Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2006-10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2006-10[edit]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Christina Aguilera pictures[edit]

These images was deleted by User:Darkone with the reason: copyvio, never pd; To me, the licenses seemed clear enough (although they weren't PD they were still free). They were used in a lot of projects and I don't think they should be speedy deleted like they were. I believe that at least some of those pics were free - although perhaps not all of them. Requesting admin-review please. --Lhademmor 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored them all, because from what I can tell they were not obvious copyright violations. / Fred Chess 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only Special:Undelete/Image:Olympia_Hall_-_Paris_-_17-07-06.jpg looks high-enough res to be plausibly self-made. The others are simply too low resolution to believe that they are not just grabbed off some random website. If the uploader can supply the original high resolution images, presumably with meta-data, then they can be undeleted.
It looks like there is already some discussion about this going on in Portugese. Hopefully some of those users will also comment. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AKAnimation.gif[edit]

This picture was declared as GFDL.--Sanandros 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link to prove that this image is released under GFDL. / Fred Chess 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telling us exactly what we could figure out by viewing the deleted edits is exactly unuseful. Please review the instructions above. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_creek_project[edit]

And can you rename it to Arcade Creek Project. It's our school local community project, It is for the IB school program. We are trying to let more people know of this.

No we can't because this is Wikimedia Commons, and the deleted article was located on English Wikipedia. Please go to en:Wikipedia:Deletion review to ask for undeletion on English Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TicketsWorldCup06.jpg[edit]

Image is constantly removed by some admin who obviously has no clue on the subject, and removes it without any valid reason, pushing his own POV... --LimoWreck 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This photo has previously been deleted in a normal deletion process. I can not find the deletion request at the moment, but if you know the filename I will find it for you. The tickets are copyright protected, and there is no reason why this photo should be allowed. / Fred Chess 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were deleted on one man's opinion (Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/08#Image:Ticketwc06.jpg), against the opinion of the majority. Moreover, a pile of objects can't ever be copyrighted. First of all, it's a picture of those objects, not a 1-on-1 representation of a piece of art. Moreover, computer printed ticket showing two teams names, a venue and an hour and date is hardly an "original creative work", so a bunch of them thrown certainly isn't... Intellectual property can be copyrighted, a picture like this can't... --LimoWreck 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that if I take a picture of one ticket, it is a copyright violation, but if I take a picture of two tickets, it is OK? It was decided, after almost two months, that these images can only be used to represent copyrighted items.
Secondly, if I had created something that looks like the ticket, and uploaded it to Wikipedia, I would proudly claim copyright of it. {{PD-ineligible}} is only for very trivial work such as triangles, muscial notes, etc.
Furthermore, I, pfctdayelise, A.J., and Snowdog wanted to delete. That is four people.
Finally, if you don't stop uploading this picture, you will be blocked.
Fred Chess 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, sadly, the advice that's spread on the NL-wiki among others seems right: "Don't upload picture on commons, but upload them on the different wikipedia projects, as commons seems to be ruled by a bunch of kids who have no clue whatsoever when it comes to the meaning and regulations on copyright". A picture not representing but containing non-creative work can never be claimed by the manufacturer of the objects shown on it; only by the author of the picture. (or we might nominate Image:Malmö, Kockums building sign.jpg as well...) Happy trolling anyway. --LimoWreck 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of Commons:Derivative works? Do you think we wrote that just for fun? Was it translated into German, French and Galego just to amuse ourselves? If you and your Dutch colleagues do not understand and/or respect copyright, so be it; but let it be known that Commons does. You are welcome to upload your files here once you respect our policies. / Fred Chess 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point and that one of user on Wikipedia projects: Still don't see any "derivative" of an original creative work of art... --LimoWreck 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Fred. You have not brought any new arguments to the discussion. Undeletion requests is not a place just to complain that it got deleted in the first place. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no-one brought any argument showing that this is a deriv. of original creative work of art... But, this discussion is pointless as admins are simply obsessed by their wrong interpretions, although being unable to show that each single ticket is a original artwork. Well, so be it--LimoWreck 16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limo: I admit that it is difficult to say what constitutes original artwork. This is a border case. In my, and most other people who voted, the tickets are artworks, which is why they were deleted. / Fred Chess 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LimoWreck, the tickets contain the following copyrighted components:

  • FIFA logo
  • World Cup 2006 logo
  • Artistic decorations and background

These are all creative works. The tickets are a derivative work of all of these elements and the image will remain deleted. Alphax (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2006-10&oldid=5961420"