User talk:LPfi

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

Jag svarar här på förfrågningar gjorda här.
If you ask something here, I'll answer here.

Arkiv:

Chat

[edit]

I'm sorry I recently made this image as a Valentine's Day gift for everyone to see I hope it's not too bad looking.

File:Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund).jpg

JohnJackMillard (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell more about it on the file description page. If it is from the film, it isn't your work. If it isn't, there are still probably several persons involved and you need to explain something about it ("recreating the scene ..." or whatever). –LPfi (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the image to be deleted I worked so hard search for it and download it. JohnJackMillard (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you found it on the internet, then it isn't your work and cannot be kept as such. For us to host it, it must have a free licence, and as uploader, its your job to find evidence that there is such a licence, from the owners of the copyright. If they don't want to give such a licence, we cannot host it. –LPfi (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I screenshoted it from the original film and crafted it to make it full size it took an 1hr to make it. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the scene in Nancy's dream at school. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it is still a derived work of the film, and the copyright owners are the only ones who can license that. You can still use it in private (at least over here you could, I don't know your jurisdiction). Good night! –LPfi (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to show what Freddy Krueger looked like in the first film he had no stripes on his sleeves his stripes were only on his torso. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am sorry that the copyright laws hinder people from doing such things in public, except in very limited manners. However, Commons cannot host media that cannot be used under a free licence. –LPfi (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disturb

[edit]

Perhaps you might be interested this [1]. Thank you. --151.37.104.182 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am following it. –LPfi (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigations don't need to reference "original reasons" for a block: they're designed to establish behavioral or technical correlations with the sockmaster or recent puppets and therefore decide whether blocks are being evaded.
In terms of arduous investigations, I've done some legwork here: meta:User:Elizium23/L'anatra romana. There is an RFC for a global ban in progress.
Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?

[edit]

Dear,

There are so many discussions about my uploaded files. I just want to know if I edited or modified any taken photos as such that it looks so different from the original photo. Is that still considered copyright infringement or violation?

Scenario 1:

If that's the case, then how are youtube channels like Failarmy, KhilliBuzzChiru, chottochele, BadmasBipua, SSTroll and so on uploading others' Tiktok videos, Insta reels? Not only this but these YouTubers are trolling, abusing the original creators and using their videos they’re making money, and yes that too without permission.

Also, YouTubers like magicshowfootball, 6oonclassic, NinetyVirus, Football-Show, TeoCRi  kGZ, soccerprime697, J9Studio, AshStudio7, Score90 and so on are using live football matches videos with some edits on their channels. No! none of them are affiliated or associated or authorized with those tournaments or by fifa or by leagues. Some of them even have subscribers in millions and are also verified by youtube.

They literally making money with those videos so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 2:

Even many free images are also selling ”as it is” on photo selling sites like shutter stock, adobe stock. Need proof? Here are some of them:

Example 1: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Alamy 1, Alamy 2, Alamy 3

Example 2: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2  these are also available on photo-selling site Adobe Stock 1, Adobe Stock 2

Example 3: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Shutter Stock 1, Shutter Stock 2, Shutter Stock 3

Example 4: Where this same image is freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay, it is also available on photo selling site Dreamstime

Note: All of them from Pixabay (The 2nd best free image source after Wiki) are either featured in the Editor's Choice or Outstanding by Pixabay which means it was reviewed rigorously by the team to choose if those are genuine or not.

As the photos are selling without the original author’s permission (yes, the Pixabay and photo selling owner are completely different - checked through their social medias and names) so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 3:

Even I got many promotional emails (as I subscribed) from “Trademark Factory” ( a company that registers copyrights and trademark like stuffs) is using others’ gifs in the emails. You may say ohh they are doing that because it’s meant for personal use. No! It’s not! Promotional emails are also a commercial asset and many are buying products from those email links. How can that be meant for personal use?

I got a image in my emali in which they’re using others' copyrighted materials (yes the below image not belongs to them):

That image was originally taken from the Buzzfeed

I have many of these. But due to laziness, I just mentioned one.

So aren’t they also violating?

Then you might say Youtube and Wikipedia are different at their field. But they originate from the same country "USA" and isn't the copyright law apply equally to them?

On the other hand, I just uploaded photos that were modified as such which makes totally different from the original photos. Where these YouTubers literally using others clips without permission and making money.

Where I just uploaded them for nonprofit - wiki and obviously want to help travelers. How? Because as most of them seek wikipedia for many travel related infos, if they get appropriate images with that it will be greatly helpful.

Even most of the news websites use others image just by citing the source. Is just citation enough to bypass the copyright and that too without permission?

My Intention:

To be honest, I have no bad intentions at all in uploading these images.

  1. I uploaded Belgharia Railway Station.png, Agarpara Railway Station.png, Barahat railway station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg because there were no better images portraying the station/subject or the previously uploaded image were insufficient in portraying the station/subject.
  2. I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg, because that will give better comparison between past and current view of sealdah station with the image  Sealdah Station (BOND 0481).jpg with the image Like this:
  1. I uploaded Eleta Kingsley.jpg because there was no other image of him.
  2. By uploading images on wiki, I really want to help travelers and people who are hungry for knowledge. Travelers will get appropriate images along with infos. Seriously I felt this too helpful and needed when I have gone through this situation while traveling to mnay places.

