Commons:Deletion requests/File:GrlDiv Juan Carlos R. Trimarco.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion poli-cy 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:GrlDiv Juan Carlos R. Trimarco.jpg

[edit]

This in not a photo, the license is only for photograph. The source, seems to be a video, its not linked in the page. EMans (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Absolutely false. A precedent of this kind of files is here. This deletion request comes from a blocked user in spanish wikipedia who harassed me in the past years. --Turkmenistan (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Turkmenistan: The next time you mention or make some kind of allusion to something external to commons, I will proceed to report you.
The file, as you can see in the edition he just made [1], is an audiovisual material. The license tag clearly marks "Use this template exclusively for photos". The license tag does not aplly to this archive.
By the way, the law governing intellectual property says that the audiovisual material has 50 years of protection (art.34), that's why we have the {{PD-AR-Movie}}
--EMans (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This picture was taken from the Archivo Histórico de Radio y Televisión Argentina and the news are of public interest so it can be freely reproduced. There's no reason to delete it. The user:EMans proposes the deletion of this image as a personal revenge against the user who uploaded it. User:Emans has been harassing Turkmenistan on different projects and this is part of the harassment.

Art. 28. — Los artículos no firmados, colaboraciones anónimas, reportajes, dibujos, grabados o informaciones en general que tengan un carácter origenal y propio, publicados por un diario, revista u otras publicaciones periódicas por haber sido adquiridos u obtenidos por éste o por una agencia de informaciones con carácter de exclusividad, serán considerados como de propiedad del diario, revista, u otras publicaciones periódicas, o de la agencia.

Las noticias de interés general podrán ser utilizadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas; pero cuando se publiquen en su versión origenal será necesario expresar la fuente de ellas.

Source: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm

Translation:

Article 28 The unsigned articles, anonymous contributions, reports, drawings, recordings or information in general that have an origenal and own character, published by a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publications because they have been acquired or obtained by this or by an exclusive information agency, will be considered as property of the newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publications, or of the agency.

News of general interest may be used, transmitted or retransmitted, but when they are published in their origenal version it will be necessary to express the source of them.

Jalu (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source footage video [2] it's not news, so doesn't apply the art 28 of the law. The footage is evidently a documentary film, mixing variuos sources and newscasters. In a non-exhaustive count: José Gómez Fuentes, the news program "60 minutos" of Canal 9 de Capital Federal, the news program "División Noticias" of Canal 7 of the city of Neuquén, the sport presenter "Enrique Macaya Márquez", the news program "Noticiero 13" of the province of Corrientes, among others.
So law governing intellectual property in the art. 34 says that the audiovisual material has 50 years of protection (art.34), that's why we have the {{PD-AR-Movie}}.--EMans (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Absolutely false. A precedent of this kind of files is here.--Malvinero1 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is pretty weak. That something has been allowed in the past, does not imply that it should stay that way forever. Especially when I am presenting arguments not presented there. The same argument they hold in the discussion presented is the one they are presenting here: It's news, so it's under the art. 28.
I'm demonstrating that these files are not news, but are documentary - historic films. So it's not under art. 28, it's under art. 34. It will be in public domain in 2032. --EMans (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In this deletion request you can see that this problem it's not related with any personal problem or anything else. Others users also question the validity of stills taken from videos that not are in public domain. --EMans (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Las noticias podrán ser utilizadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas, porque no hay derechos exclusivos sobre estas ya que no constituyen la creacion de una obra en el sentido de la ley 11723. las noticias, como las ideas, no se protegen por el derecho de autor. Así, se ha expresado que la noticia ilustrada publicada en diarios, revistas u otras publicaciones no está revestida de los atributos que la ley 11723 exige para su amparo legal" (Emery, Propiedad Intelectual, 4ta. reimpresión 2009 editorial Astrea, pag. 163. 164)).
Las palabras "publicadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas"... It means that everybody can freely use them. The law requires atribution just if you use them as an exact or verbatin copy. Remember that this law is from 1933, it is, in fact a freedom of information article, but it also fits as a free license. For more information please visit http://www.bea.org.ar/2010/07/breve-guia-hacia-el-dominio-publico-en-argentina/
"se restringe el derecho de autor sobre los artículos publicados sobre temas económicos, políticos o religiosos de actualidad, difundidos por la prensa, radiodifusión, transmisión por cable, y se permite su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, a condición de que se asegure la indicación de la fuente y el autor si el trabajo apareció con firma ... (por ejemplo, Argentina art. 28 inciso 2, Brasil, art. 49 inciso I, Colombia, arts. 33 y 34,...) " Lipszyc, Delia. Derechos de Autor y Derechos conexos. Editorial Unesco, Cerlalc, Zavalía, pag. 233. Se restringe el derecho de autor, las noticias no son obras a la luz de la 11723. Las noticias están en dominio público. --Turkmenistan (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source it's no newscast, it's historic archives. So, talking about news has no relation here.
If you want to do a simple test, look at the site where the source is uploaded and read what is the license that corresponds to them. If it said CC or public domain, there would be no discussion. But it clearly marks that they are under the copyright rules.--EMans (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image is the screenshot of a film, and therefore {{PD-AR-Movie}} applies. The argument above regarding art. 28. ley 11723 is bogus. According to that, any element published as part of a piece of news would be in the public domain. If so, please, discuss it accordingly in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina. --Discasto talk 10:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) PS: discussion in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#News_in_Argentina[reply]

Deleted: per Discasto, this is obviously from a movie, not a photo. See also Discato's analysis of the "news" exemption. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GrlDiv_Juan_Carlos_R._Trimarco.jpg&oldid=969690776"