User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:2002 flood service medal.jpg

What exactly is the problem? Fdutil (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:DW. There are two copyrights: 1) the medal and 2) the photo of the medal. You may have taken the photo, and you may own the medal (mere physical property rights), but the medal's creator retains the intellectual property rights and thus his/her permission would be required to license this image freely. Эlcobbola talk 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

contesting that you want every single photograph deleted of babies that are wearing hemuts that correct a problem the babies are born with - you want every photo deleted

this is for the children and not my personal photo album

i have enclosed the gallery we use in spanish and the text

thanks for your compassion for the children

Desde 2009 el hospital cuenta con una Unidad de Remodelación Craneal Infantil. El casco de remodelación craneal es contraindicado para casos de Craneosinostosis, hidrocefalia y para bebés menores a tres meses de edad. Para estos casos es importante contar con especialistas que deberán diagnosticar adecuadamente al paciente. En primer lugar se debe descartar un cierre prematuro de suturas por medio de exámenes especiales con Tomografía axial computarizada. Algunos bebés nacen con deformaciones craneales, otros desarrollan las mismas debido a mal posicionamiento en sus primeros meses de vida. Estas deformaciones llevan varios nombres dependiendo de la asimetría del cráneo, entre ellas las más comunes son Plagiocefalia, Braquiocefalia, Escafocefalia.

Since 2009, Hospital del los Valles in Quito, Ecuador has in place an Infant Cranial Remodeling Unit that assists babies with cases of craniosynostosis and hydrocephalus. These strains carry various names depending on the asymmetry of the skull, including the most common are Plagiocephaly, Braquiocefalia, Scaphocephaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.66.69.225 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that this is responsive to the issue or what feedback you would like from me. That a hospital provides services to children is admirable, but the Commons is not to be used as that hospital's web host. The volume, poor technical quality (e.g., blurriness), and the promotional tone here and in the article (which you've created) suggest a violation of COM:NOT. Please use the deletion request for responses. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why you want to delete all the photos Babies (who are wearing helmuts) - you personally asked for every photo to be deleted.....babies who are born with cranial deformities are able to have a scan at the Hospital del los Valles and the this file is set to the United States where a helmut is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.168.96 (talk • contribs)

Is my Work

User:Lovevoetbal Hey the pictures from curacao national fotball team is my work no is the posible violation thanks for your attention, no delette my work please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovevoetbal (talk • contribs)

Please see COM:OTRS. Previously published images require additional permission. Further, you have uploaded images such as File:Cvv republic curazao first team.jpg claiming to be the author, which seems decidedly untrue. Эlcobbola talk 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two files that are mine friend, Im scan of a history book of Fotball Curacao
more information for the book [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovevoetbal (talk • contribs)
Please see COM:DW. You cannot license images that you have not personally created; copying someone else's image does not remove their copyright. Whether you know a person pictured has no bearing on the copyright status of the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

ElC: I understand that you are a person of some import here. Could you move Category:HMS Calliope (ship, 1887) to Category:HMS Calliope (ship, 1884)? Ships are distinguished by, and dated from, their launch year, not year of completion. I proposed the move on talk page last year and got no reply. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KB, I've given it a go. Let me know if anything is incorrect or, by all means, fix any issue you find (I'm not sure how category moves work on en.wiki, but categories have to be manually moved on the Commons -- a known bug -- so you actually ought to have the same capabilities as I). Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alles gut. Vielen dank. I did not know I could do it. Kablammo (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth-Vader-Legoland.jpg

The license of the photo in Flickr clearly says Creative Commons 2.0. I don't know what did you doubt about it. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no comment related to the Flickr license. Please read the rationale critically and see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem because is a character from a franchise, why exists this [2]? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are putting that message in all the images that I mentioned, why don't see this too [3]? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see es:WP:OTRA. The category was created by a serial copyvio uploader and its existence has no relevance to acceptability of the images therein. Further, you received a notice about File:Darth-Vader-Legoland.jpg because I tagged all the images in that category; I did not tag them after you mentioned it here. What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, files in Category:Star Wars - The Exhibition appear to have copyright issues. Jespinos (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MplsMTMstatue.jpg

For FoP related reasons we use a regular DR. We discussed this recently at the administrators noticeboard. There are two main reasons to use a regular DR for this. One reason is that FoP issues are too complicated for speedy deletion. Laws differ from country to country, in some case a (lack of) copyright notice at the statue makes a difference, etc. The other reason is that a lot of uploaders are totally unaware of the issue. A regular DR is far more friendly then and gives a better opportunity to the uploader to ask questions and to the community to answer those questions. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find copyright too complex, an ethical stance would be to abstain from related nominations or to resign your tools. I sincerely hope you will do both. Эlcobbola talk 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the answer I hoped to read from an administrator :-( - Jcb (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images GLOWINTHEDARK and Willy Monfret

Dear Elcobbola, You've marked my uploaded images as possible copyright violation. The photos are made by the management of the guys, where I work. We have all rights on the images and decided to release those rights since these are their official pressphotos. Can you remove the warning? Or is there someplace I can defend this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosaenv (talk • contribs)

Hi Rosaenv, works that have been published prior to upload to the Commons require additional permission. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on how to provide this. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About deletions

Hi, the only deletion request I don't understand is the one about the lego sculptures. It is just lego bricks. There are a lot of images about it here: Category:Lego sculptures and Category:Lego sets. Thank you for your attention.--SunOfErat (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SunOfErat, copyright is afforded to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (emphasis mine)(17 U.S.C. § 102) The law does not care whether the material is wood, stone, or little plastic building blocks. A sculpture is a sculpture regardless of how it is constructed. If an analogy would help: a single word, like a single Lego block, is not eligible for copyright. However, an original/creative arrangement of many words into a poem or novel, like many Lego blocks into a sculpture, is eligible for copyright. There are millions of images on the Commons, and of them hundreds of thousands of copyvios. That other users have not understood the scope of copyright and/or the concept of derivative works and thus created those categories is not a meaningful point (see w:WP:OTHERSTUFF). Эlcobbola talk 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since a lot of the files I uploaded from Flickr have some problems, I would ask you a favor. If I write down a list of links of CC-By and CC-By-SA photos I found interesting, would you please tell me before I upload them on commons if I can do it whitout deletions? --SunOfErat (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be fine. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kürtősh Kalách family.jpg and other files uploaded by me

Pleasw write me what am I doing wrong? I don't understand why are you setting my images as copyright violations. I am the webmaster of kurtos.eu. I uploaded the images and set the copyright to "http://kurtos.eu/". On the bottom of this webpage we put "CC-BY-SA-3.0" What else we have to do, so we can upload our pictures to commons? --Vszhuba (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vszhuba, the primary issue is that the CC license on the website appears to be license laundering. For example, a scanned page from a cookbook, which you have here is a derivative work. The copyright belongs to the book's author; you, as the mere scanner or website host, cannot legitimately apply a CC license without the author's permission. Similarly, this image is clearly credited to ArtDelineo, this image has a "BL" watermark, this image also appears to have a watermark, etc. - all pointing to disparate authors. In short, the CC claim on the website is not reliable. If you are actually the author of certain images, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to submit permission. An OTRS volunteer will restore images if/when we receive acceptable permission. Do not recreate the images yourself. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rudy-Perez-1a-04-29-13.jpg

Hello.

