Keep. We haven't really built a consensus one way or the other on this issue, I don't think... A user who owns a resort should be able to write about their resort and link to it on their userpage, I don't see that as a huge problem. But we have deleted pages that were huge spam link farms, which is a different issue. What do others think on this? – cacahuatetalk 14:51, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Delete. It opens the door to numerous free standing ads that will be impossible to control. We will have a page for every airline, Ins. co., travel agency and so on. I see a User Page as a personal page rather than a commercial page within WT. 15:24, 24 September 2008 (EDT) —Unsigned comment by 2old (talk • contribs) .
There's been a lot more discussion on the duplicate vfd at en:vfd, consensus is leaning to keep, based on our history of not policing user pages unless egregiously spammy or pornographic – cacahuatetalk 22:01, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes. That's the image I had uploaded. I already asked Jpatokal what is necessary to prove I have permission but ironically no response. So I'm asking here. Do you need a letter from the president or from the author at the KTO or a letterhead from a rep...what?Paula 02:52, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
This is a good question guys, how is best to show proof of permission? In the past there have been times where a rep from the agency creates an account here and notes on the talk page (Image talk:사본 -kor map03.jpg). Or if a letter has been sent, perhaps a scan can be uploaded and linked to from the image? – cacahuatetalk 21:59, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Usually the minimum is an e-mail or scan of the permission from the copyright holder (in this case KNTO), including -- and this is important -- the contact information of the person granting permission. The wording also has to make it very clear that the license is granted under Creative Commons Sharealike-Attribution 1.0, not "for Wikitravel" etc. Jpatokal 17:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I uploaded the map and the letter of permission but i had to upload them separately. The filename for the map is Map_of_Korea.jpg and the letter is letter_of_permission.jpg. They are both under the same date.Paula 04:54, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete. States that it's copyrighted right on the image, but was uploaded as Public Domain by creator... unless the uploader is the creator, this needs to be deleted – cacahuatetalk 16:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
This seems to be a painting. Without further information, it's highly unlikely the uploader painted it personally, and we have no way of knowing if it's old enough to be out of copyright. LtPowers 19:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Okay, taking a closer look, now I don't think it's a painting. I assumed it was because of what Texugo said here. Thoughts? LtPowers 19:42, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Keep. I think it is a photo, due to crooked image. The subject looks like it is slanting to one side. The Leaning Legislature Building of Edmonton? With a little work the problem could be corrected and maybe a little cropping would help, but I do think it is a photo. 2old 11:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Delete. No other comment really. --Inas 19:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Not Sure - According to the deletion policy, only copyright violations, and privacy rights violations are valid reasons for deleting a photo. Sure this is an uninteresting photo, but it is the only image in the Punta Cana article (I'll make it a thumb on the right). Sure a picture of the whole thing would be nice, but it draws attention to something which to me seems quite interesting. AHeneen 20:31, 17 December 2008 (EST)
The unwritten rule behind everything on wikitravel, is that it has to be of benefit to the traveller, that is what we are here for. If you can see a benefit of the image to the traveller then as far as I'm concerned, it should stay. --Inas 21:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)
User error. I was patching up the file of the same name over in WT non-shared namespace , but inadvertently uploaded the edited file to shared with the same filename - meaning that the old one would always get preference in articles. Oops! Re-uploaded under a different filename with no changes, so this one's just an unneeded and unusable duplicate. - Dguillaime 23:50, 6 January 2009 (EST)
We could also just delete the one on :en if you prefer. Just say the word and I'll speedy this. --PeterTalk 00:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
This one is definitely extraneous - please go ahead and speedy it. The one on :en wasn't uploaded by me, so I didn't want to speak for it... it's only useful for context on Talk:Seattle, but I doubt anyone would shed a tear for its loss as well. - Dguillaime 00:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Outcome: Speedy deleted. --PeterTalk 14:13, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Thank you. I took out all the ones that I still want. What ever is on that list you can delete. thanks! Edmontonenthusiast 17:27, 17 January 2009 (EST).
A large number of those are still in active use in articles on en. - Dguillaime 21:06, 17 January 2009 (EST)
Keep allKeep those in use. It doesn't really work like that, you've released them under ccbysa, which isn't a reversible action – cacahuatetalk 23:21, 17 January 2009 (EST)
They can be removed from articles it isn't a big deal. Cacahuate, learn to not be an ass maybe. Seriously theyre my photos and I should use them as I wish and not be controlled. Edmontonenthusiast.
