User talk:Ahonc/Archives/February 2021

Thank you

Dear Anatoliy. Thank you for helping with the closure of this nomination. In accordance with the appealing rules I'd like to ask if you would like to reconsider your decision please? I am aware of this. But as mentioned in my nomination the Енциклопедія історії України used a file that was published before them and wasn't created or owned by them and failed to provide the name of the photographer or the original source of the image. In this case according to a precautionary principle there is a significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file. In your closing you haven't addressed the concerns which I have raised in the nomination. Please kindly let me know if you would prefer to reconsider your decision or if you would like me to have another nomination. Thank you in advance! Doctor Architect (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ми не можемо перевіряти походження кожного фото. Якщо хтось розміщує фото в себе на сайті і дає на нього дозвіл, ми вважаємо, що він має на це фото права. Є навіть користувачі, які займаються так званим copyright laundering. Тобто він бере фото, взяте невідомо де, ставить у себе на сайті і ставить там вільну ліцензію. Якщо неможливо знайти оригінал, то ми вважаємо, що та людина є автором. Ну тобто я знаю, що він не є автором, але доказів на це знайти не можу. У вашому випадку фото на іншому ресурсі теж не є оригінальною публікацією. Якщо ви знайдете саме оригінал і доведете, що він невільний (можна буде спитати в автора, чи він давав дозвіл ЕІУ на використання в себе), тоді можна розглядати нову номінацію.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but there is one fundamental problem. In order to use CC BY-SA for images on the first place one MUST have proper attribution. It must give appropriate credit and indicate if changes were made. We can see that this principle has failed in this example. All they have done on September 14, 2012 was adding caption with the license to all pages of the site with articles. Without differentiation between various images. For articles it's ok. For images it's not. Unless they create the content themselves using their camera or artists and not take it from somewhere else. We can see that most of the images from this new “source” were retouched copies of images from other locations. None of the images on that site has mentioned the original source of the image. Not even one! This is indeed copyright laundering, but on a larger scale. It also clearly shows that whoever decided to allow content to be copied under CC BY-SA from September 14, 2012 didn't have the full understanding of how this license works for images. I did a very quick check on another image used by the same author and was easily able to find the source. Here is the article with an image: http://www.history.org.ua/?termin=Krushelnitska_M_S and I can see that they took the image from “Українська Літературна Енциклопедія. — Київ, 1995. — Т. 3: К-Н.” And failed to provide source like they did for all of the images that they took. So this site can’t be used as a source due to it’s violation of CC BY-SA by failing to give appropriate credit and indicate if changes were made, which were made in this case and other cases. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Де таке написано? Тобто ви стверджуєте, що автори енциклопедія порушували авторські права? Знову ж таки, ліцензія CC_BY-SA є невиключною, автори могли їм надати зображення під такою ліцензією, а в інших місцях використовувати під іншою. CC-ліцензія це дозволяє. Ви висловлюєте припущення, але прямих доказів не надаєте. На таких припущеннях можна пів Вікісховища вилучити.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's written here: "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made". And all of the articles and photos on that site are published under the same license. Including retouched photos. And no source, no indication of changes, no attribution on any of them. And I have already gave you direct example of the image (Krushelnitska), which was taken from another encyclopedia, retouched, and no attribution was given. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ви вириваєте з контексту. ось повний текст:

Ви можете вільно:

• Поширювати — копіювати і розповсюджувати матеріал у будь-якому вигляді чи форматі
• Змінювати — реміксувати, трансформувати, і брати матеріал за основу для будь-яких цілей, навіть комерційних.

На наступних умовах:

• Зазначення Авторства — Ви маєте вказати автора, розмістити посилання на ліцензію та вказати чи було внесено зміни до твору. Ви можете зробити це у будь-який розумний спосіб, але так, щоб не створювати враження стосовно того, що ліцензіар підтримує чи схвалює вас або ваше використання твору.
• Поширення На Тих Самих Умовах — Якщо ви реміксуєте, трансформуєте матеріал, засновуєте свій твір на матеріалі, ви повинні розповсюджувати свої твори на умовах тієї ж ліцензії, що й оригінал.
• Без додаткових обмежень — Ви не можете висувати додаткові умови або застосовувати технологічні засоби захисту, що обмежують права інших на дії дозволені ліцензією.

