User talk:Martin H./Archive 26

Archives Older archives Jul 2011 – Oct 2011 Nov 2011 – Apr 2012 Apr 2012 – Apr 2013 Apr 2013 – Jan 2015 Current

Image use permissions

Hi! I saw you tagged File:EU Croatia Flags.jpg (and other Croatian government published images) requesting additional permission documentation, the permission is given on the government website itself which says "Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Vlada Republike Hrvatske. Sva prava pridržana. Sadržaji s ovih stranica se mogu prenositi bez posebne dozvole uz navođenje izvora." which translates to "Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content of these web pages may be carried with no separate permit provided that its source is specified." This is mandated by Croatian copyright legislation which specifies that all information published by the government, designed as public source of information, is not subject to copyright protection - hence the notice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(C) all rights reserved is clear, the rest is fair use, but has not much to do with free content. I.e. offering for redistribution or redistributing, selling, modifications, all this is not allowed. Taking photos from Croatian government websites and uploading here is copyright infringement, this photos are not public domain and not covered by {{PD-Croatia-exempt}}. --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is explicitly stated permission of use provided that the source is credited not clear too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides the PD-Croatia-exempt covers the use per Article 8, Section 1, Subsection 1 as "other official works and their collections, disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public"--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is not enough, "can be used" does not mean modification, does not necessarily mean money making or storing. Article 8 etc. refers to laws and other administrative or legal documents and collections of such documents. Documents that people must be able to read and write (without copyright fear) to participate in society. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your interpretation of the Article 8 Section 1 is arbitrary and wrong. It says explicitly "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration, judiciary (acts, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments, standards, and the like) and other official works and their collections, disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public" - in other words legislation (as you noted), administrative and judiciary documents AND other official works disclosed for purpose of officially informing the public - if an official website is not an "offical work" serving purpose of "officially informing the public" and thus neatly falling into definition of the said article and section I don't know what is. I see no justification for your arbitrary decision that the quoted exemption covers only legislation and such (presumably administrative/judiciary) documents--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not aware that this is expropriation of the author. Thats a very strong instrument. And thats why it is only used for such official documents, documents with a legal or administrative nature. A publicity websites with photos from news agency are not of exempted, the agencies providing the photos for publicity use are not expropriated. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what it is, but are you saying that the image should not be used regardless of what the applicable legislation specifically says and regardless what the website permission notice explicitly says? I'd like to remind you that the documents of legal or administrative nature are indeed covered by the exemption separately by the same article - if the legislator did not intend this there would, presumably be no "and other official works" bit. Even if they did this by mistake, that's still legally binding until revoked by a separate piece of legislation, so there's absolutely no justification for the deletion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The website notice has nothing to do with free content. The law not makes it public domain, its only some far to broad interpretation by you. There is nothing that allows us to reuse the file you uploaded on the project inside Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The said instrument is explicitly used by the law. The letter of the law is supposed to be stronger than a claim on a government website. Ultimately, the arbiter of the Croatian law is the Croatian judiciary, so can you quote a Croatian court case that ruled in favor of your interpretation of the law? I can't do it in the opposite case, but at the previous debate about this law at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/10#Copyright_of_Croatian_government, nobody followed up the way you did so we thought we had consensus. --Joy (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read Carls comment there. He is knowledgable on the topic. Official informing the public - you not quoted this words above but simply left it out - has the same meaning like "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration, and judiciary", it not means you can grab whatever you want just because its from .gov website. Please provide a source that describes such publications as official work with the intention to officially informing the public. --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Guy Opperman MP's picture. This picture is copywrite free and I work at the House of Commons. How can we get it undeleted? We can email it to you from Guys email if you like.... Andre Walker

Multiple accounts

You have blocked user CPI-RUS, but he continues to use multiple accounts: Artur_Pirojkov. Could you please block also this account? Thanks! -- Ace111 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Dandridge

ist wieder da: Special:Contributions/It's_alive!. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My Uploads being removed

Can you please state why many of my uploads were removed by you. I agree that some of them were taken from Web but majority of them, even from other sites are my own clicks. I expect a reply from you. - Metroman87 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please say what files are your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

general items

Hello, You deleted "Fafa cherry.jpg". But this picture is general items.(detergent) According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 "In no case does copyright protection" Please think again.--Ninosan (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You not photographed detergents but a product packaging. The packeging is a graphic work and of course covered by copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

You have email. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've mailed the list. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wadlow

Nice shot, very impressed... Delete if you want but what's the point? --Madelgarius (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the Gallery on the french section, you can delete all the pictures. Thanks a lot for the help... --Madelgarius (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot this one File:Robert Wadlow.jpg... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

and that one [1]... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

add some informations, a pity we can't talk in french... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources. True source. For File:Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) 1.jpg you now added a link to a google search that shows File:Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) 1.jpg as a result... a circle reference to your own upload. Thats not the source.

Please provide sources, you also was able to provide sources for other uploads, for example File:Moneuse2.jpg a drawing you created entirely by yourself, File:Collégiale saint Vincent - mise au tombeau.jpg a photo created entirely by yourself, or File:Jean Baptiste Masui (1798-1860).jpg with a source although the author description is poor. --Martin H. (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki at War (War Art from the The National Archives

Hi Martin,

No these images are not available online. This is part of an ambitious new digitisation partnership between The National Archives and Wikimedia UK. Most of these images have never been digitally available before and have been photographed especially for upload to Commons. We aim to have over 300 in the first batch.

Care to help out? (I'm not very good at Creator templates, for starters!)

--Mr impossible (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. If you just give me a few moments, they'll all be looking like: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INF3-10_Air_Chief_Marshal_Sir_Arthur_Tedder_Artist_Oliphant_1939-1946.jpg

I'm tidying them up as I go along. Nearly done.

--Mr impossible (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback to Nadhika99

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Nadhika99's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User Mazic

Hi there. I'd like to apologize for causing you any trouble with my recent uploads that are copyrighted, however this time, the one you have removed are uploaded in flickr by the person who have taken those photos. You see, that person attended the "Secret & B.A.P Fan Meeting" in Singapore and he have taken the pictures himself, that user is QQsmiles91. Right now, you are falsely accusing me that I was the one who uploaded those photos. I mean, how the "h-e-l-l" could I even know what camera did he use, and both of us are not very knowledgeable about flickr or cameras, he's just teenager fan just like myself. Until then, I know you won't believe me, but I'd like to hear from from you so that this will be resolved. I have learned my lessons now, but it "s-u-c-k-s" when I finally did it in honest terms. Best regards. 27.108.182.245 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You still operate the flickr account so the licensing still expresses your desire to have the files in Wikipedia, the license not expresses the wish of the author to have his/her photos free for any reuse including commericial reuse. Thats license laundering, the license must come from the copyright holder voluntarily, not from someone else.

Goobye. --Martin H. (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You are mistaken here. He is the one who uploaded it in flickr. I asked him to upload it in flickr with the some rights reserved copyright and he agreed. Again, you falsely accused me that I'm the one who operated QQsmiles91's flickr account. So everything else is legit and there is no laundering that is happening in here, because I simply asked "QQsmiles91"(that is his username of the international fan forum of Secret to upload it in flickr with the right copyright. Btw, he's not a teenager, he's 21. You're assuming behavior is not helping,and I'm 100% confident that he is the one, QQsmiles91, the owner of the photos who uploaded it in flickr. I expect a reply from you and hope this matter will be resolved, because I don't want our efforts especially his photos go to waste because of your false accusations.27.108.186.208 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are just ignoring my replies. You call yourself an admin but you yourself do not behave like one. And do you have any proof that I operate those flickr accounts? And what desire you are talking about, when the owner of the photos uploaded it himself. Stop being ignorant, your assuming behavior is not helping. If you read this: and because it was uploaded by the real owner and the files posses the right camera details, because it is the owner who possess the real file. I don't know why you removed it, but your assuming behavior needs to stop. This is not goodbye, cause I will prove you wrong.

PS: I'll seek help from other admins because this behavior of yours needs to stop. Because you are wrong. 27.108.187.214 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You just a few days ago created a new Commons account to again do flickrwashing. You say "I have learned my lessons now". Have you? Obviously not. For me it is clear that you put a bunch of downscaled photos taken from elsewhere to flickr and now try to distribute this works under fake licenses. Thats what you did before, for 4 months with at least two sockpuppet accounts. Yes, you changed your sockpuppet accounts just to make sure that if someone in future will find out that one account is bad he will not directly find the rest of the uploads with other accounts. Thats simply evil, you intentionally damage our projects. --Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you are wrong this time. Because I did not upload it in flickr! Even if you check those files in flickr it still has those camera properties if you click on the type of camera. How can I prove that I'm not the one who uploaded it? Do I need the uploader to contact you is that it? Or message you in wiki. How? I am willing to oblige just to prove you wrong. :) As much as desperate as this sounds, but I swear to God, I was not the one who uploaded the pictures in flickr this time. I uploaded it in wiki, but the original owner uploaded it in flickr. And that person has an account in the fan forum of that artist so it's easier for me to contact him and do this little favor. Do I need to post our conversation to you? When I say I learned my lesson I mean it, because the only way for the pictures to last forever if it will be uploaded by the owner. Then I was lucky enough to find in that fan forum, the owner of those photos. If only I speak Korean I would asked the Korean fans to upload it in flickr, and most of them will not hesitate if I say some pictures are "ugly" and our fav. band needs to have beautiful pictures. I was lucky enough to find an English speaking person who had taken those pictures. So don't ruin it! 27.108.177.103 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, never knew you were this much ignorant. Anywho, I'll defintely prove you wrong, and I'm going to upload the pictures, I don't even need your consent, cause if you delete them again, which you will, I'm going to remark it as vandalism. Come at me bro. Here's also the proof of our conversation: (1) http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=2dzp3o103kn9iwk, (2) http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?8z8l6y9yk2mlxkj, (3) http://www.mediafire.com/i/?p6c1dn9c55q1gzn, (4) http://www.mediafire.com/i/?s18ui7m6bzz4kcz. Have a nice day! :) MagiKc (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You screenshots is an example of tricking someone else who only wants to "share pics on wiki" into sharing pictures for world-wide money making reuse. Its not clear if that guy agreed to a free license. Also the connection to the questionable flickr account is not clear, we have seen a lot of abuse by you before, including creating fake flickr accounts to steal other peoples work. --Martin H. (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! What money are you talking about!? hahahaha. Sorry that cracked me up, I'm still underage and I don't give a fack about getting some money with this kind of thing. Like seriously, dude, stop being delusional. I can't even.....