Hi EE, it's not an issue of controlling. Once a photo is contributed to a site like Wikitravel or Wikipedia, the owner doesn't control its distribution anymore. That's why we make a fuss about this site licensing photos, maps, highway signs, etc. under Copyleft instead of the more traditional copyright. Even if we deleted the photos, someone could have mirrored the site and can distribute and/or post the photos as they see fit. There's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about it, other than ask if they'll take it down out of the goodness of their heart. Legally, they don't have to because it's Creative Commons or public domain.
As for deleting the photos, I'm fine with deleting most of them. About ten of that list above sit on the Edmonton pages, two on Vancouver and another three on Calgary; almost all of the rest are probably sitting on mine or EE's talk page when we were discussing maps and which photos looked best. Since they didn't make the cut, they should probably be deleted anyway for housecleaning purposes. I can list the photos that are in use in actual articles if needed. Shaund 01:18, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Keep all. Per the deletion procedure, in use images are not generally eligible for deletion. Second, the nominator has not given a reason for the deletion; being the uploader does not give one a right to avoid providing a reason (see the fine policy page for lists of possible reasons). Thirdly, the nominator is currently blocked on English Wikitravel and has no business attempting to foist changes upon en Wikitravel while blocked. -- Cjensen 01:09, 18 January 2009 (EST)
CJensen, use the goodness of your heart, as Shaund says. Although I have my reasons for the fact that they either:
Dont fit into anywhere
Aren't being used
I just dont plain want them on here
Honeslt,y I uploaded a lot of them before really knowing the licensing, if that helps at all. Just because I am blocked from the Wikitravel EN site, doesn't mean I can't do stuff here. Aside from this, I plan to stay away from here aswel, as it seems fair, I just want to get this over with as soon as possible then I'll leave here too. Bottom line, you guys should maybe just be nice and just do as I ask please. CJensen, it's your opinion that I shouldn't do business here, but I tend to disagree so there ain't anything you can do about it. Just respect my wishes and quit wasting time trying to make me angry and go against me in every single way. I'd appreciate the ones I said deleted. I may still upload new photos here, after, but I will be much more careful of which I do upload, something I didn't know before and it was just cause I was new so I'd just like the ones listed DELETED. I would support it if you wanted a photo of yours deleted. They are my photos and while it is legal for you to not do anything, just please be nice and do as I wish. Thankyou. --EE.
You say "they don't fit" and "aren't being used" AFTER it has already been pointed out that some are in use on English Wikitravel. It is your job, not ours, to make a valid nomination. -- Cjensen 02:34, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Additional reason from me -- while all of the files appear to be uploaded by EE, many are not Copyright by EE and I see no reason to delete them. Once again EE, please come back with a valid list so that we can reduce the number of issues involved here. -- Cjensen 02:46, 18 January 2009 (EST)
CJensen, so what if some of them are in use? This is my valid list - simply that and it isn't going to change. EE.
Shaund, since you have a good handle on this, I think it would be helpful if you listed the ones in use. Thumbing through these, most are useless, agree some housecleaning is in order – cacahuatetalk 03:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Done. I've noted any files that are currently in use in a travel article after the image's file name above. There were also three that shouldn't be here because they were originally licensed under GFDL only. Shaund 14:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I still want them to be deleted out of respect. EE.
I have no problem Deleting the ones that are not in use in articles, out of respect to the contributor. (Image:MU qeii.png, by the way, should be public domain as it contains no original authorship.) But we should Keep the ones that are in use, because maintaining the quality of the travel guides is of higher importance. LtPowers 17:06, 18 January 2009 (EST)
A lot of the ones in the articles are unneccesary as well, that, too, is why I chose specific ones. That way, pages aren't cluttered with photos but have some good ones. EE.
Actually any road sign images can stay, sorry my bad for those being in there. EDMONTONENTHUSIAST.
Keep All. Ban EE for one month.2old 10:14, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Change to Keep Those In Use. Ban EE for 60 Days.2old 14:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)
I've deleted the copyvios and changed my opinion to keep only those that are currently in use in guides... there were a lot uploaded before user was familiar with what we were looking for in an image, and a lot uploaded as examples and recrops. There's no need to keep most of these around. If anyone sees a specific few that they think could be useful and don't want deleted, maybe we should list them and do it that way, otherwise I vote to delete the rest. Thanks Shaund for doing the legwork :) – cacahuatetalk 11:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks for at least looking into it a bit, and if you really want a ban for me for one month, can you please wait until this stuff is all cleared? EdmontonEnthusiast.
