Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Www.folketinget.dk

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Www.folketinget.dk

This is not as difficult as this thread suggests. So here is a very basic guide to relevant parts of Danish copyright laws:

1/ Money is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is an amateur or professional and it doesn't matter whether the publisher is commercial or non-profit, the rules are the same.

2/ The photographer (and not the copyright holder) has to be credited no matter who owns the copyright to the picture - even if the photographer is dead. The Danish National Union of Journalists regularly send bills to media who has legally published a picture but forgotten to credit the photographer).

3/ When a photographer allows the publication of a picture that includes publication • in one particular media • on one particular occasion All other uses (on multiple platforms, more than one time, in more than one title, by a third person or storing in an archive/retrieval system (including on a computer hard disk)) must be specifically agreed upon between the photographer and the person/organisation to whom he/she hands over all or part of the copyright.

4/ If a picture has been (legally) edited then the editor retains some copyright protection in relation to the edited version of the picture.

5/ Any form of 'intellectual work' including pictures can be quoted - but this is a bit tricky, because it requires that it is not the motif in the original picture that- in itself - is the reason for the quotation, but, typically, that the original publication of the picture or its context has had some consequence which is the rationale for the (visual) quotation. Furthermore, both the visual presentation and the accompanying text must make it clear where the picture is from and why it is quoted. Usually the courts accept that a minor part of a work can be quoted but it depends on both the form and the size of the original work.

6/ The question of distortion or 'derivatives' of a picture has nothing to do with criminal law (quite an exotic suggestion - no, it's purely a matter for civil law). It relates to the old (and almost universal) codex 'droits morale' (moral rights) which is completely separated from copyright. The rights according to 'droits morale' a/ cannot be sold or transferred in any other way by the photographer, and b/ protects the integrity of the photographer by making it illegal to alter or use a photograph in a way that is contrary to the photographers original intentions.

In conclusion: If Folketinget has acquired the right to allow others to publish a picture, then you can publish it (within the limitations, if any, in the agreement between the photographer and Folketinget), as long as you remember to credit the photographer and do not violate his/her moral rights. However, such an agreement does not absolve you, the publisher, from responsibility so you have to be certain that the agreement gives you the right to publication in the way you intent.

Notes: A/ The full (Danish) text of the law is here: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12014 B/ I have used the words 'photographer' and 'photograph' extensively (as they are the focus of the discussion here), but it would be more correct to say 'creator' and 'work' as the law applies to all forms of intellectual and artistic works.

(Reopened on July 30th, 2007 by ALE! ¿…?)

