Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 12

< May 11	May 13 >

May 12

File:Statue of kamikaze pilot.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of kamikaze pilot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence that the sculptor died before 1946 as required for {{PD-URAA}}. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:ErnestBethel.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ErnestBethel.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence that the copyright holder has donated this to the public domain. From 1905, so potentially PD because of age, but this depends on when it was first published. Obviously taken from some publication, but when was that publication published? Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Drago Kocakov autoportrait.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drago Kocakov autoportrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Original painting was created by a Croatian who died in 1977. His work was still under copyright on January 1, 1996, because Croatian copyright lasts for 50 years after death. ALH (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(The painting is dated 1942) ALH (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Croatia is actually 70pma not 50 - see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Dates_of_restoration_and_terms_of_protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronhjones (talk • contribs) 2013-05-14T20:57:00

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

EMC Cement Files

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Closing this mess / keep - a statement of permission has been received as OTRS ticket 2013051410005944. All involved are reminded to be civil and not bite inexperienced editors. We need to help those who have trouble navigating our processes, not make accusations. --B (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

File:CemPozz Production Flow.jpg: File:CemPozz Production Flow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a copy of a graphic that I had permission to crop and edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the photo as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki. Jono2013 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You previously wrote that "The major images on the page are from LTU." What did you mean with this? Which images are from LTU? Above you wrote that this is a derivative work of a file by Vladimir Ronin, so Vladimir Ronin needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let's clear this up right now. The MAJOR images to which I was referring in a HISTORICAL thread, are NOT these images. For godsake. I was referring to the images in the major pictorial insert --- NOT THESE --- which came from Ronin who is a professor at LTU, in the context not of justifying copyright but being "hands clean" that there was no COI. Will you please not mix apples with pears.

And where did I say I was the photographer. I said I was the copyright holder. Which I am. Do not misrepresent what I am prepared to state and attest. Nor misrepresent copyright law. Jono2013 (talk)

You wrote "Author: Jono2013" on the image page and now you are claiming that this is a hoax. In either case, Vladimir Ronin needs to contact OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) so that it can be verified whether the copyright indeed was transferred to you or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am and always was the author of the files. So where's the hoax? That applies to all seven of them. I have sent an email to Vladimir Ronin asking him to send an email confirming matters. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He has already been attacked this evening by a user who has nominate the entire page for deletion (the seond time in a little more than a week and despite the page's first nomation having been withdrawn).

So perhaps Professor Ronin will ask that the entire article should be deleted. And that no amount of self-righteousness or male fide conduct on the part of "wikipedian" permits the right to disparage his impeccable academic standing. TWENTY YEARS research, on the part of a Professor who gained his undergraduate qualifications in 1973. And, despite my working on it for a month. This issue about copyright is a mountain out of a molehill. You forget that for a serious scientific article, where COI can arise, and therefore the main academic behind it is having no input on the page, matters are nuanced. You have not answered how the COI aspect is to be handled in such respects. Rather, you are focusing on formalities which are confirmatory only of the de facto and de jure status quo. Namely, I hold the copyright in all 7 images on the page and consistent with that, as copyright holder, I amended and modified them as I deemed fit before upload, at all times consistent with the permissions granted.

Jono2013 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for discussing copyright issues, not COI issues. First you wrote that you were the author, then you wrote that Ronin was the author and now you are again writing that you are the author. Don't you realise what impression this gives, if you constantly change the source information for the images? How are you going to be believed that way? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org".Jono2013 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Från: Vladimir Ronin

Datum: 14 maj 2013 12:20:18 CEST

Till: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>

Ämne: Images on Energetically Modified Cement entry.

Dear Sirs:

It has been brought to my attention that a number of serious allegations have been made regarding usage of photos on the "Energetically Modified Cement" Wikipedia page. In order to close matters satisfactorily, I can confirm that I am the holder of the copyright of the source images set out in the article's page as of the May 13, 2013. There are seven (7) images on the page. With respect to each and every one of them, I confirm that I granted the originator of the page, the right to modify or amend them as he deemed fit for the purposes of the page. I also allowed the user to upload the files consistent with Wikipedia's usage policy and have no prohibition for other users to use any of the images, provided that such use is within Wikipedia's own rules.

I have seen the page and will not comment on its contents other than to state that the depictions are tasteful and the captions accurate. Beyond this, note that a purposeful decision was made that I would have no input on the page so that there was no possibility of any allegations of conflict of interest.

Let me be clear: I do not support the page, but I was, after persuasion and consideration, prepared to allow these pictures to be used, as I share the author's view that the EMC page substantially adds to the Wikipedia knowledge base in the material sciences subject. On this footing alone, did I grant my permission for the usage of the photos.