"Its not clear if that guy agreed to a free license." He uploaded it himself with the correct copyright, of course he's willing to release those daMmn pictures. And that is why I'm here, to clear things up. I'm not even going to this extent, If I'm not telling the truth. Grow up, will ya! :) Until then, you'll probably see me posting here quite a few times, until I prove you wrong. Cause I don't want my and his efforts and more importantly his photos go to waste! Like I said, I was lucky enough to find an English speaking person who have attended a concert of theirs. If I have to teach him to upload it in wiki himself, I will. But then again you still wouldn't believe even he uploaded it himself in wiki. Why don't you log in secretfour.com and see his fan account. He's from Singapore and I'm from the Philippines, how can we be the same person. LOL MagiKc (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And thats why you have been blocked on Commons. Because you not know what this project his about. Free content. Free to reuse by anyone, anytime for any purpose, educational as well as commercial purposes. Free because the copyright holder wants it to be free. Not free because someone is talked (or tricked with some "for wiki" arguments) into something that they not know. Not free because someone created an account on flickr and uploaded in the name of someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is why also you are wrong. :) The owner agreed to upload it in Flickr under the correct copyright, of course he's willing to distribute it free. The level of your ignorance surprises me. You still keep on insisting that I uploaded those photos, hahahaha. What baffles me is that all of you said above is useless because it was the owner of the photos who uploaded it under the correct copyright, of course he's willing to distribute it. Free Content as you say. I even posted our conversation here. And I'm willing to oblige just to prove you wrong and you still won't cooperaate because you insist you are right. Are you even an Admin? Or just being ignorant. 27.108.186.1 01:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Mazic, without my attention no one would know what horrible editor you are and how badly you tried to destroy Wikipedia with uploading tons of stolen files with lots of accounts. You where never asked to do this. So be sure, im fully aware what is best for our projects. --Martin H. (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Flickr account ohne ID

Hallo Martin, wie füge ich http://www.flickr.com/photos/crystallifi/ zur blacklist hinzu? Irgendwie fehlt da die ID. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Schon geschehen. Die URL hat eine alphabetische ID. Die nummerische ID bekommst du raus indem du auf die Option "FlickrMail senden" gehst, dann steht die nummerische ID in der URL. --Martin H. (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! --Polarlys (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-VietnamGov}}

Hi, please see Template talk:PD-VietnamGov#Legal Documents. Tranminh360 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg

Hello, Please do NOT delete information from a description page. The link IS the source of the image. If you think it is not sufficient, please create a deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The "source" is a mirror of es.wikipedia.org... thats NOT the source. All your information you added is your own fiction. --Martin H. (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Create a DR. Do not delete the information. Yann (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Provide a source for the information that you add. This is obviously your wrong. If you not have information to add than dont add something. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that it is wrong? Your accusation is stupid and not helpful, and your behaviour is bordering vandalism to me. You should help finding the information, instead of deleting the work I did. Actually the information is here: File:Diego de Alvear.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, be sure that I searched for source information and not just claim that I not did! And for your question: Is this is a serious question? Do you realy care what source you quote?? Did you even read the source??? Where you able to even access your source or is it possible that you just provide the first best google hit - a deeplink to a file on a Wikipedia mirror - as your magic source???? Make your homework! http://www.esacademic.com/dic.nsf/eswiki/350209.

And now stop inventing facts! Its one thing if we allow users to import unsourced material scanned from books. Its another and very bad thing if our own users start rewriting history, inventing author information without checking the original book/illustration/painting, inventing dates of works, giving a work a history that it possibly not has. Thats something that should never happen on an educational project. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, you should behave better than this. See here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Martin_H._.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Yann (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As an admin you should not add such terrible information to a file description, and directly jump on an editor if he tries to remove false or unsourced statements with a proper reason. And call the obvious fact that http://www.esacademic.com/ ../eswiki/ is a mirror of Spanish Wikipedia a "stupid accusation". --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you do not want to create a DR, I did it myself. Yann (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not my intention to create a deletion request. Its my intention to prevent this project from beeing a hub for invented information.

You not know that it is from "early 19th century", you just came up with this "fact" and now distribute your invented fact as the universal truth on one of the most visible websources of the world.

You not know if it is from an unknown painter, you not checked the original painting (if this even is one), you not know the museum, you not know from what book the scan is (see the letters), you not know if there is any record for the painting. You simply declare the author to be an unknown author because you not have any information at all.

You claim this information is covered by a source, but that source in fact says nothing of all this but is simply a deeplink to an exact copy of the very same file.

This means: All information you added was your own invention. Stop doing this, remove this information asap! Thanks.

--Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Martin. Just an FYI, regarding the Lonnie Bunch photo you nominated for OTRS and possible deletion. I am serving as the Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. All the images I am uploading are either no known copyright or copyright free. I'll do my best to get permission for this image, but, we even changed permissions on the SIA website to discuss the no known copyright issue. Anyway, just letting you know, since I'll be uploading further images. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The website says commercial reuse requires a license. The "no known restrictions" tag is wrong for such uploads and can not be used. Ask for a free license and add a copyright tag that the copyright holder agreed to. There is known copyright restrictions, so there must be a free license release. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

File deletion puzzler

You deleted File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Diva.jpg as a copyright violation despite there being a Creative Commons license present on the source site - see here. Can I ask why?? Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See the undeletion request. The license applies to "page3-parties", this is not from page3-parties. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

elimination of A Todo ritmo logo nuevo.jpg

Why you deleted my picture if I got to where the kick where you edit and also put it well do not understand. and you're good to delete photos you should upload your own.--CampRocks305 02:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You violated Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulinya - Dance; Bulinya - Maasai Market

Sorry, I can't understand you about these two photos. You changed their autour. How could you know who is the real photografer? I wrote a few words about the painter, it isn't an article. It's well to know something about him, because it's very difficulte to find any information of tinga-tinga artists. And I can't see anything wrong. --Молли (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have some more question. Why did you removed the Category "Culture of Kenya"? Tinga-tinga is an art, typical of all the East Africa, and the artist is representative of this painting in Kenya. I'll be glad to reach some consensus. --Молли (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The photographer doesnt matter (so much). The copyright belongs to the painter, without the painters written permission to a free license the photographer cant publish the work under a free license because the photographer not owns any copyright on the original painting that he reproduced. For your other question: COM:OVERCAT. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Todd Schaffer, who is also the author of the pictures, is the chief representative in USA of a group of artists in Kenya, named "Inside African Art". He has every right to film, to offer and to sell the paintings on their behalf. I've had a long correspondence with him and I put a lot of effort, while persuade him to agree about their publication in the Commons. One of his conditions was, that I have to write a few words about the author of the picture. And I have done it. I must be correct and that's why I'll set back my own version.

In connection with the category - I do not think that ting-tinga is a subcategory of "Culture of Kenya", because the style is more widespread in Tanzania, Mozambique, Congo, etc. I posted the category "Culture of Kenya" to be clear, that the artists are representatives of Kenyan art, not of the Tanzanian for example.

--Молли (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Has he the right to reproduce the paintings and publish them allowing anyone, worldwide, to reuse the reproductions for commercial purposes and modification? He can only - ONLY - do this if a transfer of copyright tooke place or if the painter agreed to the free license that he is using for publishing his derivative works. The copyright transfer requires the written form, this documents may please be sent to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.insideafricanart.com/FAQ.htm

http://www.insideafricanart.com/IAA/About_Todd.htm

--Молли (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I cant find were this says something about permission from the artists. Commons:CB#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29. A license from the painters is needed. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DustyCoffin

Hi Martin these pictures are an obvious copyvio http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/DustyCoffin I think have a fake flickr license. Alakasam (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nur eine Info

User:Non aprite quella porta ist Jerry Dandridge. --Martin1978 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Kpop Idol Group Secret on Secret's Wiki page.

Hello.

I don't exactly know what is going on but apparently some photos that I took of Secret at their Singapore fanmeet on 23rd March that I have uploaded on Flickr in order to share with fellow Secret fans and for the photos to be uploaded onto Secret's wiki page have been taken down. And from what I heard it is because you assumed that those photos on Flickr were uploaded by another person who is uploading those photos on Wiki or something like that =.=

Whatever the case is, let me clarify everything.

Me, Melvin Ng, a.k.a QQsmiles, took those pictures of Secret at their Singapore fanmeet here in Singapore on 23rd March 2012. I have both the original photos without the "QQsmiles" watermark and with the "QQsmiles" watermark on the photos. I can send them to you if you need proof.

Secondly, I was asked by a fellow Secret fan, who apparently is in charge of uploading Secret photos on Wiki, if it is okay for me to upload my photos of Secret on Flickr to share with other Secret fans and also so that he/she can upload those nicer photos that I took of Secret onto Wiki to replace the older photos of Secret that are currently on Wiki.

So, to sum it all out, I don't what your assumption has been or why exactly did you take down those photos of Secret but I am the the original owner of those photos and the one who uploaded those photos on Flickr so I hope you can let my fellow Secret fan put back up the photos that I took of Secret back up on Wiki again yup.

Cheers. Melvin Ng (QQsmileS)

This will not happen. The user you mentioned created multiple accounts on this project and abused this accounts to upload stolen photos with the claim that he is the photographer. Files on Commons must not only be free for sharing on wiki or sharing with fans. Files must but free to reuse by anyone, anytime, anywhere for any purpose including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry erm I don't really get it.... but okay. How about... Then if I want to upload my own photos that I took of Secret on Secret's wiki page, how can I go about doing it? Such that I will not cross any line or anything. The Commons thing that you mention. Such that it can be free for sharing with anyone, everyone etc etc? I already upload those photos on Flickr already in my Flickr account. What should be the next appropriate step that I can take to upload them on Wiki? - Melvin Ng

Talkback

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Lovysinghal's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help

Hello.

Hello, I am a wikipedian from Spanish Wikipedia, I have been blocked due to my lack of knowledge.

I want you to help me in this regard.

This is the link to my talk page on Wikipedia in Spanish, please contact me: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:DLeandroc
Diego Leandro

--DLeandroc (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

image source: Plik:Chris Grabowski ca 1944.jpg

Dear Martin H. I uploaded a 1944 photo of Chris Grabowski, my cousin, who in 1959 made a solo crossing of the Atlantic. The picture is anonymous, it comes from my family collection. That is why I put "family" as its source. I do not understand then why did you label it as missing "essential source information". If the data need correction, could you fix them for me? This is the first photo I ever uploaded and do not think to do it again in the near future, nor have time to study the complex Licensing page again. Thanks. Obrazkizkrakowa (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the copyright belong to the photographer. You say the photographer is anonymous and the file was published >70 years ago, thats impossible for a 1944 photo. The file is unfree, you public domain claim does not fit the source information you provided. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually this photo was never published, as far as I know. It was taken circa 1944 by a person whose identity is unknown (it is neither revealed on the photo nor recorded otherwise). This portrait photo belonged to the model and most probably had been commissioned by him, and for that reason the copyright was owned by the model as a work-for-hire. The model died in 1964. The heirs agree that the photo may be freely published. Which license would you suggest? Obrazkizkrakowa (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author or, if the author never disclosed their identity, 70 years from publication. A copyright transfer requires the written form, a transfer of a copy of the photo does not mean that copyright was transfered. --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Airdefenceisbest copyvios

I expect this one is also a copyvio. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for repairing my errors. (talk:Stellie1991)to (Martin H.)

Use of one of your images

I would like to use one of your images in a (very small) commercial magazine and as requested I am sending the request: The image is

Tivedshambo 2006-09-11 Horn Dance, Blithfield Reservoir.jpg.

I have written an article about unusual country fairs and events for publication in a community magazine and I want an image to illustrate the piece. The magazine is for the local community and is delivered free of charge. It funds itself by charging for advertising.

I notice you have two images on Wikimedia and this is my preference although I'd be fine with the other one too. I am of course planning to attribute the article to you. If you could confirm what you'd like the attribution to say that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.153.8 (talk • contribs)

Hi IP user. I'll answer in Martin's stead, as you appear to be a bit confused. The image you're talking about, File:Tivedshambo 2006-09-11 Horn Dance, Blithfield Reservoir.jpg, was not taken by Martin H, it was taken by Optimist on the run. I really have no idea how you came to this talk page, as Martin has never even edited the image. If you want to get the attribution correct, ask at User talk:Optimist on the run, but I would expect that stating something along the lines of "Optimist on the run, via Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0" would be acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck is correct - you're welcome to use it, but please attribute it that way.   An optimist on the run! (formerly "Tivedshambo"), 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Imagenes de Angrois

Hola Martin:

Soy el autor de las fotos, son mías. Así lo declaré cuando las subí. También es mía la página web y el Facebook.

Saludos, --Isidoro Castaño (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Photos from various websites. For some photos the name of the photographer is given on this websites. And that photographer is not Isidoro Castano. "Soy el autor de las fotos" is the untruth for the files I nominated for speedy deletion. Looks like you are not understand the difference of your work and other peoples work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hanoos

Por la presente declaro que soy el único propietario de los derechos de autor exclusivos de OBRA publicada en http://hanoos.com/ y http://hanoos.blogspot.com.es/ y doy mi permiso para reproducir sus imágenes. Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-Compartir bajo la misma licencia 3.0 (CC-BY-SA-3.0). Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas. Soy consciente de que la licencia libre solo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas. Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia. FECHA Y NOMBRE Y DNI DEL PROPIETARIO DE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR 30 de mayo 2012 Hanoos Hanoos DNI. 507 41 285 L

--Isidoro Castaño (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not "Hanoos", so you are unlikely the owner of copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

You're very dork!! Fuck you! --Closed & Open (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

hi

is this pic violates rights?[2]

--Neogeolegend (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Angrois (Santiago de Compostela) y Hanoos

Envio nuevamente los permisos a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Isidoro Castaño (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Images removed

Hello, why did you remove some of my great images ?

hi

see this [3] --Neogeolegend (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser#New requests

Hi, there is a new request for your attention. Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Disgrace"?

