User talk:Ruthven

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


This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruthven.

This is the user talk page of Ruthven, where you can send messages and comments to Ruthven.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.


2005 - 2011
2012 - 2016
2017 (Gen - May)
2017 (Jun - Dec)
2018 (Jan - Jun)
2018 - 2019 (Jul - Apr)
2019 (May - Dec)
2020 - 2021
2022 -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FrancoiseHardy-1967-Venise-ReportagePhoto.png[edit]

Hello Ruthven,

Hélas, ça recommence. Il faudrait que les contributeurs se réfèrent attentivement aux critères PD-Italy avant de lancer des demande de suppression. Je vais encore devoir attendre une semaine, je présume... :( Merci beaucoup pour ton aide et ton implication dans Commons.

Belle journée à toi. Tisourcier (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tisourcier Bonjour ! Honnêtement je ne suis pas sûr de pouvoir trancher sur celle-là. C'est vrai que la photo ne présente pas de détails pouvant mettre en premier plan les capacités artistiques du photographe, mais elle a été réalisée sûrement dans le cadre d'un photobooth ; les lumières ne sont pas 100% naturelles, etc. Je préfère laisser la clôture de la discussion à quelqu’un d'autre. J'espère que tu comprendras. Ruthven (msg) 13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci. ;)
Au contraire, il s'agit bien d'un reportages d'actualité prises à la volée par un seul photographe et non d'un photo booth :
https://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/portrait-of-french-singer-and-actress-francoise-fotografie-di-cronaca/1181643440
https://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/portrait-of-french-singer-and-actress-francoise-fotografie-di-cronaca/1181643469
https://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/portrait-of-french-singer-and-actress-francoise-fotografie-di-cronaca/1181643444
https://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/portrait-of-french-singer-and-actress-francoise-fotografie-di-cronaca/1181643507
Je pense que Racconish qui a suivi la question avec feu Patrick Rogel pourra intervenir et clôre le sujet. Sinon, sur ce même principe il faudrait supprimer des centaines de photos qui correspondent aux mêmes critères et qui ont été déposés depuis des années, ce qui serait irrationnel et non conforme avec PD-Italy dont les critères ont été débattus et validés depuis longtemps. Tisourcier (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tisourcier J'ai lu la discussion dans la DR. En fait il y a eu des cas semblables dans le passé: les photos sont simples, n'ayant pas de détails "artistiques" ou créatifs. Ruthven (msg) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Ruthven,
Tu as raison effectivement, si on commençait à remettre en question ici ce que les tribunaux et les juges italiens ont déjà tranché depuis longtemps, il y aurait une multitude de photographies (sans parler des captures d'écran de films italiens !) qui seraient supprimées dans Commons. Bonne continuation. Tisourcier (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OBD o Attribution?[edit]

Ciao, scusa il disturbo, vorrei creare un'opera derivata da un'immagine presente sul sito del Ministero dell'Istruzione, ma ho qualche dubbio nell'interpretare la licenza. I testi sarebbero pubblicati sotto CC-BY-3.0-IT, mentre per le immagini potrebbe essere sola attribuzione? Altrimenti è Italy-CAD-OBD? Arrow303 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arrow303 No, le immagini appartengono ai proprietari dove specificato. Quindi, se è indicato un autore, devi chiedere la sua autorizzazione, altrimenti è in CC BY SA 3.0. Saluti Ruthven (msg) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nello specifico non è indicato alcun autore particolare, quindi devo rifarmi alla licenza generale. Il CC-BY-3.0-IT, però, mi pare di capire che si riferisce solo "ai testi pubblicati sul presente sito". Per le immagini c'è quel secondo paragrafo che non richiama la CC-BY, ma solo "ove non diversamente specificato, i contenuti di questo sito sono liberamente distribuibili e riutilizzabili, a patto che sia sempre citata la fonte e – ove possibile - riportato l'indirizzo web della pagina originale".
Sempre che non lo possiamo considerare PD-Chart visto il tipo di immagine. Grazie :) Arrow303 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arrow303 Si, ma quella definizione corrisponde alle condizioni della licenza CC BY. Suppongo quindi che intendessero quello. COmunque usando la licenza Creative Commons, non sbagli. Ruthven (msg) 06:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grazie mille del chiarimento, ho usato la CC-BY-3.0-IT. Un saluto! Arrow303 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but it is about a DR[edit]

Hi Ruthven, I don't really care about the files you kept. But TOOːSwitzerland says images are copyrighted "irrespective of their value or purpose". In my opinion one can't cite TOOːSwitzerland to keep an image because what is depicted is not deemed important enough as you did here. But if you can, I of course will adapt to that and try to evaluate a bit before nominating. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Paradise Chronicle, you fail to mention the first part of the phrase. Works must have individual character in order to be copyrightable. Here I don't think it's the case. Ruthven (msg) 12:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks then it seems I misunderstood. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seemed to me that any picture taken by an individual (or person) was copyrightable as the second part concerned the automatically (such as by surveillance cameras) created files. The photograph in question was taken by a person with a camera. The hut is on one of the highest mountains in the country, only to get there needs a lot of individual energy. So if that is not copyrightable, I'll adapt and nominate less for deletion until I believe I understand better.

ToO in Italy[edit]

I don't really feel debating the merits of you closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Terzo palazzo degli uffici ENI as keep because the building was supposedly below the threshold of originality, but I am interested in where you think the line is and if there's any legal cases or something I could read about so I can avoid nominating images that are below the threshold of originality in Italy for deletion again. I know the standard there is high, but I would have thought at least that building was unique to be copyrighted. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1 If you look at the pages on Commons about Italian ToO, they all say that the bar is very high (thus, the same applies to building, and any other artwork). In Italy there are no known jurisdiction about FoP violation. If you add this to several local laws or decrees that go in the direction of FoP, it makes a situation very close to Argentina, where FoP exists de facto. We had a discussion years ago, that ended up in Template:FoP-Italy, then deleted because it wasn't clear for all the possible images on Commons (in particular sculptures), and for those building who falls below COM:TOO, we already have regular evaluation mechanisms that are already functioning on Commons. Ruthven (msg) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sempre dubbi copyright....[edit]

Trovo File:Colonna, Vittoria – Rime, 1982 – BEIC 1789098.djvu, e mi domando: siamo a posto? è scansione di un testo pubblicato nel 1982, come siamo con il copyright USA? Ti domando perchè vedo che nella cronologia sei passato anche tu, il che mi tranquillizza, ma vorrei capire meglio il problema (che poi è presente in tutti i testi recenti della collana Scrittori d'Italia). Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 06:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alex brollo Per gli USA dipende da quando è stato pubblicato il lavoro. Una semplice riproduzione non comporta un nuovo copyright. Ruthven (msg) 08:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven Allora abbiamo un vasto problema, per tutti i testi di Scrittori d'Italia pubblicati dopo il 1923... :-( a cui chi ha caricato ha attribuito abusivamente il PD US dichiarando che la data di pubblicazione è 1923 o precedente. Uffa! Forse la cosa è stata tollerata... speriamo; io però non lavoro su quelli così recenti. Ho capito bene? Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alex brollo Non è più 1923 da anni! :) Si contano 95 anni dalla pubblicazione (negli USA), in genere. Va visto caso per caso, perché se il testo era nel pubblico dominio in Italia nel 1976, allora va bene per gli USA. Ruthven (msg) 09:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruthven&oldid=820357611"