed source code. So even if source code is changed to output different program graphical user interface source code and program itself is still licensed under same GPL license.
- To the point of discussed video game. When user starts the game (program) he doesn't create unique artwork, it is same boxes and menus just in shape of clouds and airplanes rendered by freely licensed source code from freely licensed graphic elements. Putting watermarks on any of these screenshot doesn't make person who screen captured the game a copyright holder (same as we use PG-old and don't acknowledge clams of some museums copyrights just because they do scan work). --Justass (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your last paragraph. The screenshot is not simply the mechanical output of the program, it results of a choice from the person taking it (framing, maybe maneuvering of the aircraft, point of view, etc). It is similar to the photographic rendering of a 3D work of art, not to the mechanical photographic reproduction of a 2D document, and I think copyright can be claimed on it. It is more or less the point of view of Prosfilaes right below. --Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- But from this logic it turns out that person who create any screenshot of any video game is copyright holder of image despite game creators legal claims and license terms appointed to game.I still think that a person who press PrintScreen button do zero original creativity, in technical terms screenshot is COM:DW of program output and it should be licensed under same license as program itself. --Justass (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the screenshot maker may (according to my reasoning, depending on an undefined creativity threshold) claim copyright over the screenshot. The point is that the creators of the videogame hold copyright over it too (as creators of the content of which the screenshot is a DW), which makes the screenshot non-free by default. It is only when the creators of the program release the game under a free licence that the screenshot taker can agree to the release on Commons. This is the whole point of Commons:Screenshots, I think. --Eusebius (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- But from this logic it turns out that person who create any screenshot of any video game is copyright holder of image despite game creators legal claims and license terms appointed to game.I still think that a person who press PrintScreen button do zero original creativity, in technical terms screenshot is COM:DW of program output and it should be licensed under same license as program itself. --Justass (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your last paragraph. The screenshot is not simply the mechanical output of the program, it results of a choice from the person taking it (framing, maybe maneuvering of the aircraft, point of view, etc). It is similar to the photographic rendering of a 3D work of art, not to the mechanical photographic reproduction of a 2D document, and I think copyright can be claimed on it. It is more or less the point of view of Prosfilaes right below. --Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If I were to go to an airport and take a photograph of the KLM on the tarmac, then I would have copyright, despite the fact that I didn't create the framework of the plane or the clouds, nor did I arrange where the plane was. In this case, they did place the plane where it is, which is a step more creative control then in real life. All the same creative choices are made in the game as would be in a real life photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It's clear that if the depicted software and its artwork were public domain, the work would be copyrighted. The central question here is whether the GPL compels the screenshotter to release it under the same license. I believe the answer is: this requires a complex legal analysis and we should not depend upon it being the case, particularly when the screenshot is easy to replace with one constructed by a Wikipedian. I would only make an exception for a screenshot of a program running on a "default" system in its "default" configuration, which has no creative contribution from the screenshotter. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I don't care about the licensing issues, it's the hideous watermark. You could make your own screenshots, or download non watermarked screenshots from their wiki[14] and if you'll note at the bottom of every page it says the content of the wiki is GPL. -Nard the Bard 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In this case I think. For drawings made in something like the Gimp, it would be completely different, as the creative content would not have anything to do with the Gimp software itself. However, here, the 3D models, some emblems on the skin, the scenery, etc. are all GPL'ed items. The person making the screenshot would probably have a derivative work since they do have a lot of control over the arrangement and "camera" angle, but unless they were the author of the plane models as well (which is possible but unlikely -- those could have a separate copyright and be distributed separately), I think it is still at best a derivative work and GPL is the only license permissible. Taking a photograph of real airplane has no correlation here; we routinely consider *models* of airplanes as copyrightable (and have deleted photos of models that the photographer assembled because we deem that a derivative work). Since I think it is a derivative work, the only way it could be distributed is with a GPL license. They can be used under fair use of course, but once distributed, then yes they are "compelled" to use GPL, since they have no other authority to publicly distribute a derivative work. However, they *should* be credited as the author, which I don't see on those -- the watermarks can be removed, so they should not be counted on. One complication may be if the planes or scenery models were made by third parties; those would not necessarily have to be GPL. I am presuming though that the "official" screenshots only use items provided with the main game. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can make and distribute derivative works with a fair use claim, and the essence of such a claim is that you don't have to obey the terms the copyright holder of the original would have you follow. Secondly, if these are the official screenshots, the GPL doesn't bind the copyright holder; do they have rights necessary to produce these works under non-GPL terms? Thirdly, if I make a derivative work of a GPL work, nothing compels me to release my work under the GPL; I will merely be in violation of the license, a state the author, and only the author, has a legal right to object to, and I believe that a court would be highly hesitant to compel me to force me to license my copyright in a free way, preferring monetary damages and cessation of infringing publication and distribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- All good points. One thing though; Flightgear appears to be a collaborative project where copyright is not assigned to a central authority -- which means that there is no one "owner" which can license things as they choose. So any derivative work would have to be GPL, I think. The fair use claim would be kinda interesting. But pretty odd for a fully GPL project (their wiki site has everything licensed as GPL, according to the page footer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also good points. I think what it really comes down to for me is that we have images with a large copyright watermark from a webpage with no clear free license listed, and we have a wiki right there that states the GPL, and has plenty of pictures without watermarks; and if that wasn't good enough, we can make our own easily enough. The closing administrator can understand that it's not a burn with fire delete, but I still think we'd be better off deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- All good points. One thing though; Flightgear appears to be a collaborative project where copyright is not assigned to a central authority -- which means that there is no one "owner" which can license things as they choose. So any derivative work would have to be GPL, I think. The fair use claim would be kinda interesting. But pretty odd for a fully GPL project (their wiki site has everything licensed as GPL, according to the page footer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can make and distribute derivative works with a fair use claim, and the essence of such a claim is that you don't have to obey the terms the copyright holder of the original would have you follow. Secondly, if these are the official screenshots, the GPL doesn't bind the copyright holder; do they have rights necessary to produce these works under non-GPL terms? Thirdly, if I make a derivative work of a GPL work, nothing compels me to release my work under the GPL; I will merely be in violation of the license, a state the author, and only the author, has a legal right to object to, and I believe that a court would be highly hesitant to compel me to force me to license my copyright in a free way, preferring monetary damages and cessation of infringing publication and distribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, they are GPL, as the program, but have a hideous watermark. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)