Derivative work and commercial use isn't expressly permitted, so it seems that this is a license for publication purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about actually reading the text? "De billeder vi bruger på ft.dk er enten fotograferet af Folketingets ansatte eller af professionelle fotografer, hvor vi har betalt ekstra for muligheden for at lægge billederne ud til fri benyttelse." = "The pictures we use on ft.dk are either photographed by employees of Parliament or by professional photographers where we [=ft.dk / Parliament] have paied extra money to allow the pictures to be used freely." And you claim that commercial use is not allowed. That is exactly why ft.dk paid off these photographers. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian ^(talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I claim that it is true. --Rtc 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case, they wouldn't have used the words "lægge ud". I don't see the reason for this request either. --Pred 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Valentian, do you claim that “fri benyttelse” implies the right to make derivative works? Kjetil r 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian ^(talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is still ambiguous IMO. I'll send dthem an e-mail later today. Kjetil r 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Valentinian has got a point. Rtc, why are you so hooked on deleting haft the repostery? --Lhademmor 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which point do you see in what Valentinian writes? Rtc 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I have now written to Folketinget asking if commercial use is allowed, and if one can make derivative works. It is written in conservative Norwegian, which should be easily understood by Danes. See User:Kjetil r/folketinget. Kjetil r 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it says 'any' use it allowed. Why the need to get any more explicit? - Andre Engels 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, such thoughts have to be banished at all means. It is keeping trouble away from the copyright holder to demand from him that he states the terms clearly. Since, in case he doesn't intend the license as broad as you read it, he can well have a lot of drawbacks from that. If he intends it to be as broad, then it should be no problem for him to state that unambiguously and give users of his works the safetry they need. It is honest and not rude to demand licensing terms to be stated clearly; it is in the rights holder's as well as the user's interest (except, perhaps, in the collectionist's who don't care about the actual intentions of the rights holder, but only about satisfying their endless greed for more pictures from other people's sites). --Rtc 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking a copyright holder to say that their images are free of copyright issues even for defamatory purposes (which is effectively what this is) is a contradiction in terms. Defamatory actions against individuals are outlawed in the Danish criminal code § 267 [1] so let's assume that a Dane states that an image of a living person may be used completely unrestricted. In that case, I would argue that giving such a permit might in itself be a violation the criminal code's § 136, art. 1 [2] which forbids anyone from encouraging others to commit criminal actions. Distinguishing these two aspects as you demand [3] is simply not a possibility under Scandinavian law, and I would expect that German law also forbids encouraging criminal activities. If not, please inform me of any jurisdiction in which it is not an offence to encourage crime. However, asking somebody: "May we use this image for any purpose including commercial use, modification and derivative works, while naturally understanding that we are also bound by the criminal code", is a request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself. Unless we have this clarification, somebody will have to analyse American law extremely carefully. If libel/defamation and encouraging crime, as I expect, are both criminal offences under U.S. law, won't we then have to delete all images of all living people from the Commons? Provided this is the case, it might be an idea to ask if any such attitude is what this project needs? Valentinian ^(talk) 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The standard requests people file to copyright holders can indeed very easily give the impression I stated above and copyright law does not exist in a vacuum. Suppose a copyright holder has tried to release an image as CC but somebody questions this and e-mails him: "Do you really mean that we may use your images for all intents and purposes?" The copyright holder can't give a positive reply without compromising himself, however this is what Commons effectively demands. If he replies "I hereby confirm that I release ... .jpg under CC" then he'll be fine. If he answers "sure, do what you want with it" he might put himself in harm's way. Which is why many copyright holders will try to cover their own bases by stating something like; "you can't use my work for anything illegal". But to stay clear of this problem we'd effectively have to send out emails stating something like "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than "yes" since you may incriminate yourself by doing so. The photographer's legal bases would be covered by such a message, but I sincerely doubt that anybody would reply positively to such a mail. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not think that a CC license needs ever to be questioned, if it was stated by the author on his web page and there are no other indications that there is something wrong with it (for example, if he sold exclusive licenses and hence may not be legally entitled to license the work anymore)—it is the author's responsibility to read and understand the license he grants, really. Second, it is simply wrong that an answer such as "sure, do what you want with it" is in any way problematic. Whether you are complying with criminal law is completely your issue, not the author's; he cannot exempt you from your duties. It is out of scope of questions about copyright. Third, I do not believe that "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than 'yes' since you may incriminate yourself by doing so." is a correct way at all to do it, but, as I already said, "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions". This asks the author to clarify the terms and conditions on his web site, not to give you any problematic reply at all. --Rtc 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had something like this in my version of the licensing template already for ages. The relevant passage translates roughly to "I permit anyone to use the picture according to the free licence/s X. This permission refers only to copyright. Personality rights, competition law, trademark law and other laws remain unaffected. However, I know that in general, I cannot additionally sue for copyright violation if the work is used in conflict with such or other interests I have [that refers to the licensor's religious, political, ethical or material interests]." --Rtc 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I created the template, and had the original email conversation. It seemed quite clear to me that there were no restrictions to the use of the images. Thue 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See the reply from Høyer below, he is supposed to get back to me with a clarification. If it was quite clear, no clarification would be needed, right? (I have not received further emails from him) Kjetil r 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

til:
Kjetil Ree

vedr.:
Brug af billeder

Tak for din mail.
Jeg skal have snakket med et par kollegaer om en præcisering af 
betingelserne for brugen af billeder på ft.dk.
Jeg vender tilbage med et svar om kort tid.

p.v.a.
Folketingets webmaster
Benny Høyer
27. marts 207

I have now received an answer from folketinget:

Tak for din påmindelse.
Jeg har fået aftale følgende formulering emd koppegaer i vores 
kommunikationsafdeling:

"Ophavsretten til tekst og billeder på Folketingets hjemmesider 
tilhører Folketinget. Materialet kan dog frit benyttes og gengives med klar 
kildeangivelse, men må ikke gøres til genstand for selvstændig kommerciel 
udnyttelse eller for direkte forvanskning."