Photo File: Rudy Perez-1a-04-29-13.jpg was deleted on the grounds that it had no proper license. It is the first picture I get on Wikipedia but the picture does not violate any copyright. You can find a message from the owner of the rights to the photo in Wikimedia Commons, in which he states that allows it to rise Wikimedia and its use by any person for whatever they want. The message is stored on Wikimedia Commons. If you do not consider that the license is adequate having it, change it yourself and tell me which is the best license and how to change it. Again it is the first photo I upload to Wikimedia, but does not infringe any copyright right. You can not do it if the author allowed the photo uploaded to Wikimedia. Just be a infringement of copyright if any uploaded without your consent. That photo has text web page photograph means nothing. The photo should be put back.

Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file was not deleted "on the grounds that it had no proper license"; it was deleted because there was not adequate evidence or permission for the license provided. The statement you reference, but fail to link, is not sufficient - see COM:L for the explicitness and conditions required. Further, COM:OTRS requires additional permission for images published prior to upload to the Commons. If the author submits permission to OTRS using an address with a @rossanamusica.com domain, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The author sent the permission through your email staff (FAzuero@aol.com He sent a copy of permission to Commons, to me and the journalist working with him on the website where I found the photo).--Isinbill (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a request at COM:UD. Please keep discussions in one place. Эlcobbola talk 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Delh}} at COM:UD

Hi Elcobbola, hope you're well. Not sure if you know about it, but on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, the archive headers and footers are {{Udelh}} & {{Udelf}} respectively. The bot will not archive sections closed with anything other than the aforementioned templates. Regards, FASTILY 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did not. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola talk 01:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

A beer to say thank you for your help navigating through commons. I have much to learn but I will get there. Thanks again Vergiotisa (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Daft admin"

I've been called worse, but wouldn't it be more helpful for you to just delete the bloody thing instead if it's so unambiguous rather than tag and then insult any admin who happens to take a different view? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of MTA Logo.png

Hi. I didn't understand your explanation to the reason why this logo is under copyright protection. You just gave a link to site which also displays the logo of MTA, it doesn't prove nothing. Would appreciate your explanation, this logo was downloaded from the MTA Hebrew wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkinderz (talk • contribs)

Hi Ronkinderz, copyright exists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. That is, any work sufficiently original (e.g., not a simple geometric shape) is assumed to be under copyright protection as a default position. Accordingly, the onus is on uploaders or advocates for retention (you) to demonstrate that a file is free of copyright protection, not for us to demonstrate that it is not. The link to an external site demonstrates that this is not the work of a wikimedian, and thus the uploader on he.wiki and you do not have the ability to license the image; only the Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Club can do that. Please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, COM:L, and COM:EVID for related concepts. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thnx for the quick response.
I have explained the situation to Maccabi Tel Aviv FC and they have sent me an e-mail that grants the permission to use the logo on the team's page on wiki.
Can you tell me what is the next move?
Thank you,Ron.
Permission will have to allow use anywhere and by everyone (including commercial usage and adaptations); it cannot be limited to just the team's wiki page (see Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses for the conditions that must be explicitly met). If the FC has provided permission that meets those conditions, you can follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to submit the email to us. A volunteer will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example for the kind of license that is given. as you can see, it is non 'free to all' and not commercial use license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Real_Madrid_CF.svg
This kind of license is given to almost all the football team logos that I have seen.
Did I get it wrong?
That image is hosted on en.wiki, which allows non-free licenses in some circumstances. This is the Commons; non-free licenses are never allowed here. Эlcobbola talk 20:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wav Files Trailer Park Sex

Hi Эlcobbola talk
I see you have stated that I gave my permission for this files to be and stay in wikimedia [Archive Page]. Nevertheless they seem to be stuck in there. CAn you tell if I need to do anything for them to be restored and available again?
Thank you --Picturechina (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Picturechina, I merely closed your undeletion request(s) as premature, as the files had not yet been deleted. I did not make a statement related to permission. You will need to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide permission. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi elcobbola I'm a bit lost and admittedly a bit angry about the burocracity of all this, never the less I still do not understand what I'm supposed to do next, I sent all permissions via email and they were received, also somebody from this wikimedia permission team called "matthew" took care of it and tagged the songs as "permission granted". BUT nobody took the time to return the songs to their place, yet everydody is so vigilant when deleting.. Who is team restore? who makes the "put back in place" clicks? CAn you tell me? I'm honestly lost. Thanks a ton. --Picturechina (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons has the relatively limited role of serving as an archive for other Wikimedia projects. Accordingly, we abstain from editorial decisions (i.e., whether a certain image is used in an article) and merely host media that other projects are welcome to use if they so choose. The implication, then, is that restored media need to be manually re-added by the local projects; there is no "team restore" or automated process. This isn't bureaucracy per se, but an admittedly unfortunate side effect of the separation of duties. Эlcobbola talk 02:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry but I didn't understood very well the comment in my undeleting request here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Ediciones_Babylon.jpg

I have permission of the company to use their logo. How can I prove I've permission? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicentevirtual (talk • contribs)

Please see Commons:OTRS/es. Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vszhuba and User:Hantzpeter photos