Good day. Re this edit of yours. I think having blatant falsehoods in image descriptions are inappropriate, and I correct them when I can. Are you saying my replacement of falsehoods with accuracy is "disgracing commons"? If there is some problem, I hope we can address it calmly and with mutual respect in a shared wish to improve Commons. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"An unoriginal Wikipedia description page" is just nonsense. If you not understand that "original upload log" is documentation for date of first uploaded to Wikimedia servers, or if you not like that information, then simply remove it. The file is not GFDL licensed or user-published, so there is requirement to keep a file log because of license requirements or for publication evidence. But making jokes of the log is simply not neccessary. The wording is a standard sentence on Commons file pages, I see no reason to pick some files and rephrase the standard sentence. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I would think "Original upload" would refer to the first time it was uploaded to the internet. If some significantly different meaning, like "Date of first upload to Wikipedia" was intended, that could could be stated instead. "Unoriginal Wikipedia description page" seems to me to clearly state that it is not original to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem at all like nonsense nor jokes to me. (I do, however, consider false statements that files originated at Wikipedia or from Wikipedia users when in no way whatsoever this is the case to be inappropriate and deeply damaging to Wikimedia. The effect IMO can often be absurd and blatantly insulting. I don't think blatant false statements of source should be allowed on Commons at all.) If "the standard sentence" is used in numerous contexts where it is completely and absurdly wrong, I think "the standard sentence" should either be changed or eliminated. Are there any points of this you disagree with? Thanks for your time. Cheers. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is original log for our projects, the same way is the file history the history of that file on Commons (File:ABEnKinmanRiflenChair.jpg#filehistory), it is not original to the work. The original upload log is the log of the original upload to our projects / wiki servers, whatsever. If the standard sentence should be changed it is not something that you should do on your own or only for some files. You only increase the number of different wordings, this makes it harder to edit all descriptions. Also if in 99,999% the wording is "original" and in 0,001% the wording is "unoriginal"... sorry, but the unaware reader will think that there someone made a little joke with the Wikipedia text. And thats bad for the project. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you think this is a "joke". I think readers seeing falsehoods in image pages is very bad for the projects -- "the unaware reader" may accept the falsehoods as fact, while aware readers will recognize the falsehood and think that Wikimedia doesn't care if image description pages are full of lies and nonsense. It seems that you recognize there is a problem, but don't like my approach to addressing it. Alternative suggestions are very welcome. (Really, I would like to see a major effort to fix what I see as a horrible problem.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

اه

check this [4] --Neogeolegend (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

please use {{Copyvio}} or start deletion requests but please not ask me for so many single files that you find. Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

The three following pictures of medals were tagged by you as possible copyright violations as soon as they were uploaded.

• File:Medaille de la defense nationale bronze.jpg
• File:Medaille de la defense nationale or.jpg
• File:Medaille de la defense nationale or revers.jpg

Those medals are mine, the pictures are scans taken with my scanner of medals from my collection. Please explain the rationale behind your insinuation of copyright violations. Something must've popped up somewhere, an alarm or something, why? I am extremely curious to find out why... Thank you. 24.203.232.188 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily upload the full size scan to provide evidence that your claim is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are the full size scans.Fdutil (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No. A scanner is not limited to 178 × 389 px. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They were cropped to remove the reverse image of the same medals and any excess border. How does one "temporarely upload"?Fdutil (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Upload the original scan - with borders etc - in full size over the old upload. Ask me later to remove the overwriting and I will do this, its not my intention to force you for publication of the full size under a free license that allows others to exploit the work for money making purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Done...Fdutil (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats a stiched image of two low quality scans and an exact duplicate of the file from the website. This is small thumbnail files floating around everywhere on the internet, but not in high quality scans. --Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT from the internet... From my collection. Go have another look, the same medals but newly scanned but at a higher resolution. And yes, they were cropped! I figure I might as well upload them ready for the article. Fdutil (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed something... The accusation of a copyright violation comes from a similar hit on the OMSA web site... I am a member of OMSA, the pics there are also from me! Matter of fact, the very same ones! Go check, would you like the URL? This is somewhat frustrating for somebody like me donating so much time and pictures on well over 100 articles...Fdutil (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And don't be too surprised to see the new ones being also uploaded onto the OMSA web site, as long as I have these higher nicer resolution ones, might as well put them there too. Fdutil (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and withdraw my deletion request. Good to see that we have at least one uploader on board who makes his own scans, there is too much abuse when it comes to scans of medals, especially for medals from east europe. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we're cool. I know where you're coming from, I've seen so many pics being deleted after articles were built around them, quite frustrating. For future reference, my collection is quite extensive, over the next year or so I plan to upload well over 1,200 photos of medals from Russia, the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Imperial and modern Germany, France, Belgium and the British Commonwealth, ALL COPYRIGHT FREE directly from my collection. Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Flickr washing?

Hello. I have been searching for North Cyprus-related photos on Flickr, and whilst uploading some of them I was warned that they were previously deleted because of Flickr washing. However, using Google Image Search, I could find no indication for Flickr washing for two of them which I have re-uploaded so far (this and this), and I noted the situation in their pages. The Flickr account might belong to Turco85, but these seem to be his work licensed under CC-BY-SA. Before going any further, I wanted to notify you as the deleting admin and ask if there is anything I am missing here. Thanks. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4638877... thats an abusive flickr account. --Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion

I'm not an expert in CR issues, but some photos you deleted were really in PD. for this, first published by New York World-Telegram (same source). In this page-> art#3 they say it is in the public domain per the instrument of gift. Isn't it? -Dzlinker (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be posted under the same license as this file -Dzlinker (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not "a work for hire created prior to 1968 by a staff photographer at New York World-Telegram & Sun". It not falls under number 3 of http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html but under number 1. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove my image?

Why did you remove my image? It is not a copyright, I made that photo by myself. I printscreened it in youtube when she was interviewed! -West Asian (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly the problem. The video is copyrighted by someone else, with making a screenshot you reproduce someone else copyrighted work. You cant do that. You also cant upload a reproduction of someone else work to Wikimedia Commons with the claim that it is your work. Uploading self-created work to Commons means uploading content that you entirely created yourself, not content that you reproduced from other creators without permission - thats derivative works. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Martin, ich hab West Asian gerade auf en-wp indef-gesperrt und ihn hier für die Flickr-blacklist gemeldet ([5]). Gruß, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:EFFG and User:HerbertGudmundsson

• EFFG (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• HerbertGudmundsson (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

User:EFFG first uploaded files of Herbert Guðmundsson. They were deleted due to the lack of permission (album covers etc.). Then, User:HerbertGudmundsson (account created on 16:24, 18. Nov. 2011) uploaded also files concerning Herbert Guðmundsson. 36 minutes after they were uploaded by User:HerbertGudmundsson, they were used by User:EFFG.

I think User:EFFG created the account User:HerbertGudmundsson to trick us. If you think the same, feel free to take action. I will request permission for the uploads of User:HerbertGudmundsson now.

If my suspicion is right, one of the accounts should be blocked, dependent on whether we get verification through OTRS. -- RE rillke questions? 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please move the request to Commons:Requests for checkuser. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not inclined. Not my problem. Feel free to remove it from your talk page. -- RE rillke questions? 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My user account

Hi Martin, I am the User:Lucas Secret (my old user name is User:Lucas Brígido, I changed my username on my Wikipedia). You blocked me in 2009 and now in 2012 "three years after", I wonder if you can unlock me? I did much wrong in 2009, but now I changed. Now I know the rules of the Commons, for example, see this page in my Wikipedia "Here".

I am "non-admin closure" and "rollback", see here. I do not do vandalism on Wikipedia in English and Portuguese. I will not do vandalism here in Commons, is serious!! Please, you can unlock my account? I need to use some images here, for example, this photo. Please Martin, unblock my account. 189.107.111.113 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Photos

Hello I would like to know why you deleted all the photos I uploaded without an explanation I followed the guidelines for uploading photos and I don't understand what I did wrong that made you delete them all Dman41689 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the info box at the top of Commons:Flickr files. Not all Creative Commons licenses are free licenses, on Commons licenses with non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions are forbidden. You can only upload a picture here if the copyright holder voluntarily published it under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Copper Lynfield

Welchen Sinn hatte dieser Edit? Deine Begründung ist weniger aussagekräftiger als die vorherige. --High Contrast (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sollte schon vermerkt werden, dass es sich nicht nur um einen Flickr-Benutzer handelt bei dem flickrvios passieren können, sondern das dort Missbrauch eines Commons-Benutzers vorliegt. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Und deshalb muss da vorige Begründung entfernt werden? --High Contrast (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Steht nach meinem Dafürhalten in der verlinkten und gelöschten Datei. Die Begründung, dass von dem Benutzer schlichtweg nichts brauchbar ist - egal wo es herkommt - halte ich zudem für Aussagekräftiger. Aber wenn du eine spezielle Quelle wieder hinzufügen möchtest, dann tu es doch einfach. Ich sehe ehrlich gesagt das Problem nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Du hast sozusagen relevante Informationen entfernt - das ist die Kuriosität deiner Aktion. Das Warum bleibt unklar. Weshalb fügst du nicht die entgfernte Info wieder ein? Gibt es eine Zeichenbegrenzung bei unserem "Flickr-Bad-User"-Projekt? --High Contrast (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ausser möglichen technischen Grenzen gibt es für den Einzeleintrag keine mir bekannten Grenzen. Für die Gesamtseite wird es technische Grenzen geben, am ehesten dürfte aber das template inclusion limit zuschlagen. --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jürgen Klinsmann

