This deletion discussion 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.
This deletion discussion 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.
Deleted, photo 4 is kept, because map is not seen in full and text is not readable. The others are deleted, for example, there is no freedom of panorama in Taiwan and text in photo 7 is enough long for copyright. There is no incidental inclusion in file 8. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
In the Google Image search can be found earlier than the flickr upload time the same picture --shizhao (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
These images are possibly not covered by eldiario.es licensing conditions. Main issue is that the images are not the ones actually published in the URL provided as source. They're higher resolution images that does not come from the allegued source and therefore cannot be covered by the license (it is possible to release a lower resolution image under a CC license while assigning a more restrictive license to higher quality images). Secondly, many of the images contain a clear copyright notice in the EXIF information, thus stating that such a specific version is copyrighted (see this or this). Finally, even the actually published versions keep a copyright notice, possibly invalidating the eldiario.es licensing conditions (see this or this). IMHO, the copyright status of these images is dubious
因此要有更詳細的確認方式,應該去詢問eldiario.es。
--KOKUYO (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point of view but the licensing conditions apply to "published contents". We can argue a lot about what "publication" means, but it's simpler and safer to consider the obvious meaning: something that is published as part of a piece of news on the web. Not something with a non public URL you have to guess and build (and you deliverately omit, thus forging the source you provide). --Discastotalk 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It is like VOA, VOA even could change URL to add logo:
And in this page (http://www.eldiario.es/licencia/), I think it means all website content/contenido (. except content from EFE...., or comic) use CC-BY-SA. This page use "contenido", no "published content".--KOKUYO (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep As I understand it, all material on the website eldiario.es is covered by the license. This includes the above images. Lymantria (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep Normally I pass higher resolution images too as long as the author is correctly attributed. In a few OTRS cases, a flickr author does specify the use of a certain image resolution only but I don't know if eldiario.es says this in their permission statement. This eldisario permission statement does not mention image resolution unless Jcb, Jameslwoodward or Yann knows the answer. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The only exceptions are third party material (attributed as such at their website) and comics (available with NC restriction). And they state that their license, CC-BY-SA, is the most open CC license of all, which is not true of course, CC-BY is more open. Anyway, CC-BY-SA is fine for us. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: a CC license is for a picture, not for one specific resolution of that picture. Also in their own licensing information, there is no indication that eldiario.es wants to restrict the resolution available under the CC-BY-SA license. --Jcb (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This deletion discussion 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.
Info, uploader claimed the author, Central News Agency (CNA), release the images into PD. According to the discussion in the previous DR, the images were initially tagged with PDM but it was changed afterwards. However, CNA is not the author, they only uploaded the images to the source website. The source page has indicated the actual author/photographer’s name in the image description for each image (also seen in the image description in Commons). This means the initial PDM tags were invalid. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
如同您所述,原本這批照片都是由持有照片的中央通訊社標記是屬於PDM狀態,但在我上傳到維基共享資源後,中央通訊社才改成CC-BY-NC。如果因為這點而要刪除照片,這部分我沒有異議。 KOKUYO (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --VIGNERON (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)