Hello! I am writing to you as an OTRS agent. We received a complaint from user:hantzpeter that all of their photos from the website http://kurtos.eu/ have been deleted and people blocked for sockpuppetry. The situation is that they uploaded the photos from their own website (Hantzpeter is editor, Vszhuba is webmaster, see http://kurtos.eu/impress), and have also placed the cc-by-sa-3.0 disclaimer on it now. Before blocking people, it might be beneficial to ask them for info, as there was no malicious intent here, rather a lack of knowledge on how Commons works, which is not their fault. OTRS ticket link, though the ticket is in Hungarian. user:Hantzpeter has a personal website at Eötvös Loránd University http://hantz.web.elte.hu/ where http://kurtos.eu/ is listed among his hobbies. I hope this helps to clarify copyright status of the images. Would it be possible to restore them? If they don't have the proper licence template, please let me know and after restoration I'll go through them and clean up, placing the OTRS ticket template, too. Thank you in advance. Teemeah (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They also sent an email back in January: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=7348205 which described the situation. Following this they placed the cc-by-sa disclaimer on their website. Teemeah (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Teemah, I explained why the website permission is not acceptable here; the images are unambiguously from multiple sources. Merely being a webmaster and applying a CC license to the site does not speak to the licenses of the images. We require permission from the authors of the images, or evidence of a conveyance of the copyright if they were for hire. "Before blocking people, it might be beneficial to ask them for info" is nonsense; firstly, we did do that: four separate admins have told Hantz, et al. ([4], [5], [6], [7]) to use the OTRS system, including that we would restore the images if and when permission is acceptable. Secondly, regardless of copyright status, it is never acceptable to create multiple accounts to continue to reupload content that was deleted through our deletion process(es). Эlcobbola talk 12:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user finaly did use the OTRS system. (ticket:2014041810005642) Ankry (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the user has begun to use the OTRS. If the tickets provide genuine evidence (unlike the example I've provided below), the issue would indeed be resolved and you may continue to use COM:UD or let me know and I will undelete them personally. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it is all resolved now. We agreed via OTRS (ticket:2014041810003822) that only photos he attached will be uploaded. I did it, tagging with the ticket id. he explicitly declared in the ticket that he owns the copyright to these photos. There is nothing we can disapprove of here, he took responsibility, we have the declaration from him in multiple emails. If he declared he owns the copyright, we have nothing in our hands to say otherwise. Cheers. Teemeah (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. File:Kürtőskalács székely magyar.jpg is watermarked as copyright Living Transylvania Organization and Elo Erdely Egyesulet (i.e., "[something] in our hands to say otherwise"). The person submitting the ticket does not claim to be or provide evidence of being an agent of the Living Transylvania Organization, nor is there correspondence from Elo Erdely Egyesulet. I need time to look at the other images, but this ticket is not valid for this example image. Эlcobbola talk 20:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Hungarian ticket Mr Hantz says the following: "az en utmutatasaim vagy kutatasaim alapjan, az en rendelesemre, az en penzembol keszultek, es en vagyok a tulajdonosa" ([these images] were made according to my instructions, based on my research work, upon my order, from money I paid and I am the owner".) Ticket:2014011610015382, Hanz Péter is on copy. Obviously he has a relation with that organization and they gave permission. Obviously they agreed on releasing the copyright. The correct action now, instead of just angering a donator again, that you try to get the organization to clarify the permission and actually include the CC-by in the letter. Where had good faith gone to? You are accusing people who obviously had an intention to donate free pictures, they even asked everyone invlved to send emails to OTRS, it's all over the place, I counted at least TEN separate tickets. Instead of trying to negotiate and resolve, you simply delete. This is NOT how donators should be handled, whatever your prejudiced assumptions are. Goodnight. Teemeah (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We accept statements of "[these images] were made according to my instructions, based on my research work, upon my order, from money I paid and I am the owner" when there is not evidence to the contrary. That is why images like File:Kürtős kalács kenése.jpg are perfectly fine. The other images, however, have information that Hantz does not address. If Hantz paid for them, the copyright watermarks would be "copyright Peter Hantz", not the Living Transylvania Organization, Elo Erdely Egyesulet, Haaz Sandor and Fritz Hahn. Hantz can either provide written documentation that those entities have conveyed rights to him, or he can have them email OTRS. Your work on this ticket is a joke. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are such a superior to everyone, why don't you handle the ticket yourself instead of lecturing others in words how to work? I haven't seen you writing to them once. You are only giving high lectures here, to me. Have you done anything to solve this case? Or just wait for others to do the "rubbish" work, so you can keep some kind of ridiculous moral high ground? Have you looked into OTRS even once to see how many tickets have to be handled for this case? it's all over the place, with pieces of information scattered all over them, from which I have to try to make sense and put the pieces together, while you are graciously only nominating things for deletion and telling others they do a shitty job. I spent days on this case, talking to various stakeholders, while you spent 10 minutes tagging pictures and lecturing me on my shitty job. That's really how things should work, right? My job is a joke? LOL. You're so funny. :) Now if you could graciously lift your golden finger to look at ticket:2014011610015382 I would be so humbly grateful. Thank you, Master. Teemeah (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for your intervention to end the problem, even that in I was blocked from editing for three days, but the laws are the laws. and thank you for stopping user:Ich Pilot harassment.

I hope that you are open-mindedness in reading the exact problem: User:Khny did a new Controversial amendment without bringing any sources for example: File:Christian distribution-ar.png and file:File:Christian distribution.png the sources of these maps were from: Pew Research Forum and CIA - The World Factbook -and Census Bureau: Statistical Agencies - User:Khny and then user:Ich Pilot Has changed drastically the map without reference to sources or even mention the sources for the new map, what I did is only Reverted to version with the sources. I even opened a Discussion for all these File but no one of then added what the sources for his "New" map.

The same for File:Catholic Majority Countries.PNG he removed Austria and another countries without adding any sources, and I added a scours in the File discussion page he didn't answer. and kept adding a maps without adding any sources.

The same is for File:Christian Majority Countries-ar.png and File:Christian Majority Countries.PNG there was A discussion about the status of Russia in the map, in the debate, the majority of sources indicate that Russia, though nominally, is a Christian country, then User:Khny removed Russia from the map without mention the reasons, then come user:Ich Pilot and removed many European countries without mention why or without without reference to sources what I did was only only Reverted to version with the sources (the old map was reference to Pew), so I hope it will not be a problem to the old maps that are reference to sources, and if user:Ich Pilot and User:Khny want to make a new changes I'm ready to discussed it and everyone can bring a scours for the map.

Thank you again and Have a nice Day.--Jobas (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jobas, I don't have an opinion regarding the content or factual accuracy of the map(s) and indeed do not wish to get involved. This is an issue that needs to be discussed amongst those of you interested in and knowable about the subject matter. This interaction needs to happen on the related talk pages, not through edit warring. If you need third party opinions or greater participation, you may wish to post on a noticeboard. If there continue to be reversions without genuine attempts for discussion, longer blocks and/or page protections will be issued. I am, for example, concerned that you have already made at least three reversions without corresponding explanations on the talk pages. Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload any new map what I did only a reverted the map that scoured with Neutral sources as: Pew Research Forum and CIA - The World Factbook - and Census Bureau: Statistical Agencies. I even discussed the changes that made by user:Khny and tried to find a common solution, you can check when I discussed about why some of these counties should not be removed and even I added Various sources and here too and and I even tried here to discussed again why the new map should not remove Austria and Belgium and France. but user:khny and user:Ich Pilot continued to Upload a new maps without mention the sources or even discussions. Anyway I apology for broken the some of rules here when I was in edit-war.

So best regards and Have a nice day and will be approach it if you can stop this harassment by user:Ich Pilot.--Jobas (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B88

you should not revert my edit to before edit-war without reverting the recent edits of Jobas aka "Marian Hanna 12" to before edit-war.

By the way User:B88 has been blocked in English wiki for vandalism. He keeping vandalism and edit-waring in different wiki projects Here you can see that he has been blocked for edit warring and his sockpuppet account user::Zwanzig 20 you can see how many times he was in edit-war and vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello may I ask you to protect my talk page?.--Jobas (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Эlcobbola talk 00:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You :).--Jobas (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

remove deletion tags

File:ClayRudra.jpg File:Sudamacharit.jpg File:DurgadasCover.jpg

THIS ALL IS MY OWN WORK MAN!!!!! REMOVE THE DELETION TAG BECAUSE THIS IS PHOTO SHOT USING MY CAMERA!!!! REMOVE THE DELETION TAG FAST!!