Hallo, kannst du mir bitte erklären, warum du sämtliche Kategorien zur logischen Einsortierung entfernst? Jürgen Klinsmann war sowohl Trainer des FC Bayern München als auch der deutschen Fußballnationalmannschaft. Wenn du meinst, dass nur weil nicht alle Fotos alles zeigen, diese Kategorien gerechtfertigt seien, solltest du dieses sinnvoll begründen. Gibt es hierzu nähere Bestimmungen von Wikimedia commons? Falls nicht, sollte weiter so verfahren werden, wie es üblich ist, Personen so zu kategorisieren, damit Fotos von Personen leichter gefunden werden können. --Undeviginti (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich glaube du solltest erstmal erörtern, warum du dieses Bild als Bild unter Category:FC Bayern München kategorisierst. Das ist sachlich falsch. Kategorieen im Dateinamensraum dienen der Sortierung von Dateien nach deren Inhalt. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dieses Bild habe ich nicht direkt unter Bayern München kategorisiert. Es ist unter Jürgen Klinsmann kategorisiert, der Trainer (und auch Spieler) von Bayern München war und damit in diese Kategorie gehört. Das ist sachlich richtig. Du hast mir noch immer keine Quelle geliefert, in der zweifelsfrei festgelegt wird, dass dieser Sachverhalt so ist, wie du ihn darstellst. Ich sehe was üblich ist und so verfolge ich das auch weiter, sofern mir keine gegenteiligen Kriterien auf Commons begegnen. Ich bitte noch immer um Klärung. --Undeviginti (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Kategorien sind die Vorgehensweise auf Commons um Dateien zu kategorisieren, eine Kategorie beschreibt nicht eine Person sondern ist lediglich ein Container für Dateien, z.B. von Bildern dieser Person. Um Listen von Spielern darzustellen wäre eine Wikipedia Liste z.B. der richtige Weg. Natürlich hast du das Bild dort einsortiert, die Kategorien stellen eine Hierarchie dar, wobei jedes Element einer unteren Ebene die Eigenschaften der oberen Ebenen innehat. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Noch einmal: Wo steht das? Wo ist das festgelegt? --Undeviginti (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Was? dass wir bei einem Kategorienbaum von einer Hierarchie sprechen? Unter COM:CAT. --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nein, dass Kategorien von Personen nicht als Unterkategorie Ihrer Tätigkeiten geordnet werden dürfen (Trainer eines Vereins/Nationalmannschaft). --Undeviginti (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Gibt es hierzu mal noch eine Antwort? --Undeviginti (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deine Aussage wiederspricht dem was ich vorher schon gesagt habe. Der Zweck von Kategorien auf Commons ist es Dateien nach deren Inhalt zu sortieren, nicht Personen. Folglich ist eine derartige Kategorisierung nicht möglich da sie Bilder falsch sortiert. --Martin H. (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wie oft soll ich denn noch nachfragen? Wo ist diese Regelung festgelegt? Wo steht das? So wie du es darstellst, kann es durchaus möglich sein, dass du das so siehst, nicht aber dass dies zwingend eine verbindliche Regelung in Commons sein muss. Deshalb die Frage, wo kann man dies nachlesen? --Undeviginti (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Schon gesagt, COM:CAT. Kategorien sind der primäre Weg um Dateien zu organisieren, die Kategorien bilden eine hierarchische Struktur. Wenn du primär ein Interesse hast, Spieler nach ihren ehemaligen Vereinen zu sortieren, geh doch einfach auf Wikipedia und füge die Dateien dort den Spieler-Artikeln hinzu. Fürs einsortieren von Dateien in falsche Vereinskategorien gibt es keinen Grund. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So leid es mir tut. Ich habe hier noch immer nichts gefunden, das in irgendeiner Weise konträr zu der Kategorisierung ist., wie ich sie vorgenommen habe. Demnach ist es nicht falsch Personenkategorien unter Tätigkeiten einzuordnen, welche diese einmal ausgeübt haben. Wie bereits erwähnt, ist dieses im Übrigen üblich und gängig auf Commons. Nahezu bei jedem Fußballverein finden sich Unterkategorien mit Spielern und Trainern, in denen nicht nur Fotos sondern eben die Personenkategorien der Spieler und Trainer befinden, auch Ehemalige. --Undeviginti (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich sehe nichts, was für den Ansatz spricht bzw. nichts was Schnittmengen mit den Projektzielen von Commons aufweisen würde. --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So, und was sind die Projektziele von Commons, wo sind diese abgefasst und inwiefern sind diese konträr mit der bereits beschriebenen üblichen und vielfach praktizierten Kategorisierung? So, wie ich das sehe, hilft diese Art der Kategorisierung auf alle Fälle dabei, Dateien einfacher zu finden bzw. diese zuordnen zu können. --Undeviginti (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich finde das im Übrigen inzwischen echt frecht. Du kannst nach wie vor nicht eindeutig begründen, warum die übliche und seit Jahr und Tag praktizierte sinnvolle Kategorisierung plötzlich den Richtlinien von Commons widersprechen sollte, ignorierst zudem diese Diskussion machst stattdessen meine Änderung wieder rückgängig. Wenn du nun konsequent wärst, solltest du ähnliche Änderungen an tausenden anderen Kategorien vornehmen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen. --Undeviginti (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich sehe nicht warum ich Begründung sollte, dass Bilder in Kategorien (innerhalb eines hierarchischen Kategoriensystems) sortiert werden, mit denen sie nichts zu tun haben und damit Eigenschaften oder Zuordnungen erhalten, die sie nicht haben. Das Ziel von Commons ist das Sammeln freier Mediendateien, Kategorien bilden eine hierarchische Struktur die der systematischen Sortierung von Bildern dienen. Das ist keine Enzyklopädie wo diese Kategorisierung zur systematischen Zuordnung von Personen dienen mag und folglich eine andere Bewertung erfahren mag - wir aber sortieren Mediendateien, wir müssen also nicht ein System aus anderen Wikipedias übernehmen und wir müssen nicht fortsetzen, es anzuwenden. --Martin H. (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, dann kannst du mir sicher auch erklären, warum das aber tatsächlich genau so und nicht so wie von dir beschrieben vielfach praktiziert wird? --Undeviginti (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Weil es auf einigen Wikipedia-Projekten so gemacht wird und durch die automatische Kategorisierung mit Bots hierher unreflektiert übertragen wurde. --Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Robinho

I've the rights for the pic ! GooNeRz (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User Blocked

You have recently blocked me (User:Fenopy). I understand the reason, but can you tell me how these images are copyrighted? 117.198.98.159 20:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See the file pages. The copyright belongs to the photographer by the act of making the photo, copyright will expire only 70 years following the photographer death, for that time the work cant be used on Commons without the copyright holders written permission to a free content license. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I claim it as my own work put up on some social networking site. And what should I do to prove that I was the photographer?

This are press photos from IPL/SPORTZPICS, various photographers are credited, so claiming it your own work is the untruth, 100%. Stop vandalizing our free content projects with unfree content, thats all you can do. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Files marked for deletion

Hello, I've added the permission link to each file's info box (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/credits.html). I hope this is sufficient. Vlas2000 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"A few photographs concerning archaeological exhibits were reproduced from printed brochures with kind permission of the museums’ officials or the appropriate Ephorate of Antiquities." You cant upload that photos here unless the copyright holders gave written permission to that license. --Martin H. (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And Categories like "Images from ...museum..." are for files donated by museums or institutions under free licenses. Categories like that are not for photos uploaded by users taken in the museum, such photos use normal topic categories, e.g. Category:Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

COM:AN/B#Proposal to unblock User:Lucas Brígido/Lucas Secret

Hallo Martin H., das betrifft einen Benutzer, den Du 2009 gesperrt hattest, der jetzt gerne wieder Zugang hätte und sich immerhin bei Dir (auf Portugiesisch) entschuldigt. Könntest Du Dir das bitte ansehen? Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Er hat es damals derart überzogen dass Ich auf die Anfrage nicht eingehen werde. --Martin H. (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe dessen Aktivitäten von 2009 nicht näher untersucht, mir hatte seinerzeit der verbale Ausfall gegen Dich genügt, um zu wissen, dass das nicht weiter verfolgt werden muss. Aber abgesehen von dem jüngsten Ausfall um den jüngsten Jahreswechsel scheint er ja immerhin in pt-wp konstruktiv mitzuarbeiten, so dass er dort Löschrechte erhalten hat (die haben so eine Admin-light-Rechtevergabe). Sicher bin ich mir in diesem Fall auch nicht, aber es lässt sich auch nicht ausschließen, dass einzelne Benutzer im Laufe der Zeit etwas Reife gewinnen. Siehst Du da noch schwerwiegende Bedenken, würdest Du Dich nachhaltig gegen die Aufhebung der Sperre aussprechen oder würdest Du lieber das weitere Vorgehen einem Konsens überlassen? Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Die konstruktive Mitarbeit mag stimmen und eine postivie Prognose für die Mitarbeit auf Commons mag gestellt werden. Z.B. wenn ein Benutzer bereit ist, sich seiner anzunehmen. Um deine Frage zu beantworten: ich halte mich da raus. --Martin H. (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete pictures

Hey, why are you deleted my files? World Unseen.jpg & I Can´t Think Straight.jpg

Photograph on 'Dhosi Hill'

I have been asked to give an explanation on one of the photographs, out of 13, I put up on new page 'Dhosi Hill'. All the 13 photos have been taken by me during last 10 years with my own cameras. The photo in question, Volcanic Hill, is a photograph from a poster prepared by my friend couple of years ago. On my query, he tells me that he downloaded it from Google Earth. I think there should not be a question of patent rights involved. In fact I want to put a downloaded version from Google Earth directly as it will be much clearer, mentioning the source as 'Google Earth'. Please advise. Alternative is that I get a painting prepared and put it on the page, describing its volcanic nature.sudhirkbhargava

You cant reproduce google earth content - not by making screenshots and not by making copies with any other technique - and publish it under a free license. A free license allows commercial reuse for anyone, anytime, anywhere. Thats not allowed under the terms of use of google. --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Probable internet leacher.

Good morning Martin H.

Can you have a look at this: [6] and possibly nuke the contributions? thanks. Moros y Cristianos 06:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. Cheers. Moros y Cristianos 12:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Revoke of PD-self

Voir User talk:JÄNNICK Jérémy#Revoke of PD-self. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

STOP : Creator box is not forbidden for users : Category:User creator templates. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean that it is wanted. For information about yourself you have your userpage, the file namespace is not for your personal stuff. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In France, the mention of the author is in the law, so you should use CC-BY 3.0 who is correct. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The case is covered by our template. The template says: Dans certains pays, ceci peut ne pas être possible ; dans ce cas : J'accorde à toute personne le droit d'utiliser cette œuvre dans n'importe quel but, sans aucune condition, sauf celles requises par la loi.

To follow this requirements is the reusers obligation. --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Foto

Problemi con File:Milano, piazza Mercanti 01.jpg

Problemi con File:Milano, Porta Magenta 01.jpg

Problemi con File:Milano, Città Studi 01.jpg

Ciao! Non ricordo di preciso la pagina da cui le ho trovate, ma visto che sono tutte state scattate rispettivamente 162, 115 e 83 anni fa non dovrebbero esserci assolutamente problemi col copyright. Non avrebbe senso la cancellazione.--Van Loon (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources is essential in educational projects, so also here. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GTA-Wiki-Logo.png, Fan1.png

Hallo Martin H., so wie ich das verstanden habe, hast du die Bilder GTA-Wiki-Logo.png und Fan1.ong gelöscht, obwohl ich das gesamte Formular beim Hochladen ausgefüllt habe und beide unter Creative Commons stehen, lediglich beim Fan1.png musste man den Autor nennen, was ich getan habe. Warum also wurden sie gelöscht? Ich bin sicher wir können das klären. --Excolis (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Das gesamte Formular auszufüllen ist eine Sache, die andere Sache ist, dass Wikimedia-Projekte Projekte für freie Inhalte sind und das genannte Dateien von den Rechteinhabern nicht unter freien Lizenzen veröffentlicht sind. --Martin H. (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Was versteht man denn hier unter einer freien Lizenz, wenn nicht etwas was aus einem Wiki kommt? Und wieso gibt es bei euch denn dann die Auswahlmöglichkeit für Creative Commons Lizenzen, wenn ihr die dann löscht? --Excolis (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe mich mal hier mal genauer eingelesen und habe gefunden, dass Bilder mit der Lizenz CC-BY hier erlaubt snd. Fan1.png fällt unter diese Lizenz (Link zu den Lizenzbestimmungen des Fotos), GTA-Wiki-Logo.png, als Werk eines Wikis aus dem Wikia-Netzwerk fällt unter CC-BY-SA, die hier auch erlaubt ist. Ich sehe als nicht, wo du hier eine Urheberrechtsverletzung vermutest. --Excolis (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Scheint als sei http://www.flickr.com/photos/andregustavo/172234334/ heute unter cc-by lizenziert und ist damit Kompatibel. Gestern war es das nicht, da bin ich mir sicher, denn immerhin musste ich mir die Quelle ja selber suchen, deine Quellenangabe war nur das Wort "Flickr" welches recht nichtssagend ist. Datein auf Wikia sind nur dann frei lizenziert, wenn die freie Lizenz auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite genannt ist und wenn der Wikia-Benutzer der Rechteinhaber ist, also legitimiert ist die Datei unter einer Lizenz zu veröffentliche. Da sich die Bildinhalte im GTA Wikia zu 99% aus geschützten Inhalten von Rockstar Games zusammensetzen die in Wikia unter der fair use-Argumentation verwendet werden, würde ich dich bitten für deine Lizenzangabe eine Quelle beizubringen. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, verstehe ich dich also richtig, dass du quasi einen iLnk zum GTA-Wiki-Logo haben möchtest? Da! Ich finds aber gut, dass wir das klären konnten, ich darf Fan1.png ja jetzt wieder hochladen, richtig? --Excolis (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, Wikimedia lässt mich das Bild nicht erneut hochladen, auch nicht unter anderem Namen. Kannst du da was machen? Hier ist btw der Flickr-Link dazu: Link. Achja, gestern war das Bild definitiv unter CC lizensiert, das kann ich dir versichern. --Excolis (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Zu GTA: Die deklarierung als gemeinfrei wegen nicht vorhandener Schöpfungshöhe mag auf die ursprünglichen Dateiversionen von 2006 zutreffen, auf die Bilder trifft sie definitiv nicht zu. Eine Creative Commons lizenzierung liegt nicht vor, nur eine falsche public domain-Markierung. Für das Fußballbild: einfach die volle Größe des Bildes auf Commons laden, Miniaturversionen stiften für das Projekt keinen Mehrwehrt. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Ich versuche das mit der Lizenz des GTA-Wiki-Logos abzuklären. Was dasd Fanbild betrifft, wollte ich es für einen Babel-Baustein verwenden, wo sich der Ausschnitt der nur die wehenden Fahnen zeigt, besser eignet. --Excolis (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No Copy

I'm อวบจริงจริงนะ I take my photo and Share in Pantip.com .. I donation picture to Wikipedia. --อวบจริงจริงนะ (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My picture posted on Pantip.com But I don't copy, I make my own contribution. I'm อวบจริงจริงนะ in Pantip & Commons --อวบจริงจริงนะ (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Starship.paint

Do you think (see the multitude of cameras) that these images are own work? Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so, seems like the uploader abuses some external webhost as an explanation that something is own work. Evidence is File:DeanAmbroseNXT1.jpg (348 × 604 px), cropped from this photo (720 × 480px) from the subjects website. From the same file host is File:McGilliShooter.jpg and File:MichaelMcGillicuttyNXT1.jpg. I see only this 3 own work uploads.

--Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sport

Hallo! Sie haben mir vor kurzem alle Bidler gelöscht (aus dem Serbischen Fussball). Dazu gehörten Verinswappen, Fangroup-Wappen, Bilder von Spielern und Stadien. Ich versteh nicht warum?Ich weiß ganz genau das man dise Bidler nutzen darf. Ich habe alles angegeben u trotzdem wurden die bilder gelsöcht. Wieso? Alle anderen dürfen sie nutzen u warum genau die nicht?Welche Linzens sollte ich ihrer meinung nach nutzen? Danke--Nado158 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, aber sie sind nutztbar, sie werden auf anderen seiten genutzt. Ich habe höchstens die falsche Lizenz angegeben(aus unerfahrung). Dann sag mir bitte welche Lizenz soll ich angeben?Wieso dürfen alle anderen Verein und Fangruppen ihre Bilder, Wappen usw(die ebenfalls vond den offizielne Seiten sind) und die Serbischen nicht? Schau dir bitte die Seiten von Hajduk Split, Dinamo Zagreb, Komiti Skopje usw an. Wieso auch Fc Barcelona usw? Außerdem.... Es gibt einen bekannten ehemaligen Roter Stern Belgrad Spieler...Dorde Milovanovic (aus den 70er der schon gestroben ist), der ein Foto auf Wikipedia hat im Roter Stern Belgrade Trikot und man darf dies nicht auf der Roter Stern Belgrade seite nutzen?Das wäre so als ob man Beckenbauer nicht auf die FC Bayern seitne nicht zeigen dürfte? Was sind die gründe? Danke--Nado158 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Die Dateien sind lokal in Wikipedia hochgeladen, nicht auf Commons. In manchen Wikipedia-Projekten ist fair use erlaubt, dort können Logos etc. hochgeladen obwohl sie nicht frei lizenziert sind. Nicht aber auf Commons, hier ist fair use ausdrücklich nicht gestattet. Bilder darf man nicht einfach so nehmen, diese sind urheberrechtlich geschützt und das Urheberrecht erlischt erst 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers/des Fotografen. Um ein Foto von einem Spieler aus den 70ern hochzuladen muss der Fotograf einer freien Lizenz zustimmen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

Hi! Sorry for my english. At first sorry for use the images from Flickr I thought that they haven't have copyright. So excuse for my ignorance and sorry. I'm not going to up more pictures. Thank you for the info and sorry. --PB85 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful to go to the deletion discussion and help sorting the few free files out, help correcting the sources for that files, correcting the authors for that files, and add the true licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Klaffs Collection

Hello. Could an admin who speaks de please look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Can 1972 (Heinrich Klaffs Collection 102).jpg? Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

The file that I uploaded was taken on my personal camera (Melbourne 2009) at the Olympic Park in Melbourne.

At File:PaulAnkomaChelsea.jpg and also the later duplicate upload Ankoma is wearing an Chelsea F.C. dress, so saying its in Melbourne not makes much sense. Also the photo is not an original photo but a manipulated one of this Michael Essien photo! So its not your work but a hoax based on stolen content. --Martin H. (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Made a prod on en:Paul Ankomah. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright casa grande

File:Facha casa grande.jpg Hi Martin H. The photo that you deleted, I made with my personal camera, so I am the author. I do not understand why deleted. Could you explain the reason? Greetings from Veracruz Mexico!

What FREE license you select to publish your work under? You wrote that it is not free for commercial reuse, thats forbidden on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, That was my mistake, next time I try to be more specific. Thanks for responding.

File:Anatoly_Samoilenko.jpg

Dear Mr. Martin H.

Excuse me for being writing to you.

I give more information about the file (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anatoly_Samoilenko.jpg).

This photo was created by the Allukrainian measure of International Academic Rating "Golden Fortune" (http://www.goldenfortune.org/) 4 years ago. A personally known executive officer of the "Golden Fortune" gave me photo negatives for scanning and further free distribution (in particular, to improve content of related websites). The same printed photos were given for a personal photoalbum of Academician Anatoly Samoilenko. A scanned file was uploaded by me to the personal site of Academician Anatoly Samoilenko (http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~sam/go/misc.php?&lang=en, http://imath.kiev.ua/~sam/go/files/26/2008-06-27-1.jpg). After a small revision it was uploaded to the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia in 2010 (http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samoilenko.jpg) for a related article.

A permission was oral. If Wikimedia have received e-mail with a permission from a some person, can Wikimedia really check the authenticity of this permission? Perhaps this is a rhetorical question.

Please advise me what to do. Otherwise I'm agree with deleting this file and I'll try to make more correct uploading.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely yours, Diff imath.

In step one you need to correct the author information. In step two a written permission from the copyright holder is required. --Martin H. (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Kocab.JPG

Can you read the source entry for the image or you need glasses? The copyright holder of this file, Daniela Dostálková, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. 94.113.49.110 17:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean File:Natalie Kocab.JPG.I commented on this at User_talk:Mhornik, the permission neither mentions derivative works nor redistribution. As such it is a revocable, non-transferable license. At any time the copyright holder can remove such a statement from the website and no one will be allowed to further use the file because there will be no permission anymore, such statements have not much to do with free content and not fall within COM:PS#Must be freely licensed or public domain. A written permission is required with a clear statement regarding modifications of the work and regarding irrevocability of the permission grant. --Martin H. (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer

Have answered you in my talk page. Chiton magnificus (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Der "Artist"

wird ja immer schlimmer. Habe nun überall Löschanträge gestellt und werde auch ggf. noch eine dauerhafte Benutzersperre einleiten. Danke für dein Feedback übrigens, --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:MishMari

Hello, Martin H. Please, see MishMari (talk · contribs) contribution. You have already given him a warning. --Art-top (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kerala police 4x4 driving through a monsoon.jpg

Hallo!

Ich bin überrascht, dass dieses Bild von dir als Urheberrechtsverletzung angegeben wurde, obwohl der von dir aufgezeigte Link auf Flickr eindeutig zeigt, dass das Bild unter einer CC-by-sa-Lizenz veröffentlicht wurde, welche eine "Commons-verträgliche"-Lizenz darstellt. Solche Bilder sollten nicht gelöscht werden, sondern mit den korrekten Lizenzinfos versehen werden. Es sei denn, dass inzwischen auf Flickr eine Umlizenzierung stattfand. Mit Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

danke für die Korrektur , da hab ich wohl nicht genau angeschaut ob ich von dem Mist den der Uploader gemacht hat noch was retten kann. Allerdings Vorsicht: nach Nummer 7a der Lizenz erlischt die Lizenz bei Verletzung der Lizenzbedingungen soweit es die Nutzung durch den Commons-Uploader (oder die Nutzung durch Wikimedia Commons?) betrifft. Ein erneuter Upload scheint daher unbedingt ratsamer als das einfache Ändern, die Lizenz sagt nicht, dass sie bei Korrektur wieder herstellbar sei. Nungut, ein erneuter Upload ist ja mit dem Upload der vollen Dateigröße nun erfolgt. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for recovering deleted images

Dear Martin,

Recently, some images were deleted, since copyright permissions were not enclosed. However, I - as the owner of the Rovas Info News Portal - officially granted the permission to Mr Gergely Kliha to use some screen shots of the Rovas Info web site to translate it from Latin script to Rovas script. Therefore, I ask you to recover the following - already removed images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Carpathian_Basin_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_standardization_of_Rovas.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Szekely_Magyar_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_standardization_of_Rovas.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Szekely_Magyar_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_New_Testament_printed_in_Rovas.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Carpathian_Basin_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_New_Testament_printed_in_Rovas.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Szekely_Magyar_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_Rovas_Place_Name_Signs.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rovas.info_site_in_Carpathian_Basin_Rovas,_on_the_topic_of_Rovas_Place_Name_Signs.png

Thank you for your assistance. --Rovasinfo2 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

--Rovasinfo2 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Translating other websites will not make you the copyright holder of the original content. There is always two copyrights to consider, that of the original content and that of the translation. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

.

OTRS: File:CourteneyCoxFeb09.jpg

Hello, Martin

How do you do? So, I have a question. On 11 December 2011, you removed this image's high resolution version with the reason: "the high res version is not covered by the ticket." I checked the given source for the image and it was actually hosting the high resolution version. So, my question is: Is the OTRS ticket not covering the same image that came from the alleged source? If no, then what is the of source of the image that it covers?

Thanks in advance.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A copyright holder can license different copies of a work under different licenses - or even the same copy of a work under different licenses. A different size is a different copy, and the understanding on Commons is that a license that was granted fr a particular copy of a work can not apply to other copies of the work. Nehrams2020, afaik, asks for low resolution images, this will allow copyright holders to have their work published under free licenses without giving up all economic interests, e.g. printing the photo is not possible in this low res. See Commons:FLICKR#Lower quality images. If Nehrams not uploaded the full size he most likely not got permission for uploading the full size. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the the reply which not only I was already aware of but was my main motivation for asking those questions! You never checked OTRS, did you? Did it occur to you that the image may have not come from Flickr at all? Fleet Command (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The source gives the image as all rights reserved. It's stupid to require them to separately host a lower resolution image for later transfer to Commons. Also, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm? What answer? I don't have any answers to the questions that I asked. (The questions are parts of my first message that have question marks ("?") in front of them.) And yes, it is stupid course of action but I never proposed the stupid course of action. Fleet Command (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you ask the uploader? The uploader did upload the file that he got permission for uploading under a free license. There is nothing that suggest that we can take a different copy from an unfree source. --Martin H. (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Small problem: How can I be sure that the uploader is Felicia C. Sullivan? Don't you think it would be faster if you just checked the OTRS ticket? After all, you're an admin and I'm not. Fleet Command (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Uploader = Commons uploader = he, who got permission from the copyright holder = Nehrams2020. See File talk:CourteneyCoxFeb09.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. Matter concluded. Fleet Command (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My photos

Good morning. File: Roy Black 1977.jpg, good. it isn't my photos, but photos with Wojciech Tyc, Engelbert Jarek, Wojciech Tyc, Ryszard Wójcik this is a my photos. Adaś17 (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Uploads File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM...