Jeg håber formuleringen dækker de supplerende spørgsmål du havde.

pva.
Folketingets webmaster
Benny Høyer
9. maj 2007

Kjetil r 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase is that they do not allow "selvstændig" (stand-alone?) commercial use. Seems like a mass deletion? :( --|EPO| 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, based on the above all images should be deleted. But Folketinget cannot have that that intention. Let me just contact them and ask them to reconsider... Thue 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They said in reply to my email that they would reconsider, but haven't gotten back to me yet. Still waiting... Thue 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, this would be much simpler if we would not allow licenses that do not expressly permit unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. I think that this is an invalid license, but am willing to wait until we got confirmation on its validity. --Iamunknown 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What would have been easier was if legal traditions hadn't developed as differently as they did on the two sides of the Atlantic. In Denmark, every child knows that defamation of others is outlawed, but people mix up which law this is specified in, for one thing, because our country isn't the lawyers' paradise that the U.S. is. In addition, people are afraid that if they give a "you may use it for everything" permission, that they put themselves in harm's way legally should somebody misuse the material. Given a Danish cultural background, it is very difficult interpreting unlimited requests as anything but a "may I break the law with this image?"-request. What people need to do is to add very clearly a clarification of a type that "We naturally recognize that other laws may apply regarding against inappropriate use of your image(s), but this request has nothing to do with this issue, only the copyright status of the image(s)." Or something along those lines. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair point (and one I would not have come up with by myself!). That said, many restrictions may apply to the use of an image that are separate from copyright (personality rights, trademarks, laws against fraud). But I was under the impression that the license Www.folketinget.dk puts their images under was restrictive in terms of copyright, based upon the above e-mail conversation; are these images not under copyright restrictions? --Iamunknown 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the original photographer(s) give(s) a toss about these images. A previous email from the same person stated that the images were either taken by Folketinget staff or by professional photographers that had been paid off specifically to allow unrestricted use. I've had my own photo taken that way when I stood as a candidate years ago, and I know from one MP that e.g. Venstre paid one photographer a large amount so he couldn't later cite any rights nomatter what Venstre did with his photos of our candidates to parliament. From what I read here, it is obvious that Folketinget made a similar arrangement. The current mail reads directly: (quote) "The copyright to text and images on the webpages of Folketinget belongs to Folketinget. Materials may however be freely used and reprinted given a clear indication of source, but they may not be the objects of stand-alone commercial use or complete corruption [of their content]." (unquote) The one caveat about modification beyond recognition would be a violation of moral rights anyway (and Folketinget is concerned about not accidentally sanctioning something completely bizzare / criminal which would look bad on Parliament). Forgive me for going just a tad over the line: the sender of the email is saying between the lines that he doesn't wish to lose his own job just in case he is talking to a complete crackpot that then does something insane and then cites Folketinget's e-mail as "documentation" that it was legal for the offender to smear all of Parliament. Had I been in his position and not been a Wikipedian (so I knew what the purpose of the request actually was about) I would have replied with something almost identical. Wikipedia's "modification" clause sounds very innocent but it is extremely problematic in a Scandinavian context because people believe that you're asking for permission to break the laws about defamation of others, and that's part of the criminal code. If you were saying that you were asking for permission to correct technical errors, nobody would care. Newspapers do this all the time.