AbHiSHARMA143 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPs und Sockenpuppen von User:Pava

Hallo Elcobbola,

die folgenden IPs/Nutzerkonten wurden bzw. werden mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit von Pava eingesetzt:

Viele Grüße.--FAEP (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für den Hinweis, FAEP. Ich bin mit dieser Anfrage ja vertraut. Holywheel und Serenauto sind schon gesperrt; Giuliabombelli ist leider Stale. Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USGS map question

Hi Elcobbola. Our paths haven't crossed in years, but I think of you as the go-to guy when it comes to image questions that I just can't sort out. I've been working on a peer review of en:Lake James (Indiana), and it includes a map, File:Lake James map from USGS.JPG, cropped from the "GNIS in ESRI" map. My concern, which I've expressed in the "Images" subsection of the peer review, is that the map might be a compilation of maps and data some of which is proprietary and not in the public domain. I've written to the USGS about this but have not gotten a clear "yes" or "no" about whether the map is entirely in the public domain. Do you happen to know the answer? Your help with this would be much appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Huhu :), Könntest du bitte einen Blick auf diesen Fall werden. Danke! --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gern geschehen! ;) Эlcobbola talk 21:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
سيدي الكريم ارجوك افهمني الصور التي قمت برفعها والذي وضعتها انت في طلبات الحذف هي عبارة عن صور حرة مئة بالمئة وجتى ان هناك صور من تصويري التام سيدي الكريم انا رفعت هذة الصور من اجل ان اضعها في صفحة اعمل عليها الان ويجب ان تكون الصفحة ذات معايير لذى يجب ان ازودها بصور تبين وتوضح ارجوك ياسيدي افهمني انا قمت برفعها مرة واحدة وبيوم واحد من اجل ضيق وقتي والصور ممتازة وذات وضوح جيد ارجوك لاتحذفها ان هذة الصور سوف تفيد المستخدمين والقراء الذين يدخلون الى صفحات انشائناها بانفسنا منتصر حبيب شراير (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Dear Sir I beg Efhamny pictures you've lifted and you put you in the deletion requests is a picture free one hundred percent and the Getty that there are pictures of pictorial full Dear Sir, I raised these images in order to lay it down on the page I'm working on now, and it should be a page with standards inappropriate, must Azodha images indicate and explain beg, sir Efhamny I've lifted once and for one day in order to narrow my time and the pictures are excellent and with good clarity beg for Athzvha that these images will benefit users and readers who enter into pages Anchainaha ourselves victor Habib Schreier (Talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 
منتصر حبيب شراير (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
سيدي الكريم لقد وضعت الصور التي قمت ربفعها بطلبات الحذف السريع سيدي الكريم ارجوك الصور هذة من انشائي ص الا انك قمت وضعها بطلبات الحذف ارجوك ياسيدي لاتحذفها انا استغرقت وقت طويل وانا ارفعها لذا انا اللتمس كرمك وحسن نيتك بان ترجعها من طلباتالحذف اروك ياسيدي الكريمانا رفعتها لانني سوف انشاء الصفحة ويجب ان تكون الصفحة موضحة تماما للقارءلذا لاتحذفها ارجوك واتمنى ذلك منتصر حبيب شراير (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peachoid

Is this a legitimate use of an image of this sculpture with a registered Copyright used here in Wikipedia? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a number of years since I reviewed images on en.wiki, so my policy knowledge may be antiquated. That said, a fair use claim for the w:Peachoid article seems entirely reasonable. I would quibble that the purpose statement is somewhat poor, but that would only be an issue if the article were being evaluated at an FA level. I wrote an article (w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches) about evaluation of the NFC criteria and purpose writing which you may find useful. Эlcobbola talk 20:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that is well written - I will review carefully. Do you mind if I follow up with questions? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socken

Hallo, Habe gerade zwei neue Messina Socken (User:Toebie, User:Wolfe0ds) gesperrt. Vieleicht magst du da genauer reingucken. lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question About an Image

Hello,

I have recently received several notices stating that images I have uploaded violate copyrights. Looking back, I realize that the majority of them were copyright violations. However, I do not see what was wrong with one of my latest uploads, an image of a Porsche Cayman for use on my Wikipedia user page.

It was just a free wallpaper from Porsche's website that I had cropped and added my username to. I do not understand the issue with that.

Thank you, Cargeek100 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cargeek100, your Porsche image is a derivative work. Alterations (such as cropping and adding a name) do not remove the copyright of the underlying image. The image on the Porsche website may be free (gratis), but it is not free (libre). Indeed, per its Legal Notice, "You may browse this website and download or print a copy of material displayed on the website for your personal use only and not for redistribution, unless consented to in writing by Porsche." (emphasis mine) These conditions are not acceptable on the Commons, as all use (e.g., commercial, not just personal) and redistribution must be allowed (see COM:L). Эlcobbola talk 18:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up for me! --Cargeek100 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance.

JPI (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated by the the link in the notice, this image was published before upload to the Common. Per COM:OTRS, this circumstance requires additional evidence in the form of an OTRS ticket. Unless that has been submitted, the notice is proper. Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS ticket opened a few minutes ago with appropriate details. The image found on site http://www.superprof.fr/cours-chant-technique-region-nantaise-coach-professionnel-cours-certification.html is a copy of my original picture, and was published by the subject for his own needs with my authorisation.
JPI (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've processed the ticket and updated the page. Thank you, Эlcobbola talk 21:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action. Appreciated.
JPI (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luca Leonardini.jpg

File:Luca Leonardini.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content ...

Hello Elcobbola,

could you please help me to understand why my picture has been removed from my profile? This picture is featuring myself in front of the sea, is not offensive, it was taken by a family member with my own camera, I saved it in Photoshop with my name and post it. I have also used this same image in some of my public profile such as LinkedIn, GooglePlus. As far as I understand I am the only owner of any possible existing copyrights on this image.

If I missed to add some metadata or description tag I apologize and I ask you to illustrate how to do it.

Thank you and best regards,

Luca Leonardini

Discussion regarding my images.

Hi! I just saw your message, I found that I'm yet to be blocked. But the images which I upload is either owned by me or a friend, who advise me to upload it.

For example: File:Thirumalai Palace.jpg, File:Kanyakumari Beach.jpg, File:Sunset in Kanyakumari.jpg and the current version of File:Ramanathar-temple.jpg are definitely my work and I've shot them.

But images like File:File:Tea plantations in Munnar, India.jpg, File:File:Dubai International Cricket Stadium.jpg, File:File:Shahrukh Khan in IPL 2014.jpg etc are those of my friends, they gave me the images and asked me to upload.

Currently, I'm in doubt why they are deleted. :( o.O  HPD   talk  15:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HPD, yes, you are not currently blocked; the notice was merely a warning. As an uploader, you are responsible for providing evidence (COM:EVID) that you are authorized to license the images. Uploading an image "for a friend" is generally not acceptable. For example, you claim File:Tea plantations in Munnar, India.jpg belongs to a friend, yet it is clearly the work of VidhuS. If VidhuS is indeed your friend, he would need to use the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide permission. Please also read COM:LL; himanisdas appears to be a serial infringer. Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool!! You just did what I wanted, File:Christmas tree decoration.jpg is no more used anywhere. As that image was assigned before in Template:subst:Xmas3 of Eng Wikipedia, I just wanted to redirect it to my newly uploaded free image i.e, File:CanadaHomeHolidayTree (Cropped).JPG, but latter on I managed to assign the image in the template itself. So, tried to delete it.
VidhuS??? He isn't my friend, how you got that information? My friend is H. Qureshi who gave me the picture and asked to upload it. Then I asked if it's free and where he found it, he said that he had already modified all the details by clearing up the old ones in image properties on pc and no one would know about it.
"himanisdas" is my Flickr account as I used to upload many photos there and then upload it on here with the Flickr license. :P  HPD   talk  17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He said that he had already modified all the details by clearing up the old ones in image properties on pc and no one would know about it.
So you knew he was manipulating the information and you uploaded it anyway?
I used to upload many photos there and then upload it on here with the Flickr license.'
That is illegal. It appears you are knowingly uploading copyright violations. You will be blocked if it happens again. Эlcobbola talk 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not like that as you are saying, I always want my photos to be published widely (Wikipedia is one of it), I also upload my photos on twitter, facebook, google+, flickr.