Hi. I uploaded images and I'm inserting complete data (about 400 already completed as here and here). --M.casanova (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Where can I leave a note? Thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the template to show a note like here (template here). Thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Image question

Can you do me a favour and take a look at File:Child buttocks.JPG?? I'm looking at it and I'm going around in circles trying to figure out if it counts as in-scope. Yes, there's child nudity but I don't think it's any more explicit than the famous Coppertone ad so it doesn't really count as child porn in my books. But I can't put my finger on why it rubs me as wrong - is it the smile/smirk on the kid's face?? What's your take on it? Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on scope for this. But I think it is one of the usual copyright violating vandal uploads in this field. It has a google similarity hit. --Martin H. (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes it simpler then... Tabercil (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

bolivar's reconstructed face

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Azylber's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Azylber's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Reconstrucción del rostro de Simón Bolívar vista periférica.jpg"

Creo que no está haciendo lo correcto, eso es obra del Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela, y por eso está en dominio público, no se necesita permiso, puse la licencia adecuada, si no está seguro de lo que está haciendo, haga el favor de no borrar información de los archivos sin una discusión previa. -- George Miquilena(hablar) 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Creo que se debería hacer una discusión previa primero.

Esto se aplica a todo lo que es producido por el Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela, sino, tendrás que borrar todas estas fotos que están dentro de está categoría: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_Venezuela_official -- George Miquilena(hablar) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fairies Tweet Dream Sparkle.jpg

I am trying to ask for the source. Thanks! フェアリーズ (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Need Review on a image

I had at least 3 pics deleted from wikimedia this week, i know that i had uploaded with wrong information, but this time, i have tried to gather as legit info as i could, so kindly review this image:- File:Pro-Green-Supporters.jpg, and tell if it's fine to share. Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, no. See this instruction: You must critically evaluate if the flickr user is the copyrighth holder. If the flickr user is not the copyright holder the license is not valid. --Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Review

Review this image [7], and the uploader of this pic has given me permission to share it.[8] Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What did you ask him? In sum (question and answer) the copyright holder must understand and agree to Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. The copyright holder must agree that anyone, worldwide, not only Wikipedia, can reuse the photo for any purpose including commercial purposes. I see no evidence that he agreed to this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s.: And a permission to reuse the photo for a very limited purpose (thats what you asked for) not means that the copyright holder waived all copyrights. The file is copyrighted, by uploading the photo here you offer it to anyone for reuse anywhere, you not got permission for that. And you not got permission to claim this file is free of copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just emailed him, i am not going to use until this is solved, so kindly don't delete, as it can take days to reply. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, the owner claimed to have send the email already as per the OTRS, so what is left now? Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Waiting. And thinking of a new name, on the file description of File:Pro_Green_Malta.jpg you say the original title is "Demonstration in Malta", thats incorrect, the original title is "Pro Gaddafi demonstrators" and the photo is not from Malta but from Sheffield, photographed in front of the Sheffield City Hall. --Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me know once it is done. 122.169.25.167 17:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

your letter to me

Hello, This file File:Lotan1257154857 236efe26e0.jpg was given to me by the secretary of the kibbutz to be uploaded to wikipedia. IF you need a letter from him I can write to him and ask for a specific permission, but what is the problem that you diagnosed? --Yoavd (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I already fixed it, its published under a free license elsewhere. BUT: Why do you claim authorship on something that was only given to you?? Thats a real problem. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Seoul Landmark Montage.jpg

Hallo!

Welche der Bildchen, die in dieser Collage vorhanden waren, sind genau Urheberrechtsverletzungen? So wie ich es sehe stand die Löschung dieser Datei weder zur Diskussion in einem Löschantrag, noch war diese als ecplizite Urheberrechtsverletzung markiert. Bitte um Klärung. MfG, High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Das erste Bild war bereits gelöscht worden. Alle anderen sind Uploads des Erstellers der Collage, der eine Sockenpuppe eines Langzeit-URV-Vandalen ist (URV-Vandale soweit es Commons betrifft). --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sind die Bilder lizenztechnisch ok? Wenn ja, dann gibt es absolut keinen Grund diese zu löschen. --High Contrast (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nein, besagter Vandale kopiert von verschiedenen Quellen. --Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Welcher Account war der "ursprüngliche"? --High Contrast (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ich folge da Wikipedia, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tnaniua. Habe noch ältere Accounts in Verdacht, ein Zusammenhang wird aber nicht 100%ig nachweisbar sein. --Martin H. (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jawohl. Aber dies sollte an einer Stelle dokumentiert werden, sodass diese Sperr/Löschjagd transparent für jeden User überblickbar bleibt. Interwiki-Konnektionen sind für manche Benutzer nicht nachvollziehbar. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Saint John Maximovitch.png

Hi Martin, I've just made some image editing on another Wiki image, I hope it is not necessary to write OTRS for that. Please take a look to my talk page. B7elijah (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

PNG is better than JPG in general AFAIK, that's why I created another file, but this is the same entity from the license/permissions point of view.B7elijah (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not your editing. The problem is that the original file is not from a free source. The original uploader is informed too. --Martin H. (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Noonlucky is in fact User:Soluckypictures : multiple accounts

Hello Martin,

Just want to let you know that Noonlucky is back under User:Soluckypictures. He keeps on uploading non-free images. Would you take a look of this. Thanks in advance. Benoit Rochon (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not file his load because they it is free of me. I am the same person as this 2 account . I used the new account because the old account blocked. I am not impersonating copyright from Noonlucky.

I will return to a page that I am talking Noonlucky for confirm account Soluckypictures.--Soluckypictures (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason for the block was the creation of other accounts using nicknames of other fans/photographers. Impersonating others only to upload their work here without consent requires our attention. Seems like he learned this lesson. I cant say something against Solucky/Noonlucky's other uploads and I not count them as non-free. Of course others can have a different opinion and ask for written permission for files previously published elsewhere, the file File:My Evidence.jpg however is not an evidence at all. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can romove banner ?

Hi Martin H. I am the owner of the copyright is not copied. All images in. Category:Nadech_Kugimiya All banners have to get permission from the copyright owner. I am a photographer with my image. I need to request permission? I permission to myself? Can you see Category:Actors_from_Thailand Public profile image owners are just like me. I can romove banner ?

And Reason for I have banner because I upload file with a new user that it resembles an old image that I upload ? Make him think I misunderstand, not the owner of image. I'm sure a little misunderstood this tag will be removed? I am very serious about this. For the responsibility that I needed accountability. because it is image of my own. Would like you to clarify with Benoit Rochon. Otherwise Benoit Rochon will not end. Please help me, thanks. --Soluckypictures (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem ended, Sorry for disturb--Soluckypictures (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

pictures from governmental website

Greetings, Martin! You recently placed a "No permission since" tag with a warning of "speedy deletion within seven days" on two (simulated/computer generated) pictures depicting the final view of ongoing roadworks in Jerusalem: [Begin-Golumb-east] and [BeginDaromTeddy]. Both pictures were published by the "Jerusalem (Israel) Municipality". A link is provided to the "jerusalem.muni.il webpage". According to Israeli copyright law, any material published by an Israeli governmental body is automatically in the public domain. The author (of any material published by said governmental body) relinquishes all copyright protection. By the way, it took me forever to discover the name of the creator of the pictures (Hemi Goraly, Architect), but no matter. Once the Jerusalem Municipality published the pictures, they became public.

Should I put "Jerusalem Municipality" as the author? Or maybe I need to use a different license. I am at a loss as to how to resolve this issue. What would you suggest?

Its not automically in the public domain. If it is from a government body it is protected for 50 years! Provided that the government body is the first copyright holder (your author information suggest the opposite), otherwise the copyright will expire 70 years after the authors death. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail including the Commons Consent form to Hemi Goraly, the creator of the photos with instructions to electronically sign, date and return to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. I hope this is the correct first step. --@Efrat (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why removed ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saud_good_one.jpg

the Picture is taken from Dr. Saud Mukhtar book . It is his on book ??

Unless you took that photo yourself, or can prove it is freely licensed, it's a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Salman43 (talk · contribs)

Last week I tagged four photos uploaded by Salman43 as copyright violations, answered his question on one of the files' talk pages, and finally you warned him. Now he's back. Having uploaded three more photos this morning, I could only find File:David Silva playing for Manchester City.png to be an obvious copyvio. Could you please look at the other two and take appropriate action? Many thanks. Jared Preston (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It took a while, but I was able to tag the other photos as copyvios too. Cheers. Jared Preston (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Resistance of Khorramshahr.jpg

Hi sir. Please help me. what is destiny of file:Resistance of Khorramshahr.jpg?

there was a talk page about source of picture. a user replaced new correct source. but now the picture deleted.

please help to recover the picture. thanx.

User talk:Fastily#Tataryn77's Caesar images

Hi Martin, hope you're well! When you have a moment, and if it's not too much trouble, do you think you could comment at User talk:Fastily#Tataryn77's Caesar images? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Rebecca Annabella

Hi, I'm new here and I don't understand this world, so pleas,e can you help me to upload photos to pages? Like AverinaTwins.jpg or DaniaGio.jpg

Please do some reading first. This project is about collection free content, thats files that the copyright holders voluntarily published under a free license. This project not collects random findings from google imagesearch. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maradona file

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Fma12's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Ulof4 vs User:Nastictarragona

Hello, indefinitely banned User:Ulof4 is making some edits like [9] or [10] by including copyvio images that seems are uploaded by sock-puppet. Justass (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback to Lewatoto

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Lewatoto's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Editors Get Automated Block?..>:

Opened as new posting as instructed. Be sure to make your comment there. Orrlingtalk 16:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You have mental problems

Deleted all uploads for my, hahaha, you're crazy, have mental problems, really... "stealing" hahaha, lamentable. I have my rights, the commons are free, all images you deleted were my own.

Steven185 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fehlende permissions

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Moveo ergo sum's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Images of Swedish politicians from 19th century

Hi Martin H,

Thank for reminding me that the images I have published are not categorized.

I tried once or twice to have them categorized, with poor success.

The photographes all origin from a wooden box owned by my great grand father (Johannes Andersson i Knarrevik, 1821-98). He was a Swedish politician during late 1800. I scanned them an published them just because I found articles about some of the politicians, where no photograph existed.

Somewhat later i published one or two sentences on the Swedish coast guard, and a link to some critisism. Those sentences and the link were imediately deleted for some vague resaon. (www.hejakustbevakningen.se)

I have lost my interest in Wikipedia since then. Sensorship of this kind belonged in formed Sovjet Union.

Kind regards/Johanvictor

File:Voyna biomuseum.jpg

It is free to distribute the file with all the evidence of this use in the Russian version of this article. You are out efficiently pripyatstvuete adequate coverage of the event. All proofs are given free use! Return the file and record immediately! If any of the data filled in is not true, fill them correctly! and do not use double standards.--Neoniks (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The file in Russian Wikipedia is under fair use! Its protected by copyright, the copyright holder not agreed to a free license, the Russian Wikipedia makes an exemption from their free content policiy and uses this unfree file only for educational purposes. On Commons there is no such exemption. We dont have fair use here. Its simply forbidden to upload the file here. --Martin H. (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop

messing around with the filename, it breaks the gallery tool

No, it doesnt, a renamed file still shows up in the gallery tool. But uploading a larger available filesize over the orginal upload removes it from the original uploaders gallery. --Martin H. (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The gallery always use the original name that I choose. You deleted them even when they are

valid names like "Leopard feeding" or "A bob cat". YOU DO THAT AGAIN I AM GOING TO REPORT YOU. The gallery always looks for the original names, which are valid name!

Hello, you can trust me if I say: Renaming does NOTHING to the gallery too. Nothing. The gallery tool is based on the log, and it shows files in that persons gallery who uploaded the last version. If you not upload the original size version and someone else will do this for your (in case of flickr for example we even operate a bot who overwrites low quality uploads with good quality uplods) then this files will not longer show up in your gallery. Thats simply how the gallery tool works, its a tool to show the last uploader of a files . And thats how it is described at the very top of the page Special:ListFiles/Martin_H.:

When filtered by user, only files where that user uploaded the most recent version of the file are shown.

