Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for Paris.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Speedy delete According to written communication by Jean Jullien's via his agency garance:
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Peace for Paris.svg[edit]
The PD-textlogo license reads "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text." but this is not true for this image. 92.75.77.4 10:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It is the work of a designer and obviously not just some geometrical shapes. Additionally the uploaders of both of the versions didn't care to mention the original creator (I added him to the description of this file) and I cannot find a license given by himself anywhere on his own website or on twitter, where he published it last night. Maybe he would agree to a free license, but until now he did not. I like the image (though not the svg-Versions) and it would be a valuable addition to the articles, but we cannot just take it just because everybody else on social networks does. --Tsui (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- When we see the number of people who they use this logo on social networks and on Wikipedia, I think that maybe the author place it in the public domain if we ask him, like for the "Je suis Charlie" logo. --Tubezlob (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I also thought about contacting him, but right now, today, I did not want to bother him with licensing questions or the procedures of OTRS-tickets.
- Anyway - and provided he agrees with a free license - we should stick to his original and not convert a painted picture, clearly visible brush strokes, into a rather raw vector graphic. --Tsui (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that we would get any trobles because this logo was made for sharing. Otherwise we can work the logo out into a logo with simple geometric forms. --Wikiolo (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- We may also consider that the Eiffel Tower was constructed in 1889, and its shape (while not likely copyright able) would have been in public domain by this time, by any measure. The peace sign is public domain, these together, plus the nature of its being made for social media sharing, find this PD-textlogo license acceptable. Spartan7W (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that we would get any trobles because this logo was made for sharing. Otherwise we can work the logo out into a logo with simple geometric forms. --Wikiolo (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- When we see the number of people who they use this logo on social networks and on Wikipedia, I think that maybe the author place it in the public domain if we ask him, like for the "Je suis Charlie" logo. --Tubezlob (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Logo, récupération ignoble et possible plagiat (involontaire ?) du logo du club de football du Paris St Germain. --Guil2027 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Me too, I thought that we should directly contact the author, but it's too early: he might be experiencing heavy problems and painful emotions, we must use delicacy. Let's wait a few days on this rfd, please allow things to slow down a bit, and then we will ask. I believe middle of next week would be a good moment. In the meanwhile, I think that we can keep the file inside the articles: it already is a worldwide de facto PD, we can consider it as such unless we learn that it isn't; in this case it would be deleted with a click.
I cannot recognise any plagiarism from the PSG logo: different shapes, different concept. (C'est plutôt ce logo qui a plagié la Tour, quand on l'a dessiné) --g (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)- Keep : "Cette image n’est pas créditée,
[...]. Cette image appartient à tout le monde" --Thesupermat (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC) - Keep : With the citation of the author (Jean Jullien) that Thesupermat has found ("This image is not credited [...], it belongs to everybody). There's no doubt about that. --Tubezlob (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per Thesupermat Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Peace for Paris.svg[edit]
Invalid permission: "Cette image n’est pas créditée, a été parfois attribuée à d’autres, mais ce n’est pas grave. Cette image appartient à tout le monde" (tr: "The image isn't credited and is sometimes attributed to others, but it's not serious. This image belongs to everyone") is not an explicit release under a PD license. No OTRS process has been initiated. Consequentially, we neither have a permission or are actively seeking one. The image should be deleted or OTRS process started. Finnusertop (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think permission is necessary. A peace sign is in public domain, and the general shape of the Eiffel Tower cannot be copyrighted, these two together constitute an image which is below the threshold of originality for copyright protection. Spartan7W (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The author said that this image belongs to everybody. It means undoubtedly that this image is in the public domain. --Tubezlob (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep when the author tells you that it belongs to everybody, he is telling you who is the copyright owner. When he tells it to The Telegraph, he's quite clear:
«It wasn't a piece to promote myself, sell anything or get anything. It was meant to be used freely, to encourage peace in Paris and peace in general»
And when he tells it to Slate, the thing is even more clear:
«I just wanted something symbolic, something that everybody could understand easily, and everybody could share regardless of where they’re from and whether they’re a keen observer of illustration usually. I just wanted something universal. [...] It’s an image for everyone. It’s not my image—it’s not a piece of work that I’m proud of or anything—I didn’t create it to get credit or benefit from it. I just wanted to express myself, and from experience I know that through social media people like expressing themselves, or need to express themselves. [...] I would just say that if people have used it so much, and if they felt like it was useful for them to share, then the image worked and I’m happy, so to speak, even though happiness is not really a thought that springs to my mind in such horrible times.»