My own captured photos as I listed above which are not deleted are published everywhere. But I've not published it under CC-BY-SA on Wikipedia itself because I find Flickr process is easy from that.

As per the photos of my friends I've uploaded it in Flickr with their respective name so that I make sure that I'm not hiding anything. But they are deleted. Ok! Now I came to know about the process.  HPD   talk  17:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how you came to know more details regarding the Munnar pic you mentioned above? Like you said it's uploaded originally by VidhuS.  HPD   talk  17:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Ho fotografato (come sempre) le pubblicazioni dei TdG, Elitre mi ha spiegato che non va bene. Le foto di Nureev, Fracci, Savignano sono invece opere mie di foto fatte in teatro e che appartengono ad una collezione di servizi di 40/80 foto per soggetto, quindi nessuna violazione di copyright. Per le foto di libri sui TdG quella era stata la procedura adottatta fino ad ora, controllate a questo punto anche questa pagina con i suoi file: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traduzione_del_Nuovo_Mondo_delle_Sacre_Scritture: Ma ci sono pagine su Wp che hanno diverse foto con quelle pubblicazioni o tipo quelle come questa:https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publikacje_%C5%9Awiadk%C3%B3w_Jehowy . Un caro saluto--Fcarbonara (Discussione) 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Elitre has alreadly explained certain matters to you. You simply cannot photograph works authored by other people if those works remain under copyright - see Opera derivata. What pl.wiki does or does not contain is not a germane argument - see Ragionamenti per analogia. If certain images were entirely your own work, you could provide evidence of the same by emailing the negatives using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pelley Image

Hi, I don't mean to upload copyrighted images. I have information specifically consenting their release. I am mostly referring to the photo of Scott Pelley: File:Pelley 2014.jpg. How do I go about showing this so that the images can remain up? Thanks for your help.

This image is copyrighted by AP Photo/CBS Broadcasting, Inc., John Paul Filo. To restore the image, John Paul Filo and/or authorized representatives from the Associated Press or CBS Broadcasting, Inc. would need to email permission to us using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Note that emails would need to be from @cbs.com, @associatedpress.com, or analogous domains. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SugarHenderson

Hello Elcobbola,

I hope this is the appropriate avenue to discuss the four files being considered for deletion. Motivational posters are being used across many channels of social media. They serve to provide insight and inspiration to the reader. In social media, memes are widely used and shared. Some have taken up the joyful task of creating memes. Others will possible look for motivational memes by performing a basic search on the internet. The end results could be to receive inspiration and motivation or to share it with others.

I am creating motivational posters with the goal of helping to inspire others. Should someone perform a basic search, my posters could possibly appear and they could be shared. Futhermore, the posters could spark an interest in the reader and cause them to research the person who is being quoted in the poster. This spark of interest and the potential research could provide an educational moment for the reader. Upon performing a search, the reader could possibly be directed to a Wikipedia page in order to find out more information about the person being quoted.

I am by no means using Wikimedia Commons as a personal webpage. I am very sorry if the intention appeared that way. I am creating motivational posters using quotes that have inpired me. I, myself, have been sparked to further research the person who said the quotes used on the posters.

I have learned a wealth of knowlege about the person(s) being quoted. I would like for others to learn about the person being quoted and I would like them to be inspired by my motivational posters, which are my primary reasons for wanting to be a contibutor of Wikimedia Commons.

I would also like to add that the motivational posters I am providing to Wikimedia Commons will be able to be safely shared without having images that could pose copyright violations.

Thank you for your time. - Sincerely, SugarHenderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarHenderson (talk • contribs)

Deletion of All Photo File:Matser Piece by Ghaffoiurian Isfahan 30 Kheft.jpg(Copyright Violation)

Hi

I am a new user and not sure why all the photo were deleted. The message was due to the copy right but not sure how & why. I have read the message but can't figure out the reason. Please note that all of this photo were taken by myself and we have a website that shows all of this photo : www.tableaurug.com and have the right to all of these photos. These are not downloaded from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashHFatemi (talk • contribs)

ArashHFatemi, the website says "Copyright ©2012 Treasure Gallery Inc. All rights reserved" which contradicts the licenses with which you uploaded the images. In this circumstance, we require additional evidence to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Please send an email using an @tableaurug.com domain and the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the images. Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for your prompt respond. Advise where should I send the email to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashHFatemi (talk • contribs)
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to include every single picture link & name that were deleted in the email or general email is fine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashHFatemi (talk • contribs)
It is best to reference file names (you could simply copy and paste the names from the lists on your talk page), but phrasing similar to "currently deleted files uploaded by user ArashHFatemi" may be adequate too. Эlcobbola talk 17:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have just send an email from Arash Fatemi <info@tableaurug.com> to the requested destination. How long will it take to re-appear for the pix ?

Re: File:Football World Cup.svg

File:Football World Cup.svg is not violating any copyright because it's not a photo or a realistic image of a copyrighted object. --Gambo7 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant; see COM:DW. Derivative works also encompass transformations. Эlcobbola talk 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a own work and not a derivative.
Moreover, the supposed copyvio from http://www.dailyfreepsd.com/?attachment_id=3408 is clearly wrong, since I just moved this file from en.wiki and it was uploaded in 2007, while the website is from 2011. --Gambo7 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted” is unclear? Эlcobbola talk 17:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MISC Cuja Mara Split.jpg

Dear Elcobbola,
may I ask why File:MISC Cuja Mara Split.jpg is supposed to be deleted? Commons is full of pictures of products, just consider Category:Coca-Cola bottles - are you sure that the image of a product the manufacturer wants to be seen as often as possible is illegal here? In addition, the product in question is distributed in Germany only where a law prohibiting product photos does not exist. Does that have any relevance?
Kind regards,
Grueslayer (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two copyrights here: 1) your photograph and 2) the artwork on the box; the image was deleted because we do not have permission to license the latter. Indeed, German law does not prohibit photographs of products, but such photographs are not free (libre), which is a requirement for upload to the Commons. The Commons hosts over 21 million files and tens of thousands more are uploaded every day. Accordingly, not every image can be patrolled and there are certainly many other copyright violations here that should be deleted. This circumstance, however, has no relevance to this file. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this fix: a bottle is a useful article and the Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain due to being text (see {{PD-textlogo}} and would otherwise be {{PD-US}}). If you had photographed a plain, brown cardboard box or a box with a simple design (e.g. File:Ever bc.jpg), there would be no problem. See COM:TOO for the related concept(s). Эlcobbola talk 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laly-wiki.jpg deleted picture

Deletion of the pictures on "LALY VALLADE" wiki page. (FR)

Hello, you deleted the picture I added on Laly's profile for possible copyright infringement. We appreciate your efforts to protect intellectual rights but in this case we own the rights on that picture... My name on Wiki is Tristan Seagal, I'm Laly's husband and partner in her production company: Laly Production LLC, we are based in USA (Las Vegas) and can be reached by email: laly.productions@gmail.com, or by phone: +1 (702) 372 9754. We are registered under the licence # NV20111421030. As a production company we off course produce and shoot tons of pictures and videos and we use this shooting for promotional purpose and communication on Laly. How can we remove the deletion tag and post this pic on her wikipedia profile? Thanks a lot for your time and help! Best regards.

here is Laly's wikipedia page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laly

the picture: File:Laly-wiki.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanseagal (talk • contribs)