I assume you not do so much reading of help pages or information. Dont expect something from a tool that it can not and dont complaint about something that is clearly described as not functioning. --Martin H. (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the holes YOU made in my gallery before you assume anything. The gallery doesn't not know bout the new name. It uses the old name and YOU changed them. I don't have to read anything. The fact that it does not show the files means YOU ARE WRONG. YOU BREAK MY GALLERY AND YOU ARE REPORTED

Obviously you show zero interest to work in the interest of this project. Very sad case. --Martin H. (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pietro lorenzetti, crocifisso di cortona.jpg

The relevant part is 2D, the frame is de minima.. I don't think it worths cropping it, it is so plain, nothing special. --Sailko (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am just claiming that the drawer is a minor part of the picture, I haven't even noticed it before. Have a look at deleting procedures like this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filippino lippi, madonna col bambino e i santi g.battista, vittore, bernardo e zanobi (1485) uffizi.jpg. Let's just not waste more time. If you feel very inspired you can crop it, if you want, and leave just the 2D part of the image. Regards. --Sailko (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree... there is not personal interpretation of the photographer, it is just an objective reproduction of the bidimensional work of art. Infact it is in a category of a painter, not of a sculptor. As I told you you can crop more the croos at the border to remove those tiny shadows, if they hurt your sensibible observation. Nobody is going to complain about it. Cheers --Sailko (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwww you're German.. what a surprise! ;) --Sailko (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your German interpretation is too strict. I see just a bidimensional object. Don't know why is always the German people making problems which would not exist. Feel free to ask deletion of the image if that makes you sleep better tonight, I don't care. --Sailko (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, had a long day yesterday.. I'll be more careful about the frames and will try take them away from next PD-art files before I upload them. --Sailko (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted picture

Hi! I just uploaded a picture, but was deleted almsot right away due to copyright violation. The filename is Javier-el-hage-director-legal-de-la-organizacion-hrf- 315 460 43008.jpg. I spoke with the copyright owners of the picture a couple of weeks ago and they agreed to release it using the CC 3.0 license. I told them to send an email to permissions-commos at wikimedia.org, which they did, and I thought it was now ok to upload it. What can I do now to reup the photo? or How will i know when I will be able to do it safely? Thank you!--MarcusBos (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait untill you got confirmation from permissions-commons. The source not says something of free reuse, only [www.abc.com.py/abc-color/propiedad-intelectual-382869.html the opposite]. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Asia 565ad.jpg

The map is correct in putting Vietnam as a separated political entity. Between 544 and 602, Vietnam was an independent state then known as "Vạn Xuân" and ruled by the Early Lý Dynasty. So please include "Vạn Xuân" in the map. Furthermore, for "Champa Kingdoms", please also remove the word "kingdoms" since I almost don't other political entities' names including that word. Thank. ༆ (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, when a website appears the phrase "you can share our content but you must specify the source" i can assume that is a Creative Commons License or how do i understand this? sorry if my english is bad.--Lewatoto (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Something is published under Creative Commons if the copyright holder says it is published under Creative Commons. A permission to share is not Creative Commons. Also it is not free, modification is not mentioned, redistribution (i.e. allowing others to reuse the content too) is not mentioned, and such a permission is not irrevocable. --Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:

It collects files regarding Africa (as taken by African people or regarding African places, people and so on) and which come from the specific institution, usually because they are donated for a specific GLAM project (which is WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge). If this is not ok for you, please suggest a better name as we need to track these file, underline that they come from that institution and that they are about Africa (also please note that files might be removed from that category anytime, as sometimes search results are misleading). Thank you, --Elitre (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. GLAMs do use tracking categories and I can't recall any of them using galleries as you suggest. But if you can point some of these to me I will certainly show them to my team and we'll see what can be done. --Elitre (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I thank you for your explanation, I will definitely look for a quick solution: I did not mean to circumvent rules, it is just difficult to find a linguistically adequate phrasing and put the right items in the right places! --Elitre (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Свидетельство 7 georegion.jpg

You read talk page before delete? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I nuked that users uploads, even if for this file the reason not applies: Posting personal documents is not only problematic for privacy, Commons is not a place to use as a personal documents server. --Martin H. (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What does it matter? This file is used in the article about ru:ИНН. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not requird to decorate an article about a number with personal data of a user. The user uploaded it in good faith for the purpose of illustrating a spam article about himself in Wikipedia, that article is deleted. The user possibly not expected that his personal data will be used elsewhere. Please use a neutral example to illustrate the number (i.e.: a number using <math>), and if the paper is of importance please use the official government preprinted form. --Martin H. (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubt

There are several custom pages here. Which the problem of a page be customized? Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at One thought's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suspected sockpuppetry

I came across User:Edogawa, User:Mr.buriram and User:Iloveyoutoo19, whose upload patterns seem very similar to User:Mr.Conan, whom you blocked for persistently uploading copyright violations. Could you take a look please? (Also note the names - Edogawa Conan is a character from Detective Conan.) --125.25.147.87 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as CheckUser is concerned, they are all Possible. That combined with the behavioral evidence makes it rather obvious. As such, I went ahead and blocked them all. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking again, it appears User:Iloveyoutoo19 might have been a different user. (Uploads are all copyvios though.) There's also User:Conan likecartoon which wasn't mentioned earlier. --101.109.223.81 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

hello what is the copyright violation of "Mokdong_seoul.jpg"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyunah661992 (talk • contribs)

See the deletion log. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hallo Martin H. Ich habe versehentlich neue Kategorie angelegt: Category:Jean André Lepaute‎. Allerdings existiert zu diesem Uhrmacher schon mydie Category:Jean-André Lepaute‎ (mit Bindestrich), was ich erst später endeckt habe. Ich bitte dich, meine Kategorie zu löschen.

Danke --Karel K. (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

DiMera Image

I made the DiMera family collage myself using pictures from Wikipedia. FZenov (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecce Homo

I noticed that you deleted this File: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ecce_homo_(Cecilia_Gim%C3%A9nez_-_El%C3%ADas_Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez,_2012).JPG?uselang=es

In Spain, the restoration work does not belong to Cecilia Gimenez, this work the work of Elias Garcia Martinez (dead).

Please, could you recover the original photograph?

Thanks --Cutrupe (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The restoration has its own copyright. There are enough differences to speak of a new work, even if the new work is very similar to the old work it contains enough new elements to be recognized by Spanish copyirght. In general Spain has almost zero requirements on creativity, so painting something always give a copyright to the painter. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Musée de Trêves Stèle du marchand de vin Partie inférieure.jpg

Hello,

How could you ask for a deletation, for copyright, regarding this picture of an objet dated on 1st century? --Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

the question is not the old object. The question is the photographers copyright. Photos of 3D objects have a copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo deletion

The Chan Santokhi image I uploaded, was mailed to me by a colleague with whom I edit Wikipedia articles. He said it was his own work, I did not know it could have taken from the web. But the other images are indeed my own work. Why did you delete them?--Infoprov (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My reason for nominating your uploads for deletion is written at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Infoprov. Author of File:Chan santokhi.jpg is written at the source, you claimed its entirely your own work. The file is in exactly the same size like the source file - with one exception: The watermark is carefully cutted away. A professional photographer will never do such bad things. File:Vluchtelingen uit Suriname in een vluchtelingenkamp in Frans-Guyana in december 1986.jpg is taken from http://www.anp-archief.nl/page/2248158/nl, author is written there, you claimed its entirely your own work. File:Desi Bouterse en Ingrid Figueira namens de NDP bij de verkiezingen van 1987.jpg is from http://www.anp-archief.nl/page/2229207/nl, author is written there, you claimed its entirely your own work. File:President van Suriname Ramsewak Shankar met legerleider Desi Bouterse en premier Henk Arron..jpg is from http://www.anp-archief.nl/page/2124084/nl, File:Bouterse en Brunswijk.jpg is from http://www.rnw.nl/suriname/article/akkoord-brengt-aartsvijanden-weer-samen. Thats many different authors. You say the untruth. Please stop vandalizing our project with copyright violations. --Martin H. (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkMysoe

User:MarkMysoe who was blocked in May 2012[11] on English wikipedia for persistent copyvio photo uploading under false self claim, now is doing the same on commons, I just found a real source of this File:Kwasi_Danquah_III_(autographs).jpg. Please look how he started his contribuion on commons[12], he disgustingly lied about the authorship of three photos, but I found out that these photos were a screencaps from a youtube vidoes and nominated them for speedy deletion. Please check all his recent contribution, I wouldn't be surprised if he created several e-mail accounts to send a permission to OTRS for photos he uploaded.--Oleola (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

He stole the File:Kwasi_Danquah_III_(performing).jpg from facebook as well.--Oleola (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Civility

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars.... Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks ... of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians...." (Wikipedia:Civility) "[S]ome types of comments are never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." (Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

The Wikimedia Commons "Blocking policy" states: "Clear explanations and warnings about Commons policy should be engaged in before ... blocking a user for license problems". According to the "Blocking policy":

• a block should be imposed only after "a strongly-worded warning" is written to the user; and
• a block should be imposed only if the user uploads after being warned.

In User talk:Sex-position-demonstration, before blocking the user, where did you give the warnings required by official policy? Where is the evidence supporting the accusations you made?

150.135.161.183 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating an account on Commons (very reare, people usualy start in Wikipedia) for the only purpose of uploading screenshots of porn movies - a very sensible topic with many disputes in the past - from some random website is highly disruptive to the project. Its not needed here. I not blocked the account for license problems or violations but for intentional disruption of our project. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's such a sensitive topic, isn't that all the more reason for following Official Wikimedia Commons Policy? To avoid the appearance that your actions were motivated by a personal bias?

"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that editors are trying to help, not hurt the project." (Wikipedia:Civility) That means, don't assume an editor's "only purpose" is to "disrupt the project". In fact, the uploaded images clearly and specifically illustrated the subject of at least two Wikipedia articles: Woman on top (sex position) and Sex positions. Such illustration furthers Wikipedia's mission (even if it does not sit well with you personally). Your disregard for Official Policy appears more disruptive than the uploading of an image which clearly and specifically illustrates Wikipedia subject matter.

The "randomness" of the website is irrelevant, unless you intend to ban every user who uploads any image that can be found on some random website. (Good luck finding freely licensed images if, you go that route.)

The "pornographic" nature of the images is, in and of itself, irrelevant. No policy prohibits images "explicitly portraying sexual subject matter" (quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography)

This is not a church, it's an encyclopedia, supposed to be edited according to policy.

150.135.161.183 01:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not an encyclopedia, its a free encyclopedia. The randomness of the source is not irrelevant, its highly relevant: the source must be a free source, published under a free license, voluntarily by the copyright holder, and thats the creator of the original video. --Martin H. (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I may have misundertood your point about randomness; but it appears the source is in fact a "free source, published under a free license, voluntarily by the copyright holder". The gif clearly comes from this video. See also this caption to the gif, giving the full release. That's more evidence of copyright-compliance than you would require in general, no? And there's really no evidence at all of any copyright violation. This isn't a case where copyright-violation is at all likely, nor is it a case of "disruptiveness". 150.135.161.183 01:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

anyone can create a tumblr page and wrote some permission below it. It would not worth much. Also anyone can take random videos and use them for writing random stories about "incest" for this videos [13][14] and then start spreading it as incest to an encyclopedia. Thats happens, but it still is story telling and not truth. --Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of what you say above is irrelevant (if you're so interested in incest, why not discuss it on a more appropriate forum?); but you do admit: "anyone can create a tumblr page". So why are you proffering tumblr pages as evidence of a copyright violation? Aren't tumblr pages (which can be created by anyone), in fact, the only evidence you're relying on? --150.135.161.105 17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Like any other external source a tumblr page can either be used by a copyright holder publishing self-created works or it can be used by people reposting other peoples content, with or without permission. The problem is to decide if a source page belongs to group A or B. Watermarks, different qualities, sizes, metadata, publication time vs. creation time, etc, are helpful to decide this. In case of above mentioned websites there is enough evidence visible and copyright holders mentioned in the videos to conclude that this tumblrs are mocks of a non-copyright holder.