Outcome: deleted most, kept only those in use – cacahuatetalk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Outcome: deleted. --PeterTalk 04:05, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
If someone wouldn't mind speedy deleting this, this is the old version of the downtown Pittsburgh map, with ".png". The new version I just uploaded is ".PNG", creating two separate images. PerryPlanet 14:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Any particular reason? You released them under an irrevocable free license, though if you have good reason for wanting them removed we're willing to listen. LtPowers 21:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Creative Commons License, Attribution 3, applies. Please provide legal authority for your contentions:
(a)"you released them under an IRREVOCABLE free license" (emph added);
(b) "if you have good reason for wanting them removed we're willing to listen".
There is nothing about that CC 3 license that is in perpetuity or that restricts my right to remove my photos.
Without waiving that point, and without agreeing that you, not I, control my intellectual property, please be advised that there is a website that is accessing my photos from your site, that I want nothing to do with, but which is being very slippery about two of my photos insofar as CC 3 is concerned. So I want to remove the photos from their reach, just to avoid dealing with these people.
You are quite mistaken, and should take a closer look at that license. To quote: Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). It is very much in perpetuity, and as our wiki is governed by consensus, and your ability to remove the photos is very much restricted (you don't have a right to do so per our site's licensing, and the license you chose for the photos). --PeterTalk 01:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
I'll add that I created a derivative work from one of these images, is that what this nonsense is about? I say keep, unless you provide some compelling reason. As a rule, I don't think we should get into the habit of indulging this type of contributor's remorse, as the very existence of our wiki depends upon the respect for the CC-by and by-SA licenses. --PeterTalk 01:26, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
The user in question has stopped using the images, so that problem seems to have been resolved.
I've read CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (the "LICENSE"). It provides, in Section “1. Definitions”, as follows:
“ "Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License … "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.”
WikiTravel, more precisely, Standard Brands, has no rights under the terms of the License because it is not a licensee within the meaning the defined term “You”; it is just a distributor of the photos.
The basis for my deletion request is Paragraph 7b of the License which provides in pertinent part:
"... Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above"
Pursuant to Paragraph 7b, I , as Licensor, have the right to stop distributing the photos at any time. In other words, I have the right to stop distributing via WikiTravel, which is why I requested that WikiTravel delete the photos. Any rights previously conferred to those falling within the License's defined term “You” will survive, to the extent provided by Paragraph 7b.
To reply to the poster who states that he has made a derivative work based on my photo, I have not seen his work, so all that I can say is that, provided that the terms of the License and all applicable laws are being complied with, I thank him for selecting my photo. —Unsigned comment by Stephen sommerhalter (talk • contribs) .
WT/IB is absolutely a licensee, or it would have no right to display your photos at all - a point that the upload page makes clear. That grant of license was made explicitly, by you, at the time of upload.
The portion of Sec. 7b quoted above permits you to stop distributing the files yourself. However, you are not WT. That paragraph means that you are not obligated to continue to offer the works yourself indefinitely (say, on a personal webpage under your exclusive control), but you do not have the right to "stop distributing via WikiTravel", because that's not what's happening. WT is hosting a copy on its own behalf, under the granted license terms. CC's own FAQ perhaps states it more eloquently. - Dguillaime 21:49, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
We have no consensus to allow montages or even the stylized formatting of each individual photo in these montages. And even allowing that their truly are no copyright issues here, there are privacy rights issues. --PeterTalk 18:37, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
Delete. I agree with both your points. --Inas 07:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Outcome: Deleted. --PeterTalk 04:01, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
Likely to be copyright violations. All of his uploads are listed as PD-author, but also come from a variety of commercial websites with no apparent grant of license, though all do have explicit copyright statements. The user has not responded to comments left on his talk page here or on :en one week ago.
Speedy deleted. If a user is uploading files marked as PD, but coming from a copyrighted source, the onus is on them to explain why this is allowable. And he has not responded to talk messages. --PeterTalk 18:05, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
No source given, but apparently , , and  respectively, both of which are CC by-nd and thus not compatible with Wikitravel. All other Flickr uploads by User:MarinaK are also suspect... Jpatokal 11:56, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
I checked other uploads from this user , and they checked out fine, but these are both in a format that we discourage (montage), and look very much like copyvios. --PeterTalk 08:48, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete all. I feel we had better delete remains of the user's uploads since those are suspicious. -- Tatata 14:25, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Outcome: speedy deleted. Enough evidence here that it's time to delete. And the images anyway were not in a proper format. I've left the user a message, although it might be worthwhile to leave one in Japanese as well. (I should return to that idea to have multilingual templates for these sorts of notices...) --PeterTalk 20:51, 15 May 2009 (EDT)