File:Pom Klementieff.jpg

Hi, you deleted a picture of Pom Klementieff that I had posted. The photographer agreed to allow the photo to be used, and I emailed him the proper license and got his approval back for it. I still have the e-mail message and would be happy to share it with you. It's been some years since I had posted a picture on Wikimedia Commons, but my recollection was after posting it I would get an email from WM and then respond by forwarding them the license. I'm guessing I'm wrong and handled it incorrectly. Can you tell me where to email the license? Or should I send it to you? Hunter Kahn (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, evidence of author release is generally necessary at the time of upload. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure and email address to which you can forward the permission. The image will be restored for you once the ticket is successfully processed. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Josegabrielgh

tengo una serie de logos e imágenes que me quieren borrar no se por que si son para uso de completar información en wikipedia todas esas imágenes tienen autorización de estar hay no veo por que las quieren borrar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josegabrielgh (talk • contribs)

You may not license images (football club logos) of which you are not the author, regardless of your intention to illustrate Wikipedia articles. You may wish to consider whether your local Wikipedia project allows fair use; the commons, however, does not. Эlcobbola talk 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed material of Bulthaup GmbH & Co. KG

Dear Elcobbola,

thank you for your message. As stated in the image descriptions I already sent the desired agreements for all my uploaded pictures to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org. Could you please restore the deleted pictures, the ORTS permission is pending.

Thank you and best wishes, --B-social media (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear Elcobbola,

thank you so much for your quick response! Best wishes, --B-social media (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion request about files uploaded by 1vince

Hello Elcobbola I do not understand the problems with the files i have upload. Could you explained to me exactly the errors that you reproached.

Cordially — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1vince (talk • contribs)

Hi 1vince, the problem is that your photographs are derivative works (see Œuvre dérivée). Simply, when you photograph something like a sculpture, a model, a building, etc. there are potentially two separate copyrights: 1) the picture itself and 2) the object being photographed. Unfortunately, because models are copyrightable works, photographs thereof cannot be freely licensed without permission from the creator of the model. The permission of the photographer alone is not sufficient. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elcobbola Thanks for your quickly responce. Are you sur that the models kit are copyrightable works? They have a lot of magazine and wed site use pictures of models with no problems of copiright. Have an advise or help to solve this problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1vince (talk • contribs)
Yes, I'm sure - see this essay and in particular the case Monogram Models, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp. found that "We have held that the copyright secured by Monogram on the F-105 Thunderchief kit, published in 1967, was a copyright on the kit, and is valid as to all components of the kit, including the plastic component parts" and "The issue of infringement was submitted to a jury which rendered a verdict that Industro had infringed Monogram's copyrights on its two scale model airplane kits." The images that you see in magazines and websites are fr:Fair use, which is not accepted on the Commons because it is not a free license. See also No. 5 of Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution. Эlcobbola talk 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elcobbola Are you sour that in this case the copyright infingnement is for a picture of Monogram Models and not for copiying plastic component. I don't understand why a picture of models kit can not use the same licence that pictures of plane or car. Cordially — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1vince (talk • contribs)
Hello I could noted that all the file concerned with the request are deleted ,Thank you ! If i would save some of the pictures you deleted wat is the solution? I would remain to you that the remain many files of same type and I wish you good time to found and deleted this!!! Cordially — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1vince (talk • contribs)
1vince, because these were derivative works, the only way they could be restored (which I assume you mean by "save") is if the creator of the model (meaning the author of the object, not the assembler) agreed to a free license. The Commons currently has more than 21 million files and 10,000+ more are added every day. It is not logistically possible to review all uploads, so it takes time to identify copyright violations ("[there] remain many files of same type"). If you are aware of such files, feel free to nominate them for deletion yourself. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Petillo Hammock Photo (File:Hammock.ThomasPetillo.jpg)

Hey Elcobbola,

Yesterday you removed the photo I put up about a year ago of Hammock in NYC (File:Hammock nyc 2008.jpg), taken by Thomas Petillo. Technically, you were correct in doing so, as I erroneously messed up the licensing, etc. when I first uploaded it. Yesterday, I contacted him and asked if he could release the image for me to upload under the appropriate Creative Commons license, and I received an e-mail today from him stating that he would prefer to upload it here himself. He did so here: (File:Hammock.ThomasPetillo.jpg). It appears you have now flagged it for speedy deletion, again. As I stated on the talk page for the photo in question, he is the original author (look at the EXIF data), and has uploaded it under the appropriate CC license. If you compare the photo to the one you noted as it being a violation of, you will notice that the uploaded photo is better quality (which follows, as it is from the original author of the photo). I think you will agree that this is a valid upload and is not a candidate for deletion, speedy or otherwise.

Jarsonic (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarsonic, previously published images require additional permission to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. For example, anyone could create the account "Thomas Petillo" and upload the image. While I have no reason to doubt you, and certainly do not mean to imply the account is not Thomas Petillo, I trust you understand by way of example why we need the emailed permission as a precaution and as a matter of policy. Accordingly, no, the upload does not yet have proper permission. Please send an email to the address on that page using a verifiable address (e.g., "thomas@thomaspetillo.com" per here). Эlcobbola talk 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola - Understood. I have sent Thomas an e-mail with instructions to do just that and send it to the specified e-mail address. Thank you.  :) Jarsonic (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. If you want to let me know when he has sent the email, I can process the ticket for you. Эlcobbola talk 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas has sent the email and cc'd me on it. Let me know if you see the ticket. Jarsonic (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well, I just asked him to re-send from the e-mail address on his website. His initial e-mail (to and from me) was from the website address. I'll let you know when he does. Jarsonic (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another OTRS member got to the ticket before me; they'll take care of it for you. Эlcobbola talk 21:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas notified me about an hour ago that he submitted the e-mail again from the correct e-mail address. If you have the time, could you take a look at the ticket? Thanks. Jarsonic (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. Jarsonic (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pictures

Hi! My username is seres7. You have deleted all pictures that I put in the Commons. I have a goal to create a page devoted to the creative work of the poet. I am the editor and publisher of his books. I must be placed on the page one photo of the poet and a few photos of covers of books. I am the author of the design and puts the figures at the request of the poet. What am I doing wrong and how to solve the problem? You can reply to me specifically and just, what should I do? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seres7 (talk • contribs)

Seres7, you've uploaded what appear to be photographs from various websites. To host an image, we require permission from the copyright holder--the photographer(s), in this case. Being an editor or publisher of certain material created by the subject of the images is not sufficient. If the various photographers have transferred copyrights to you (i.e., intellectual property rights, not merely physical property rights), you can provide evidence (for example, scans of the conveyances) using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that the pictures are used in the books of the author, officially published and having ISBN not the reason to use on the page poet?
I can provide official ISBN each book, the cover of which are used on the page poet.
Is the author to post pictures of the covers of his published books and some of the illustrations used in these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seres7 (talk • contribs)
Seres7, this has nothing to do with whether the images are appropriate for the article on the poet. This is about copyright. The Commons only hosts free (libre) images, and that requires permission from the actual photographers. The author of a book on which a photo appears is not the photographer and the editor is not the photographer, so they cannot license the images. The project on which the article is hosted may allow fair use, so perhaps uploading the images there would be an option. You may not, however, upload them here without the aforementioned permission. Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amy Pleasant.jpg

Hey Elcobbola,

You wouldn't happen to want to quickly check the ticket for File:Amy Pleasant.jpg would you? I emailed the release to permissions 2 days ago and haven't heard anything back. Jarsonic (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sometimes the process requires some patience. Depending on queue length, it can at times take several weeks to process tickets. Эlcobbola talk 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 second Hypothetical ?