As I see it, the issue needing clarification here is stand-alone commercial exploitation, but the core of the underlying problem is that the average Dane will confuse at least two laws, and that the notion of "public domain" is next to unknown in Scandinavia. For decades, the standard practice has been to pay off the photographer (he is happy, and you'll never hear from him again) and to release the image "to the press" meaning that the press may use it free of charge. This consequently gives a politician some sort of control over which image(s) his local newspaper actually uses of him. These press releases are considered stock footage sent to those that ask for a photo of a given person or object. The normal caveat is that corruption of logos (and sometimes images) may be specifically denied. If a later user of the material is then stupid enough to do something criminal (read: insulting) with the image, he/she would be charged with breaking the criminal code regarding this issue. Denmark doesn't normally use the U.S. practice of suing people for X different violations at the same time. Instead the public prosecutor will charge a person with the offence giving the highest penalty, unless of course the case is very complex e.g. a politician committing a ton of offences against the public - he would be tried with a selection of charges. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Status report? Did Thue contact webmaster again? Do we agree that permission is not complying with Commons policies? --|EPO| 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see it the template (and images) should all be deleted. --Broadbeer 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten a few replies, and it seems very likely that the images will be available under an acceptable license. I am still talking to them to determine which license that will be, or rather waiting for them to respond to my questions. They are extremely slow :(. But please don't delete the images before I have finished talking to them. Thue 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If it really seems likely images will be released under an acceptable license I agree we should give it a chance. Even though the images' current copyright status on Commons are somewhat unclear. But if a free license is realistic we should keep it. Just too bad they're that slow. --|EPO| 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not very good to keep them too long, but if we delete them now and they are going to released soon it would be a VERY big work to upload them again (or undo deletion). --Broadbeer 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thue, I'm actually impressed that you keep contacting them eventhough the webmaster must be pissed with Wikipedia by now. If you haven't mentioned it already, the Dutch Parliament has allowed the use of a series of photos of its cabinet under GFDL (en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch government), so Folketinget might find that interesting. #2) That Wikipedia recognizes that Danish law still applies against illegal (smearing) use, and that the request merely concerns copyright. This entire Wikilawyering against press images is just counterproductive. Wikipedia rejects a ton of European images that nobody even questions are intended for gratis mass distribution, using a very rigid interpretation of what a free image is. Yet, nobody even questions the use of a ton of U.S. government images that are very likely covered by copyright outside of the U.S. Same deal with the PD-art images; PD is the U.S. and Germany, but no-no for many other Wikipedias. Not to mention how ridiculous it felt when I had to lecture a Danish politician who wanted his press image to be used on his Wikipedia article that he most likely doesn't have the right to release an image he paid for, since Wikipedia's interpretation of U.S. law doesn't care about Danish practice regarding commissioned works. And judging from my inbox, I'll have to reject a similar image tomorrow. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep As per the above discussion. --Alien life form 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think I have the right to pissed, because they originally told me that I could use the images without restrictions. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

update: I finally got a reply today (the long wait has only been because of their slowness). They refuse to waive the "no stand-alone commercial use" clause. I replied with a final plea for them to consider for example a CC attribution-sharealike license, but I have asked that before, so one might consider the issue closed already. However, I sometimes get the idea that they really do not read what I actually write, so there is a small chance that my suggested has not registered up unil now, but by a miracle will now... Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• So, any updates? --Iamunknown 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do keep it, I request you rename it to something more easily understandable, like "PD-Folketinget", or "CC-Folketinget" or something. The current template name says NOTHING beyond the site that it's taken from — It's not a licence tag! 68.39.174.238 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Kept. —Angr 20:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I updated the license tag, as the permission is NonCommercial and NonDerviative. --Kjetil r 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete If it is really non commercial and non derivative then it has to be deleted. Therefore I reopened the deletion request. --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, lets delete them. / Fred J 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep for the time being - The matter is still being investigate by User:Thue, he has previously stated that the process is very slow but that he beleives the images will be released under an adequate license. We should await this process before doing any deletion. --Morten LJ 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are to keep them it would be nice with an update as we haven't seen any since June 17. --Broadbeer 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked him for an update. His reply on my talk page was that he can't get in contact with them right now as they all gone for the summer. He is still optimistic for a free license.

But until a free license has been confirmed we should not accept any more uploads. --|EPO| ^da: 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I finally got a reply. It was a "no" to remove the "no stand-alone commercial redistribution". As such the images would have to be deleted :(. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone care to explain what "Complete corruption" is supposed to mean? 68.39.174.238 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It was translated from Danish "direkte forvanskning" by User:Valentinian. "Direkte forvanskning" means something like "directly made difficult," but it is hard to translate it correctly into English. Kjetil r 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian ^(talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that pictures/portraits of a person is not allowed in a commercial ad without a model release (in most countries). --Bongoman 08:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the license does not allow unrestricted commercial use. If no new arguments for keeping are made, then I will ensure deletion of all images within a very short time. --|EPO| ^da: 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Thue's recent information. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Closing, template is now copyvio, all images with the template will be deleted soon. / Fred J 22:12, 11 November 2007 (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.

Template:Www.folketinget.dk

unused template. -- Common Good (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)