Modification:

Below I am mentioning the images I modified:

Agarpara Railway Station.png was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/eShLwydsyoN5Bifg6

Barahat railway station.jpg was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/gq4AVizsbd6oKDYV8

And the similar was done for the images Belgharia Railway Station.png, Eleta Kingsley.jpg, Sealdah Station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, Habra Railway Station.png (on these images collection from 3rd parties was involved but with modification)

But also note: Among my uploaded images 1) বন্ধু (Friends).png; 2) খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png 3) Old Sealdah Station.jpg the first two I completely own.

For 1) I am the photographer and the editor for this image. I reuploaded this (originally uploaded in 2020) because I uploaded it with my site’s name in the photo, caption, and even in the description. That’s why I  allow deleted the photo and again uploaded it. The pic was drawn on my finger and captured by me.

For 2) I edited this photo from the starting to finish by myself through photo editing software. So, yes in these 2 photos, no collection or source was made or any 3rd parties were involved. I completely own and photographed these.

For 3) It was already proven (though no way I ever claimed myself as the owner of that photo). It’s in the public domain and found on a 1900s postcard see the proof here.

In Short:

  1. Is modification on images violate copyright? Except for the 3 images বন্ধু (Friends).png; Old Sealdah Station.jpg; খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png simply delete those rest other files If modification still violates the copyright! If not, please keep them!
  2. I used modification on the image as such that it looks different from the original. Still people on the internet like youtubers, news agencies are using others images “As it is” and that too without permission. And they said they can use others as long as they cite others. Yes, I heard good YouTubers saying that citing images of others is enough: Source What? Is this called copyright? Just cite others and now you can use them? If that’s the thing then what is copyright? To what extent it can be used?

One more thing to ask: As per wiki CC4.0 stated Wikimedia images can be modified and used if it is distributed under the same share-alike license means CC4.0. I just want to ask if I use Wikimedia images as it is or modified in commercial blog posts or in any commercial writings, is this completely fine to use? Mean, is this copyright-free?

(I added many images while sending this same message to the VRT by email but as I can't add image here you can consider the sourced links)

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to look into this any deeper right now. A short answer to some of the points:
  • Violating copyright laws is common, as few have a grasp and you often can get away with it. Sometimes what seems like a copyright violation may be allowed as fair use or by an agreement.
  • Commons does not want reusers to get sued or get other copyright problems. That's why we have the precautionary principle. Sometimes it seems absurdly strict, but that's the price we pay for making it workable.
  • Our licences should allow modifications and distributing derived works, but there are many special cases, such as cropping to make a de minimis feature the focal point, or modifications that violate the author's moral rights or somebody's personality rights.
–LPfi (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! And as all things are sorted (meaning the desired copyrighted image was deleted by vrt team). So can we close this thread? Thanks! --- HridoyKundu (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Parks

[edit]

I'm trying to stay out of disputes on Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Places to go, National Park Service but for your suggestion of supplementing Wikivoyage, isn't that exactly the sort of thing that ought to be done with a gallery page, not a category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They might be good for the purpose, yes, but there are too many unmaintained galleries. Maintaining the gallery is much easier if there is an equivalent category; I think which one to link from Wikivoyage is a minor detail. Here the issue was placing the sight is the intermediate Places to go category, which I think is redundant in most cases and may make for a a confusing structure in some cases (some would put Lakes of X-park there, others would use it for individual lakes, and similarly with a lot of landforms, where you could get loops). A gallery about X-park is a different beast, it wouldn't be linked from the See listings of Wikivoyage's article on the park (but with iw of the article itself), and won't help finding media about a specific feature (unless an image in the gallery is in the specific category). –LPfi (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DR

[edit]

If you feel the need to convert the tags to a DR, create a mass DR, but immediately stop creating individual DRs for each file. --Didym (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please do that yourself for any similar cases. I don't know how to do that sensibly. This is one reason why I asked you not to use "no permission since", but instead create a mass DR for the files. There is no way I can discuss the files collectively with the "no permission since". –LPfi (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know how to convert to a proper DR, just do not do it. The correct way is the use of VFC, but there is still no need to use a DR for these files at all, those don't need discussion, but a VRTS ticket. --Didym (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I have to learn to use VFC. I regard that as an advanced tool, while challenging speedy deletions should be something any user should be able to do. A VRT ticket is of course the best way to handle it, but as the user made what seemed to be the sensible thing and is a serious contributor, I think a friendly note on their user talk page would have been much more suitable than giving a 7-day grace period that they may not notice until much later. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion?

[edit]

Hello LPfi,

I'd be interested in your opinion about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theeurekaflag.jpg. This relates to a previous discussion we had here in September 2022. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I commented there. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Hi LPfi,

You probably do not remember participating in this discussion, but I still remember you fondly as one of the only two friendly users who responded to my question without making snide comments.

Thank you. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Custom license option in UploadWizard

[edit]

Hello, I finally have good news about this regression you reported several months ago. A patch fixing this option will be deployed next week, if everything goes well, so that finally we can consider it closed. Sorry it took so long to fix this, but at least we did it. Cheers, Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LPfi&oldid=962744884"