I have just been reading User:Elcobbola/Models and it reminded me of the issue over design models for vehicles not yet in production or pre-production models such as (for example) those in Category:BMW i3 Concept at what point does the model "loose" (for want of a better term) it's protection as a model and become a utilitarian vehicle ? LGA talkedits 01:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to be careful about a distinction with the language. A model, in the sense contemplated by the essay, is meant as something akin to "a representation showing the appearance (or aspects thereof) of a thing." Implicitly, then, it necessarily precludes "[the] thing," which would include the alternative definition of model generally used with vehicles (i.e., "version," as in the Ford Model T). I mention this because you may be using both ("design models for vehicles not yet in production" being the former definition and "pre-production models" being the latter).
There is generally a progression in vehicle design: 1) design model (a "tangible" representation of the vision in the designer's head) -> 2) pre-production model (a single or limited production of a fully functional vehicle) -> 3) production model (a variant of the former ready for mass production and distribution). Given the statutory definition of a useful article of "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information," I would expect the divide between copyrightable work and utilitarian article to exist between steps 1 and 2 above. My understanding has been that pre-production models (i.e., concept cars like the i3) are single (or limited) productions of fully functional vehicles. To the extent they are not yet functional, the mere omission of, say, an engine and/or drive train for reasons of incompleteness or logistical practically (e.g., weight and maneuvering at a trade show) would not be expected to remove the usefulness of the article. As something of a test, automobile bodies are explicitly useful articles.
By a very technical reading, one could perhaps try to argue that a concept car is indeed "merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl Inc., 632 F. 2d 989 (2nd Cir. 1980) held that certain belt buckles (normally clothing and thus not copyrightable as a useful article) were actually eligible for copyright because their intended purpose was use as jewelry. So here, we have a concept car (normally a vehicle and thus not copyrightable as a useful article); could it be eligible for copyright because its intended purpose was to be a sculpture (3D portrayal of appearance)? I don't think this is anything more than an interesting thought experiment, however. Jurisprudence has as an underlying principle and objective the avoidance of chaos. If BMW's i3 were deemed a sculpture, what would happen if BWM started mass production of the design verbatim? Would the copyright dissolve? That cannot be, because we know "works of 'applied art' encompass all original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful articles, regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability of design patent protection" (Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983)). So that must mean the mass production i3 would be copyrightable; that's of course a bizarre outcome, contrary to the spirit and letter of the statute. Ultimately, any case is going to come down to the unique facts and circumstances. Generally, the considerations are going to be the nature of the object and its intended use. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and sorry that I have not had time to reply in detail until now, I agree that care has to be taken in the use and meaning of the word "model". I also agree that if someone creates a copyrightable work then nothing done later should effect the copyright-ability of that work. Finally I also see this as an interesting thought experiment, in which I think that, if BMW choose to, they could ague that the concept version (which is rather different to the production version (see Category:BMW i3) was created to "portray the appearance of the article" and did not have any "utilitarian function". LGA talkedits 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete

Hi!

You delete my images but is mine and my own property! Please undelete them.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ew news (talk • contribs)

Ew news, to my knowledge, I have not deleted any of your files. Looking at your deleted contributions, it appears most or all of the images were previously published on http://www.berd.eu/, which clearly says "© 2014 Berd One Bridge One Solution. All rights reserved." Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deletion requests

Hi Эlcobbola, Following files are book front covers needed for the wiki pages. Hence I had taken the photo and I have used it. I see that you have marked as them for deletion.

File:Marula Muniyana Kagga - Book Cover photo.jpg File:Mankutimmana Kagga - Book Cover photo.jpg

Shall I reupload these files with Non-free_book_cover template? As the files were photos not the scanned front page of the book, I had uploaded them as the pictures clicked by self. Please advise if there is a better way to upload such files.

Thanks ~ Omshivaprakash /talk/Contributions 15:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omshivaprakash, yes, they will need non-free book cover templates on the local project in which you wish to use them. See COM:DW for more information; basically, there are two potential copyrights here: 1) your photograph and 2) the book cover. Unfortunately, in these cases we also would require permission from the author of the book cover (not just the photographer thereof) to apply a free license. 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Delete my pictures

Hi Elcobbola... Mys pictures are from Google+... And used the bad licenses..

U Can help me?

Pd: I can't speak English, I speak Spanish...

Bye! 5 Seconds Of Summer Chile (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Seconds Of Summer Chile, you may not upload random images you find on the Internet. Please read COM:L and discontinue uploading images of which you are not the original author. Эlcobbola talk 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Marc Holtzman

It appears that the three photos I tried to load onto Marc Holtzman's page have been flagged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Holtzman

All three pictures were sent to me by Marc Holtzman to be added to his Wikipedia page. There are no copyright issues and are part of the public domain. Regarding the picture of Mr. Holtzman with President Reagan, look closely and you will see the picture was signed by the President. This picture belongs entirely to Mr. Holtzman.

I hope this helps. If I ticked the wrong boxes when loading these pictures, which I assume is likely, can you please guide me. If you need more information, I am happy to provide it.

Thank you.

- MadLegs Media (aka Rebecca)

Hi Rebecca, copyright is held by the creator of a work (i.e., the photographer), not the subject. Accordingly, permission from Marc Holtzman (the subject) is not in and of itself adequate. If the photographs were works for hire or the photographers otherwise conveyed copyrights to Marc Holtzman, we would require evidence of that to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. That notwithstanding, at least two of the images appeared on various websites before upload to the Commons. COM:OTRS also requires additional permission in that circumstance. Note that File:President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Marc Holtzman.jpg is explicitly credited to "Village Urugwi," so it is expected that permission come from that entity. Эlcobbola talk 16:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¡Una barnstar para ti!

La Barnstar especial
!!!Thanks!!! 5SOS FANATIC CHILE! (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

По поводу рисунков

Подскажите пожалуйста как мне правильно оформить лицензию, если я сам лично фотографировал и компоновал инструкцию и фотографии: File:Инструкция-адаптер.png, File:Adapter_wwsystem.png

а:

находились в свободном доступе, и лежат на моём компьютере уже больше 3 лет, и я физически не помню, откуда их брали. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axlnik (talk • contribs)

Axlnik, you may have complied File:Инструкция-адаптер.png, but the resulting complication is a derivative work. You must have permission from each of the photographers to license the image freely. Further, as this image previously appeared here (which clearly says "(c) Архимед. 2011 год"), additional permission would need to be provided using the procedure at COM:OTRS. The other images are clearly manufacturures' promotional material (e.g. for File:Jet adapter.gif you claim the author is "unknown" - неизвестный). You cannot license images of which you are not the author. Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion File:TG Gruppe-07 RGB 72dpi.jpg and other files