Мова йде про те, як використовувати зображення, ліцензоване під такою ліцензією. А не як ліцензувати початкове зображення. Тобто ці умови мають виконуватися для опису файлу у Вікісховищі. Щодо файлу на сайті ЕІУ, знову ж таки, ви не знаєте, звідки автор узяв те фото. Може автори тієї енциклопедії самі його надали автору. Ви не можете стверджувати, що автор ЕІУ його вкрав, не маючи доказів.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they stole it, but used without specifying the source and showing permission or approval of the original author for their use. Can you provide any evidence that they have permission to use those images on the first place and to distribute it under the license that they gave? I didn't see it. At least for one of their images can you show it please? Otherwise it's typical copyright laundering. 20:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ви хочете весь ланцюжок досліджувати, хто в кого фото взяв? Є сайт, який стверджує, що його матеріали під вільною ліцензією. Поки не доведено зворотне, ми вважаємо, що автори сайту мають право на ті фото. А як вони отримали його, ми не перевіряємо. Ми не можемо перевіряти першоджерело кожне фото з кожного сайту з вільними ліцензіями. Щоб довести copyright laundering, треба довести, що фото крадене. Ви наразі це не довели.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the entire chain. Just the source. According to your logic anyone can create a site and publish content under a free license and only is someone of the copyright holders will complain then this site will become ineligible. If this is the current Commons approach then let it be. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Якщо ви завантажите фото і скажете, що це ви його зробили. Ми ж віримо, що його зробили ви, поки не знайдуться докази, що його зробили не ви.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's not true. Please read this discussion, quote: "Вітання! Маю великі сумніви у вашому авторстві цього зображення. Докажіть, що ви — автор" ("Greeting! I have great doubts about your authorship of this image. Prove that you are the author"). This means that we need to have proof of license compliance and not only if we find violation than it can be deleted. We do not trust without a proper proof. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

А до чого тут цей приклад? Там інша ситуація. Автор не на сайті в себе розмістив, а завантажив зразу сюди. А ось цей приклад аналогічний нашому: [1]. Початкове фото була завантажено як фото невідомого автора з власної колекції, його вилучили, далі користувач завантажує те саме фото і вказує джерелом посилання на сайті, де він же його виклав під вільною ліцензією. Хоча він очевидно не є автором фото, бо він на фото зображений. Так, ми знаємо, що це фото не його, але не можемо довести, чиє воно, тому не можемо вилучити. Так само з фотографіями з Вікімапії, Флікра. Там викладають багато фото під вільною ліцензією і звідти можна вантажити сюди. Але далеко не всі фото вільні. У нас є фото з Вікімапії з водяними знаками інших сайтів, але на тих сайтах фото вже нема, і довести, що права автора порушені неможливо, тому вони не вилучаються.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Ahonc

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Ahonc,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Більшовицький продзагін-1.jpg

Hello. I was looking through the backlog of Deletion requests and noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Більшовицький продзагін-1.jpg was closed by you as delete. However, this file is still uploaded to Commons. It hasn't been reuploaded since the April 2020 deletion request. I was wondering why this file is still on Commons despite the deletion request closure. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:ZininaOlena.jpg

Copyright status: File:ZininaOlena.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:ZininaOlena.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Вилучені старі фото

Привіт. тут ось скопом вилучили купу старих фото. Я знав одне з них в обличчя, тому зміг відстояти його відновлення. Інші мені не відомі, тому як буде колись час, покопирсайся там, будь ласка, може щось ще вилучили дарма. Дякую.--Brunei (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural heritage monuments in Ukraine and Wikidata

Hi Ahonc, how are you doing? I'm currently matching up photos with the relevant items on Wikidata (example). I was looking at Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Ukraine with known IDs and I couldn't find the relevant property on Wikidata. Looks like the Cultural heritage monuments in Ukraine have never been added to Wikidata. Any idea why? Multichill (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)