I now understand that the author of the page has had it alleged that he is both a "liar" and has committed a "fraudulent action" and a "hoax". This is disputed in its entirety. I am entirely satisfied that any upload was made in good faith, in reliance of the permissions I had granted, and upon a good faith interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is consistent with international copyright law.

I also understand that it has been alleged by a separate user that a stub article about me, has been written for reasons of "vanity". I find this allegation deeply disparaging and would ask that you contact me in the event any person ever makes any such allegation again. Like the main article, the said "stub" has been written without my input.

The EMC article was written from the "best intentions" perspective to increase Wikipedia's knowledge base in an area where it is very poor. EMC represents over 20 years of the highest academic rigor, and I will not easily allow it to be disparaged by those who have no knowledge. In this regard, I have already discussed with the author of the EMC page, that I, as a professor of material sciences, consider several of the "ancillary" pages concerning various "cementitous materials", to be inaccurate. The EMC page redresses this major imbalance and I cannot fault its accuracy or impartiality.

I trust this is to your satisfaction. I had no idea that goodwill intentions should cause the editor so much upset, nor then, cause me to be diverted from my work. I trust that those users who have impugned my name (which is impeccable) will be dealt with appropriately and look forward to your indication in such regards.

I am am concerned that the nominations for deletion of the EMC page twice in barely over a week (together with the "stub") have not been made in good faith but for spurious reasons, and maybe even unsubstantiated mischief.

I also ask that my contact details are removed.

Below you will find formal attestation

Kind regards

ATTESTATION

I hereby affirm that I, Vladimir Ronin, in respect of the following SEVEN (7) files, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the original images that were subsequently modified with my permission before upload to Wikipedia ("Work"):

1. File:EMC RILEM Beam.jpg

2. EMC CemPozz Sep 12.jpg

3. EMC CemPozz Feb 13.jpg

4. CemPozz Production Flow.jpg

5. EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg

6. Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png

7. EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg

I confirm that, to the extent required:

• I agree to publish that Work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)

• I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

• I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

• I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

• I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone (including any Wikipedia editor) who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

• I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the Work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Dr, Vladimir Ronin

COPYRIGHT HOLDER AS AFORESAID

13 MAY 2013

Can we merge these three discussions or something rather than having comments copied into three sprawling topics? For those with OTRS access looking at this, the ticket ID is 2013051410005944. For me: commons:Special:ListFiles/Jono2013, Special:ListFiles/Jono2013 --B (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg: File:EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a copy of a photo that I had permission to crop and edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the photo as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki. Jono2013 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You previously wrote that "The major images on the page are from LTU." What did you mean with this? Which images are from LTU? Above you wrote that this is a derivative work of a file by Vladimir Ronin, so Vladimir Ronin needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Also, if the image was made by Vladimir Ronin, then why did you write that you are the photographer when you uploaded it? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let's clear this up right now. The MAJOR images to which I was referring in a HISTORICAL thread, are NOT these images. For godsake. I was referring to the images in the major pictorial insert --- NOT THESE --- which came from Ronin who is a professor at LTU, in the context not of justifying copyright but being "hands clean" that there was no COI. Will you please not mix apples with pears.

And where did I say I was the photographer? I said I was the copyright holder. Which I am. Do not misrepresent what I am prepared to state and attest. Nor misrepresent copyright law. Jono2013 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Author: Jono2013" on the image page and now you are claiming that this is a hoax. In either case, Vladimir Ronin needs to contact OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) so that it can be verified whether the copyright indeed was transferred to you or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am and always was the author of the files. So where's the hoax? That applies to all seven of them. I have sent an email to Vladimir Ronin asking him to send an email confirming matters. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He has already been attacked this evening by a user who has nominated the entire page for deletion (the second time in a little more than a week and despite the page's first nomination having been withdrawn, and despite my being awarded a "barnstar" for it).

So perhaps Professor Ronin will ask that the entire article should be deleted. And that no amount of self-righteousness or male fide conduct on the part of "wikipedian" permits the right to disparage his impeccable academic standing. TWENTY YEARS research, on the part of a Professor who gained his undergraduate qualifications in 1973. And, despite my working on it for a month. This issue about copyright is a mountain out of a molehill. You forget that for a serious scientific article, where COI can arise, and therefore the main academic behind it is having no input on the page, matters are nuanced. You have not answered how the COI aspect is to be handled in such respects. Rather, you are focusing on formalities which are confirmatory only of the de facto and de jure status quo. Namely, I hold the copyright in all 7 images on the page and consistent with that, as copyright holder, I amended and modified them as I deemed fit before upload, at all times consistent with the permissions granted.

Jono2013 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for discussing copyright issues, not COI issues. First you wrote that you were the author, then you wrote that Ronin was the author and now you are again writing that you are the author. Don't you realise what impression this gives, if you constantly change the source information for the images? How are you going to be believed that way? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". Jono2013 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]