Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs

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

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

Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs[edit]

"peuvent être reproduites"—reproduction is not modification. The permission statement[1], if read correctly within its broader context, clearly allows only press use and no commercial and derivative use beyond that. Further, the words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found there; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation of that statement. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 05:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We need 20th century pictures. Kph 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is irrelevant whether we need them, that is only secondary, if at all. It is relevant only whether they are correctly licensed under a free license, compliant to commons licensing policy. This is not the case here. --Rtc 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We definitely need 20th century pictures, but only as long as they are freely licensed. Kjetil r 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - find a French admin, send a mail and ask for clarification. --Lhademmor 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please find a French admin, send a mail, and ask for clarification. But unless we have a free license, the template must be deleted. Kjetil r 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Les photographies de ces expositions sont libres de droit" means these photos are free of rights(ie copyleft). Raoulduke47 13:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Changed vote to Delete: commercial use is forbidden.Raoulduke47 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly your statement shows that "libres de droit" cannot be taken as a free license per se and is often understood in different meanings: copyleft is something entirely different. It contraints derivative works not to add additional restrictions to the license. CC-BY-NC-SA is well a copyleft license, but it doesn't permit commercial use and is thus not genuinely free. On the other hand, CC-BY is a non-copyleft, free license. If you understand "libres de droit" as copyleft and not as a free license, how do other people understand it? We cannot know without clarification. --Rtc 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "libres de droit" is not at all ambiguous. It is 100% clear that the images are free of all rights. Contrary to the nominator's statement, there is nothing at all that says anything about only allowing press use. I urge him to clarify what he means when he says that. Andrew Levine 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have now sent them an email asking for clarification. Kjetil r 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh? So it isn 't up to the users who want to keep anymore? I hope you're more coherent in your emails than in your atittude here, Kjetil, or they're not likely to understand you. Raoulduke47 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you refer to the fact that you have sent them an email? I have to admit that I didn't notice that when I sent mine. Kjetil r 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (by the way, I am a user who want to keep - but only as long as we get a free license)[reply]

* Keep -- "libres de droit" means "free of all rights", that is Public domain. Rama 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you are so sure about that, why not go ahead and check whether it's actually true, by sending them an email, telling them about the concerns and asking them for a comment? --Rtc 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to understand your logic. I am quite certain that the weak interaction involves exchanges of W and Z bosons, and I do not pester the CERN with mails asking for them to comment; actually, the more certain I am, the less likely I am to ask for comments. Rama 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Then your false understanding also applies to the realm of science. Scientific theories are not certain, and any belief that they are certain, or probable, or become more certain or more probable over time is ideological. In fact, the less certain a scientific theory is, the better it is, since it makes more precise predictions then. ("It will be raining sometime in the future" is almost certain – in contrast to "It will be raining tomorrow") Science works by inventing new theories and comparing them to existing theories by experiment and logical analysis, not by becoming less likely to ask reality for comments because we are more certain. My logic is that subjective certainity cannot in any way establish the truth of something, because truth is objective. If you are so certain about your claim, it should be no problem for you to expose it to a severe test if someone asks for it; a test that could show it to be wrong if it were wrong. If you are right, you have nothing to loose. I understand your logic, and it is certainly used a lot, but it is wrong. It is called irrationalism. --Rtc 10:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You fail to take into account that both in the "realm of science" and in everyday life, their is something called "time". Of which I have little to waste in pointless and pedantic quibbles. Rama 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Then cease them. --Rtc 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Weren't you writing e-mails to check whether electrons actually exist and what planet this is ? You might have been all wrong all along ! It could have changed in a heartbeat ! RUN ! Rama 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The existence of electrons and planets cannot be tested by writing emails. It is correct that I might have been wrong all along; and yes, it could have changed in a heartbeat. That doesn't mean that it actually will change in a heartbeat, though. Although there is no certainity involved in scientific theories, that does not mean that it is wrong to accept them as true. It also doesn't mean that I should run. --Rtc 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Andrew Levine. The statement "libres de droit" is here very clear. Svartkell 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite disagrees with Commons licence. --moyogo 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please compare the copyright notice of the Ministry's web site: Les reproductions à but commercial ou publicitaires ne seront, sauf exceptions, pas autorisées. which means "The reproduction for commercial purpose is apart from exceptions not allowed".--Wiggum 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. This text applies to everything but graphics, photos and videos. See the first lines of the section, they say "contact us". Moreover, the text on this page supersedes this general note. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete «toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite» : It's clear! no commercial use .--Cloclob € 14:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But not its modifications without its significate. Libertad y Saber 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Les photographies de ces expositions sont libres de droit à l'étranger". This means that the pictures are not "libres de droit" in France. Thus, they're not free enough. Dantadd✉ 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, this is because in French law, there is no such thing as "libre de droit": some author's rights ("droits moraux" - moral rights) are irrevocable and... perpetual (even beyond the 70 year limit), despite any contract (s)he may sign. Strictly speaking, this also means that artistical work by French people published on Commons will never be as free as the attached GFDL or CC license would claim it is. Another headache for the bold one. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the latest answer of the Ministry is accurate. I won't comment the policy itself, but I find it appalling that ministry employees should be so inconsistent and apparently ignorant of the meaning of what they write themselves. Rama 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my opinion too. This is a clear contradiciton with the "Libre de droits" sentence. I doubt the veracity of the answer given to Raoulduke47. It would be worth giving it another try by contacting directly the "service photographique du ministère des Affaires étrangères" (Foreign Affair Photograph Department). My 2 cents. — Xavier, 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the work of the US-Gov can be use for commercial use without restrictions?--Cloclob € 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant in this discussion. Siebrand 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, «toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite». See Commons:Licensing and our requirements. If you disagree with the deletion, please get a official permission with an explicit statement regarding the license, send it to OTRS and contact me. I’ll restore the photos in this case. You should do this before creating individual templates and uploading files anyway. --Polarlys 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs&oldid=13285509"