Hello, you have deleted all pictures uploaded by me. I didn't understand why you did it? I'm an employee at Gerresheimer AG and I work in wikipedia in the name of Gerresheimer. The pictures I uploaded belong to Gerresheimer. Can you please tell me why you have deleted these pictures and what was wrong with it? I need this pictures, because I have to renew the Gerresheimer page on wikipedia. Thank you.Marion Stolzenwald (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marion Stolzenwald, previously published images require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. This is necessary to ensure that you are indeed affiliated with the firm (e.g. the email should come from an @gerresheimer.de or anologous domain) and are authorized to license intellectual properties (copyrights) on behalf of the firm. Please also see Commons:Guidance for paid editors. Эlcobbola talk 13:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have deleted this file and several other pictures uploaded by me. I don't understand why you have deleted this. I'm a member in Wikimedia Commons and an employee of the Gerresheimer AG. I work in Wikipedia in the name of Gerresheimer and Gerresheimer is the owner of the pictures. Can you please explain what was wrong with the pictures and why you have deleted them? I need to know this, because I have to renew the Gerresheimer page on wikipedia and therefore I need this pictures. Thank you --Marion Stolzenwald (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, what was unclear in my preceding response? FWIW, I have not deleted any of your images. Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, why do all uploaded files require evidence of permission? As I said before all rights of use belong to the Gerresheimer AG. Today I have talked to our photographers and our graphic designer abd they have once again confirmed that all the rights of use belong to the Gerresheimer AG. I can also give you the names oft them. Gerrsheimer bought all rights of use so why do we have to need this additional evidence of permission?--Marion Stolzenwald (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion, please engage my previous comments. I said the additional evidence is necessary to ensure that you are indeed affiliated with the firm (e.g. the email should come from an @gerresheimer.de or analogous domain) and are authorized to license intellectual properties (copyrights) on behalf of the firm. I have no reason to doubt you, and indeed I do not; however, it is not uncommon that copyright violations are uploaded by mere "fans" of a firm's products (i.e. unaffiliated) or employees who mistakenly believe mere employment at a firm grants them authority to license the firm's intellectual property (i.e. unauthorized). I trust you understand then, by way of example, why we require everyone to follow the process at COM:OTRS as a matter of fairness and good practice. Эlcobbola talk

Deletion of Photos

Hello,

I just logged in after a long while to find out that my pictures "washed nylons.jpg" and "teal stilettos.jpg" were deleted by you. I was wondering why you did this? I fully own these works and they are 100% my own work. As a matter in fact I still have the RAW files for them and have also had them uploaded elsewhere (under mostly the same username) where it was suggested to me that they would make a contribution to wikipedia.

Regards, Jesstang (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesstang, firstly, you have two deleted images (File:Teal Stilettos.jpg and File:Washed Nylons.jpg), neither of which I deleted. Secondly, to use File:Teal Stilettos.jpg as an example, the image appeared on Flickr on 30 September 2013 with an unfree license (no commercial usage) well before its upload to the Commons on 18 July 2014. In this circumstance, COM:OTRS requires additional evidence to be submitted using the process on that page before we can host the image. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did You delete my picture? :(

Hello :)

You can clearly read that the picture File:MagnusUggla.jpg was uploaded with a free licence, See this page /Bro(sv) (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; firstly, I did not delete the image. Secondly, the image was deleted because it appeared less cropped and with a higher resolution on a page other than the one you've linked (i.e., the page you linked is clearly not the origin, and thus the license indicated may be license laundering). This is not to say that it necessarily is, merely that we require additional evidence of permission in this circumstance. The author of the image can follow the procedure at COM:OTRS and the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 20:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oursmili

Hello, Je voudrais savoir pourquoi vous les supprimer, Il s'agit d'un travail personnel en vue d'améliorer une page wikipédia. Information about copyright was add on.Could you say me how is it possible to know the différent kind of copyright i CAN use for this type of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oursmili (talk • contribs)

Please see Commons:Œuvre dérivée. How you intend to use the images (Il s'agit d'un travail personnel en vue d'améliorer une page wikipédia) is not germane to the issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, escuse me for my english, it is very bad. The document was a scan or photo of a french military insigne. The unit was disband. Could you say me what type of copyright was good. Oursmili (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In France, the term of copyright is 70 years after author death (Code de la propriété intellectuelle). To upload the images here, you would need to determine the authors of the insignia and when they died. If they died less than 70 years ago, you would need to receive permission from their estates. If they are still living, you would need to receive permission directly from them. Alternatively, if the intellectual property rights of the insignia are held by the French government (as they are military insignia), you would need to obtain permission from the relevant government office. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is military insigna, and due to the disbandment of the unit the 26 May 2011, the insigna was in the public domain but forbiden to reedit in metallic version. Oursmili (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disbanding of the unit would not magically dissolve copyrights on the insignia. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here on my talk page; if you can't provide evidence that these insignia may be freely licensed, you cannot upload them here. Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finalement après avoir cherché voici les textes : Les logo militaire entre dans le cadre où le logo a été développé en interne par un agent dans le cadre de ses missions, l’Administration bénéficie de plein droit d’une cession des droits pour l’utilisation dans le cadre de ses missions de service public de l’oeuvre (CPI, article L. 131-3-1).

De plus les contenus concernés sont qualifiables d’informations publiques réutilisables au sens de la loi du 17 juillet 1978. Donc l’ensemble des insignes militaires français entre dans le cadre de : La licence paternité ; partage à l’identique ; pas d’utilisation commerciale : sont permises les modifications et l’utiisation non commerciale mais l’œuvre modifiée doit ^tre distribuée sous une licence identique. Merci d'avance de remettre mes images. Oursmili (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pas d’utilisation commerciale - Per COM:L, Commercial use of the work must be allowed ("En particulier, la licence doit autoriser les conditions suivantes : [...] L’utilisation commerciale doit être autorisée.") (Commons:À propos des licences). Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebonjour, Suite à discussion et nouvelle recherche (entre autre sur le Legifer fr ) les insignes militaires rentre dans les productions industrielles, donc avant tout protégées par le droit des modèles (« modèle déposé »). Or le droit des modèles autorise la photographie (c'est pour ça que les photographies de voitures sont admises sur Commons). Donc on peut a priori les prendre en photo sans autorisation ni paiement. Et les insignes en photo en scan sont donc en CC-BY-SA. Y a t'il possibilités de remettre les photos ou pas ? Merci d'avance Oursmili (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serbian2014 desktop.jpg

Just in doubts concerning this deletion: this image is a part of Serbian Debian Linux and IMO qualifies as a screenshot of free software. The link you pointed in {{copyvio}} points to a Serbian Debian homepage. Have you any proof the image is not GFDL ? Ankry (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, I have almost no doubts that it is copyright violation, but only because providing incorrect authorship/licensing info, not because it was derivative work as you suggested in deletion reason. See 2014071910005859. Ankry (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ankry, it is my understanding that the license (be it GFDL/GPL/whatever the Debian variant uses) applies to the software (i.e., programming source code) but not necessarily the visual elements produced therefrom. This is an issue that was just discussed briefly here, which contains some of the relevant case law. This case, though, might be slightly different in that the Serbian "flame coins" are presumably an image file packaged with the OS release, thus not even produced by the underlying code. This seems a circumstance that would require an OTRS ticket. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archivos pendiente OTRS

Hola Elcobbola. Puede usted ayudarme con estos archivos: 1 – 2 – 3 - 4 - 5. De antemano, muchas gracias. Saludos--Deucaleon (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these files. Have I interacted with them before? Is there a reason you're contacting me after Ralgis, or at all? I do see that there are open tickets, but out of fairness to others in the queue, I generally do not process tickets out of turn unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive_7&oldid=152607636"