There's a bit of space left for interpretation, and this is why in a few days it would be fine to directly ask him; and we actually should ask him. Not now (also because he's not posting since yesterday night, it could be a bad moment for this). --g (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)- It's exactly this space left for interpretation that I'm worried about and which our licensing policy does not allow for. "Belongs to everybody" simply doesn't translate to the author "grant[ing] anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law", which our licensing tag currently states. We don't work with (good) intentions, we work with explicit licenses. Regarding your comment, I think it's contradictory to simultaneously conclude that it is licensed in a certain way and suggest that we should ask the author if it indeed is. Finnusertop (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's only the specialty of the case that makes a difference: I'm reading in real time that the author is not posting (i.e. on Twitter), I'm reading sad and bitter comments of his, I wouldn't bother now. I would in a (short) while, of course. I know how it should go in ordinary times, and rest assured that I'm aware of all of your concerns; and I know that it seems contradictory. But... it's not unlikely that we will have that image into a more formal PD, so I'm just saying: it has been uploaded, don't hurry up with our procedures, let's hear him, first. Soon, because I'm not talking about months before the contact: only a few days. A few respectful days. I would already have tweeted him, it would have taken me less time than posting here, but I don't feel I should in this situation. This is a special context and a very special case too, a couple of days more won't be the true problem of all this... --g (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If "it's for everybody" doesn't mean its public domain, then what does it mean? How can it be for full public use, with no requirement for author attribution, no condition against manipulations, and not be free use? Spartan7W (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Spartan7W: In terms of an explicit license, it doesn't mean anything. Many people describe their art, writing, products, etc. as "for everybody", but from the licensing point of view this is far too ambiguous to constitute a license. There isn't even any mention of commercial use and modification (both of which are prerequisites for any free license) - we can't simply presume that these unaddressed issues are to our favor, because by default they are not. We don't go with "sure, you can use my image on Wikimedia"; that's why e.g. OTRS requires a verbose declaration that explicitly grants these rights and ties them to a license. Finnusertop (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If "it's for everybody" doesn't mean its public domain, then what does it mean? How can it be for full public use, with no requirement for author attribution, no condition against manipulations, and not be free use? Spartan7W (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's only the specialty of the case that makes a difference: I'm reading in real time that the author is not posting (i.e. on Twitter), I'm reading sad and bitter comments of his, I wouldn't bother now. I would in a (short) while, of course. I know how it should go in ordinary times, and rest assured that I'm aware of all of your concerns; and I know that it seems contradictory. But... it's not unlikely that we will have that image into a more formal PD, so I'm just saying: it has been uploaded, don't hurry up with our procedures, let's hear him, first. Soon, because I'm not talking about months before the contact: only a few days. A few respectful days. I would already have tweeted him, it would have taken me less time than posting here, but I don't feel I should in this situation. This is a special context and a very special case too, a couple of days more won't be the true problem of all this... --g (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's exactly this space left for interpretation that I'm worried about and which our licensing policy does not allow for. "Belongs to everybody" simply doesn't translate to the author "grant[ing] anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law", which our licensing tag currently states. We don't work with (good) intentions, we work with explicit licenses. Regarding your comment, I think it's contradictory to simultaneously conclude that it is licensed in a certain way and suggest that we should ask the author if it indeed is. Finnusertop (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Surely by saying "its for everybody" he is relinquishing commercial rights to the image, and taking the context of it, plus its marginal PD-textlogo status make it surely free use. He says "I didn't create it to benefit from it." <-- this shows intent of no commercial interest. Spartan7W (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict × 2) Keep Picture is not copyrightable. Even the Eiffel Tower is in the public domain. We don't need OTRS. --★ Poké95 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Image largement diffusé, du même rang que #Pray for Paris et #Je Suis Charlie.
- Et non Guil2027, l'image n'est pas tiré du PSG mais du symbole de Peace and love. C'est dit ici et là et à pleins d'autres endroits.
