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.
So I'm nominating all these files for deletion. To be honest, I'm kind of hoping someone finds proof that they are, actually free. But for now, Krassotkin and User:Alex Spade are pretty convincing that they are not. --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my thesis in Ru-Wiki discussion. From subordination point of view the CC-BY-3.0 (then 4.0) permission for mos.ru was given by Department of IT; stroi.mos.ru and transport.mos.ru are managed by another departments - Department of Urban Planning Policy and Construction and Transport Department. Alex Spade (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krassotkin and Alex Spade: Could you provide me a link that, for example, transport.mos.ru or stroi.mos.ru are copyrighted websites? So according to this agreement websites of Moscow City are under CC-BY-4.0 license. That means if there is no copyright sign or any special agreement on any xxxx.mos.ru site then it is under CC-BY-4.0. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krassotkin: The agreement says that stroi.mos.ru and transport.mos.ru are under CC-BY-4.0 because it is not indicated that they are copyrighted or have another license. Please prove that this agreement IS NOT applicable to those subdomains on the mos.ru website. By the way, you or nominator even have not tried to contact them to clarify this issue. Therefore, I believe that the nomination should be closed until the agreement is clarified by its originator in order to exclude possible different interpretation. Or the nominator must prove the non-applicability of the agreement. Until that moment this nomination is unconscientious and not properly substantiated. Please keep in mind that unreasonable decision on this nomination will result in a complaint requesting sanctions, because it will affect thousands of images from a stroi.mos.ru subdomain. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are different websites of different organizations. You can arrange permission in the OTRS or an explanation on the website. All these images will be restored. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is your own opinion with no substantiation. I'm not sure you're right. And the reason for the removal is also not visible. There is no need for OTRS request because current agreement on their website seems to cover this case until the contrary is proved. So tell me, please, what is wrong with this agreement (permission) that you demand OTRS permission? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Spade: I ask you again: what's wrong with the current license (agreement)? For example, here it also says that all portals of theMoscow Government including the sites of the departments, prefectures and district councils, and a number of other resources moved to Creative Commons. If you cannot read the current license correctly - it is your problem, I suppose. If you lack knowledge and experience you should have asked more competent users of Wikimedia Commons first. This applies to you as well, GRuban. Yeah, don't forget to check the structure of the Moscow Government[1]: <...> Department of Transport and Road Infrastructure Development (transport.mos.ru) ... In this context, I think you must prove that the current license (agreement) is not applicable for transport.mos.ru and stroi.mos.ru. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Александр Мотин: COM:EVID: In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. So you may bring your arguments here, but you cannot force your opponent to do what you are supposed to do. VLu (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@VLu: Finally, will someone tell us why this license is not applicable for transport.mos.ru and stroi.mos.ru? If you insist on removal you are obliged to argue why this license is not suitable. And as you can see the uploaders of those files did provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable license ({{Mos.ru}}). I repeat: what you are doing now with others is called sabotage because you don't have any meaningful arguments at all. And none of you answers the most important question about the existing license ({{Mos.ru}}): why is it not suitable? I don't have to read someone's fabrications somewhere on the page of another wikiproject. Let him state his position here in English. Isn't that right? Otherwise, the decision on this nomination will not be able to be verified by objective and unbiased administrators who do not speak Russian. --Александр Мотин (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The license must be released by copyrightholder - Department of IT (licensor of mos.ru/legal/rules/ due to p.1.1) is not copyrightholder of works of Department of Urban Planning Policy and Construction and Transport Department. Alex Spade (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Spade: What are you talking about? P. 2.6 of Moscow City information system and resources usage agreement: All materials of the site are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Even from the title of the agreement, it is clear that it covers lots of webpages on their website. So please stop coming up with your own illiterate interpretations. If you believe that there is a copyrighted image posted somewhere on their website you must provide proof of this. And even in this case, it doesn't mean that all other free images from their website should be deleted. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, preferably also the entire {{Mos.ru}} stuff. I don't trust Russian authorities if they claim to have the rights on all the pictures they ever publish; certainly they don't. --A.Savin13:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are reasons. Kremlin.ru is very careful, but some others are not. There are several cases in archives of ru:ВП:Форум/Авторское право, when mil.ru and especially mos.ru was caught on usage of non-their copyrights even without attribution. Alex Spade (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, there were court decisions stating that the Authorities who own mil.ru / mos.ru have not signed the legal papers with the authors?
I remember only one case when the Ministry of Defence was the legal owner of copyright, and their photograper claimed this to be false, and the Ministry proved their right without court, because that photograper was afraid to start any court process against his charterer.
The authority does not have to label any attribution if the contract does not insist. The Government of Moscow never published their contracts with their authors, so we cannot decide whether those contracts request to state any names. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean court decisions, and I do not mean that they have to attribute employees. But mil.ru and mos.ru is not accurate, as they might. Alex Spade (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well... So to know whether the mentioned Legal Rules (2.6) are connected with transport.mos.ru, I made a request to their site support, so I hope they will answer me in a week or two. Even if their answer comes too late, I will write here and ping you. Let us hope the answer will come soon. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking frankly, there is no difference from what address the Government of Moscow will answer. In details, I found the request page at transport.mos.ru and asked through that page. My question was, whether the above-mentioned legal conditions have power over this transport.mos.ru site, because I see in the text of these legal conditions that they have such power. This or that way, hope to hear from them. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean a feedback form at their new site version newtransport.mos.ru or another one? I've noted they are planning to update their site, if there is another form, it would be nice to ask them to add information about license or their terms of use to this new page. However, if they will add a CC license text or hyperlink only to the bottom of their updated site newtransport.mos.ru, will it be automaticaly suitable for files from their old site transport.mos.ru which will not be migrated to a new version ? 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.186.207.140 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. User:PereslavlFoto got a signed letter from the Moscow administration saying that transport.mos.ru is part of mos.ru, and the same legal rules apply. Please close this request, and if you have any spare barnstars lying around, you just might want to give one to him. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. --sasha (krassotkin) 22:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)