- Tyseria (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per common sense - his meaning is quite clear and we should not demand he fill out a legal form to say the same thing. If his intention was to retain copyright on it he would have been clear. Wikimandia (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above. The license is sufficiently clear and self-evident. ~★ pikolas [[mia diskuto]] 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete unless you get a proper licensing answer from the artist. it is simple like this: https://twitter.com/joachimroncin/status/552950297405161473 --92.225.70.113 03:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete According to written communication by Jean Jullien's via his agency garance: The mail has been forwarded to OTRS [Ticket#2015111610021283]. Therefore I request speedy deletion due to copyvio (this applies also to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for paris 2015.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace 4 Paris 20151113.jpg + File:Pray for Paris.svg(redir)). --.js (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)“… the image is copyright protected and any use without Jean’s permission is a a copyright infringement . We have been flooded with licence requests over the week-end and we have not given the licence to anyone.â€
- Time for a direct contact with Mr. Jullien, the one who can decide about his work. As above suggested, this could be the way: https://twitter.com/joachimroncin/status/552950297405161473 - Anyone here, with a Twitter account, willing to post it? --g (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) PS: I'm not on Twitter, this is why I don't do it personally
- The mails were sent directly to Mr. Jullien, forwarded by himself to his agent and all answers in CC to him, too. Pls see OTRS ticket. --.js (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- ok, sad ending :-( I have no OTRS rights any more, but your word is enough for me, .js. Maybe however that it's not entirely true that the licence wasn't given to anyone, I had read it, and this is why I had a hope; but the answer actually is a no, so let's delete it per the ticket (pls add the ticket # in the deletion editline). --g (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Let's wait a few days --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- ok, sad ending :-( I have no OTRS rights any more, but your word is enough for me, .js. Maybe however that it's not entirely true that the licence wasn't given to anyone, I had read it, and this is why I had a hope; but the answer actually is a no, so let's delete it per the ticket (pls add the ticket # in the deletion editline). --g (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The mails were sent directly to Mr. Jullien, forwarded by himself to his agent and all answers in CC to him, too. Pls see OTRS ticket. --.js (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Considering his latest tweet, posted after the email from his agency, which again says "This drawing is not about me, it's not about credit, I don't want to benefit from it.", I wonder if Jean may still be willing to licence it freely, regardless of what Garance wants, so I think it's definitely worth as many of us asking if he'd be willing to licence it freely under CC. ‑‑YodinT 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. If he's willing to specifically give this to CNN(!) I would guess he'll want to do what he can to allow us to use it. ‑‑YodinT 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- After further considerations, I rahter see the ticket before giving my opinion on that matter. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per .js. Unless we have OTRS permission from Mr. Jullien, the file will be deleted. (*sigh* I would like to use it for my userpage, but dunno it is a copyvio) --★ Poké95 12:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (I am not familiar with fr law) What about COM:TO/{{PD-shape}}? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- see Commons:Threshold_of_originality#France, France has a high threshold. I'm not sure, but I'm afraid it should be copyrighted in that system --g (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Gianfranco: I pointed to this page in my question above. The page does not give a answer to this individual case. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- sorry, @Steinsplitter:, I was just pointing to the specific section for other users (presuming that the image falls into the previsions of the French law). And, yes, it doesn't help. --g (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Gianfranco: I pointed to this page in my question above. The page does not give a answer to this individual case. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- see Commons:Threshold_of_originality#France, France has a high threshold. I'm not sure, but I'm afraid it should be copyrighted in that system --g (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wait a second: Had a reply from Jean Jullien, saying he'll talk to his agency about this. ‑‑YodinT 21:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It is really really nasty to still keep the work published here, while we meanwhile have several answers giving deliberately no license. We can re-upload the file anytime later within seconds, but what is happening here is evil abuse since 07:35, 14 November 2015 throwing the artwork into the world of capitalistic abuse. --.js (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: We have been informed that it is a copyright infringement by Mr. Jullien's agency and that it has not been licensed to anyone. Until we hear otherwise, we must unfortunately delete the image. Otherwise, we are are liable to receive a DMCA takedown notice which is much more difficult to reverse. (Undeleting an image is easy. Filing a DMCA counter-notice is not.) Also, the image does appear to meet the threshold of originality in France, which is rather low. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