Im not interested in incest, im only interested in copyrights and having users with good intentions on the project. Using copyright violations for pseudo educational content with bad intentions in mind is harmful to the project. The previous edits on en:Incest pornography and en:Incest in popular culture shows bad intentions with the same content.

I have no idea what your intention is with creating dozen of tumblr pages writing nonsense about incest using porn videos with identifiable people in it who probably will have a problem with this and copyright holders who will probably disagree with this usage. But thats not my problem, its yours, outside of Wikimedia projects. Adieu. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You write: "The problem is to decide if a source page belongs to group A or B. ... In case of above mentioned websites there is enough evidence visible and copyright holders mentioned in the videos to conclude that this tumblrs are mocks of a non-copyright holder." But you're chasing windmills, because the problem isn't to decide whether any tumblr blog is operated by the copyright-owner. That might be tumblr's problem, but it shouldn't be yours. Your concern here at Commons should be whether the image is freely licensed. You've produced no evidence of any copyright violation. You're holding these images to a stricter standard than you do with other images, and your motivation is improper.

And now you're also making accusations: "previous edits on en:Incest pornography and en:Incest in popular culture shows bad intentions"; but "some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) No diffs and links support your accusation. Why not try being civil? It might help you overcome your paranoid delusions about other people's "intentions".

--150.135.161.105 20:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1) We also care about license laundering, so no, its not only a tumblr problem. 2) your intentions are clear from previous edits, putting the same content in a different context to upload it under the disguise of pseudo-education is unacceptable. I dont know why you claw for bureaucracy so much. Again, adieu. --Martin H. (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your preoccupation with people's "intentions" is impairing your administrative functioning. If an image clearly and specifically illustrates an article's subject matter, why would anyone care how you personally perceive the uploader's "intentions"? You claim "your intentions are clear from previous edits", but you give no evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." (Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

Why aren't you deleting all the other Commons images which appear on some tumblr blogs? --150.135.161.183 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why dont just you include all edits you previously made with IPs (and other accounts?) in Wikipedia in the text on your usertalk? So that people can review this, get to know you as one person, and get a picture of you? Here on this talk page I have a picture of you and so far you wrote nothing that changes this. You have nothing to achieve here on this talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture of you too (and it's nothin nice) but my accusations rest on specific evidence. You tend to make accusations without evidence, and I see no point in that (unless you're out to further demonstrate your contempt for official policy). Unless you get into specific evidence, you're bound to continue deluding yourself (but no one else). --150.135.161.183 23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

PHOTO DELETION (URGENT!)

Did you even read the links I provided? The public are allowed to use these pictures. I even posted the licence. Why did you delete the pictures? Concrete answer please. Otherwise undelete the photo as soon as possible.--ECaribean (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The source page is published under cc-by-nc-nd, on Commons {{Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}} is forbidden, it is unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Olga Nikolajewna Rubzowa

Der Turniersekretär der ICCF Herr Merten (DDR, bereits verstorben) war für die erste Fernschach-Weltmeisterschaft der Frauen zuständig (siehe Olga Rubzowa). Er bat Ende der 60er Jahre die Teilnehmerinnen an der Weltmeisterschaft (wie auch meine Frau Juliane), ihm kleine Fotos (Passfotos) zu senden. Er stellte diese auf einer Fotomontage zusammen und sandte das Bild zumindest an meine Frau (1999 verstorben) zur freien Verfügung. Das Bild sämtlicher Teilnehmerinnen erbte ich von meiner Frau und habe das Original noch heute in meinem Besitz. Ich fotografierte diese kleinen Bildchen, um sie Commons unter Namensnennung zur Verfügung zu stellen, da die zugehörigen Artikel keine Abbildungen hatten. Das hat viel Zeit gekostet und war auch nicht ganz billig. Alle Beteiligten weltweit waren hocherfreut, Bilder für ihre Artikel zu erhalten. --GFHund (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Der Urheber der "kleinen Passfotos" ist jedoch de facto unbekannt. Es ist deshalb nicht erlaubt, dass du die Fotos hochlädst und angibst, dass du sie erstellt hast. Ich hoffe das kannst du nachvollziehen. Steak (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bei Passfotos erhält man nicht nur das Foto vom Fotogeschäft sondern auch das Urheberrecht. Die hochgeladenen Dateien erstellte ich. --GFHund (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Das steht unter de:Passfoto#Urheberrecht aber anders. Und das gilt auch nur für Deutschland. Wie es in Russland bzw. der Sowjetunion geregelt war ist noch mal was anderes. Steak (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolut. Derjenige, der dir das Bild zur Verfügung stellte, hat wahrscheinlich schon keine ausreichenden Rechte gehabt, du wiederum hast nicht die ausreichenden Rechte, anderen ein Nutzungsrecht an den Dateien einzuräumen. (Zumal ich ergänzen möchte, dass eine Reproduktion dich nicht zum alleinigen Urheber macht) --Martin H. (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Leider sind die betreffenden Personen längst tot. Wie sollte die Lizenzierung geändert werden? Vermutlich bin ich der Einzige weltweit, der noch zugehörige Originaldokumente besitzt. --GFHund (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Inzwischen wurden die von Dir zur Löschung vorgeschlagenen Bilder (leider) von einem Bot gelöscht, ohne unsere obige Diskussion zu beachten! Das ist nicht gut, denn ich werde keine Bilder mehr noch Commons hochladen, und schon garnicht, wenn sie mich viel Geld gekostet haben. --GFHund (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nur um sicherzustellen, dass wir hier das gleiche Verständnis haben: Wikimedia Projekte sind kein Archiv wie du meinst. Definitiv nicht. Es geht hier um das Sammeln von Mediendateien die vom Urheber bzw. Rechteinhaber unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden und die dem erstellen von Projekten mit Freien Inhalten dienlich sind. Das ist der Projektrahmen von Wikimedia Projekten und von Commons.

Das Urheberrecht an den hier diskutierten Dateien ist nicht abgelaufen (zeitlich unmöglich), somit hättest du die Dateien ohne Einwilligung des Urhebers niemals innerhalb der Projektrichtlinien hier hochladen können. Wenn die Urheber nicht bekannt sind ist das Pech, dann kann man leider niemanden Fragen und wird somit niemals eine Einwilligung erreichen und kann somit die Datei niemals hier hochladen. Zumindest solange nicht, bis die Urheberrechte entsprechend den gesetzlichen Fristen erloschen sind. Dateien die nicht im Projektrahmen sind - also Dateien die nicht vom Urheber unter einer freien Lizenz lizenziert sind - werden gelöscht. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

About deletet logos

Why did you delete my images? I put there the correct licenses? I saw these licenses in another pages - a lot of files: File:The Unit 2006 Intertitle.png, File:Lasko-Logo.jpg, File:House logo.svg, File:Gnome-fs-smb.png, File:Microsoft Windows 7 wordmark.svg, File:Iehelp.png and so on. These images were just simple texts with a wide-spread font and nothing else. There were no pictures and no copyrighted symbols. I saw the practice in such cases is to apply licenses (PD-textlogo) and (Trademarked).

Why didn't you wait a few days to let me explain my point of view? Why you was in a hurry to delete my files? Can you explain me? --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"There were no pictures" is not true, all of the deleted files had complexe animations - even photos such as a photo of mountains - in the background. Simple text means simple text, nothing else. --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Simple text means simple text, nothing else." Please, look at Category:Text logos. More than 3 thousand text logos and simple shapes. They are not fabricated, most of them are real logos. Administrators agree with them. What's the difference between all these files and mine?

Maybe I had to apply license (PD-shape) to my files and that will meet all the requirements of Wiki Commons. My files deserve a correction, not deletion. I don't agree flatly with your assessment. --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please have a look at the file that you uploaded. The text "Sea Patroll" maybe is text. But the background has nothing to do with textlogo. Its a complexe rendering (the bubbles) and a photographic work (the cloudes and the person). You can not claim a textlogo a textlogo if the background is a photo or if something in the logo is not plain and simple text but a more complexe graphic. --Martin H. (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Erlaubnis für Foto

Lieber Martin H.

ich habe Dich als user auf der Seite von Tragopan gefunden. Kannst Du mir bitte weiterhelfen, wie ich mit ihm in Kontakt treten kann? Es handelt sich um ein Foto zu Chileflamingo mit einem Jungvogel, aufgenommen im Zoo von Bernburg.

Mit den besten Grüßen Paul Wrede

Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin email: paul.wredecharite.de --Paul wrede (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich antworte mal per Email und auf der Seite des betreffenden Benutzers. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Correggio Vatican Press Conference Pictures

Hi. I saw you marked the pictures I uploaded. I got those pictures by screen-capturing this video at Youtube uploaded by Rome Reports http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFd7b_W1YGo.

Please don't delete them

That source is not published under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What should I do? please don't delete them User:VivaItalia1974

If a file is not free you cant upload it, without the copyright holders written agreement to a free license we must delete the files. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Stieglitz okeeffe 1918.jpg

Hallo Martin, du hattest vor einiger Zeit die m.E. korrekte PD-US-Vorlage gegen PD/1923|1946 ausgetauscht[15], während die andere Version desselben Fotos File:Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe, 1918.jpg weiterhin unter PD-US steht. Stieglitz ist halt noch nicht 70 Jahr tot. --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hinter dem Upload stecken die Annahmen, dass das Bild vor 1923 erstellt wurde, vor 1923 veröffentlicht wurde und daher gemeinfrei ist, ein Beleg dafür fehlt, aber ignorieren wir das mal. Die PD-US Vorlage ist korrekt, allerdings bezieht sie sich auf eine Unzahl von Gründen. Besser wäre dann {{PD-1923}} für den konkreten Grund. Wenn ich PD-1923 nehme kann ich noch besser PD/1923 mit Todesdatum nehmen da so darauf hingewiesen wird, dass in Ländern mit längerer Schutzfrist (welche die Regel der kürzeren Frist nicht anwenden sondern Ausländern und Inländern gleichen Schutz einräumen) dieses Werk nicht gemeinfrei ist. PD/1923 ist nur eine Spezifizierung des sehr undeutlichen PD-US. --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Violacion de copyright

Oye Martin, this file upload by User:Danel torres, who have violated copyright before, seems not to be an own work. This is one of the pictures used in this campaign, and have been published in web sites [16], [17], [18] in better resolution before. Could you please take a look. Thanks, Osplace (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

The photos are a print of a video, computer made ​​for me. That's why I leave the link of the video. They were not made ​​by someone else, so it has no author. Sorry for the inconvenience, kisses. --JudithJunkers (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The author is of course the creator and copyright holder of the video. Making a screenshot is reproduction of the content. You can not reproduce the video without the video owners permission. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Zatruteostrzegrozy.jpg

Goodmorning, you still delete images on my page, so there is my question - why? There is a lot of pages which have the same pictures, for example this: http://m2mwiki.metin2mester.hu/index.php?title=Egykezes_kardok http://wiki.imetin.pl/index.php?title=Wojownik/Bronie Please, tell me why. Thanks in advance for answer, greetings.

Because it is copyright violation. To upload something on Wikimedia Commons the copyright holder must have given anyone, worldwide, permission to reuse the content for any purpose including commercial purposes. Thats free content and thats what this project is about. Content from Metin is the opposite of that. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I understand it. That's why these two sides they work or infringe the rights of Metin2? Why graphics on this page is not removed? Regards

What people on metin wiki do or not do is not my problem. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See this

You blocked that user erroneously, he's not a puppet (I know him, he's not). He some time ago left a request for unblock, but nobody see it, can you do it something?. Goodbye, No Future For You (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it was coincidence that AlleDears first and only upload was the same file that the other user uploaded via abusive flickrwashing two days before. User is unblocked, sorry for the trouble. --Martin H. (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg‎

Please be so kind and remove the deletion tag on this foto. This foto is part of Ordinance on decorations and awards, which is published in the Croatian Official gazzete Narodne novine (link is provided as the source, see this http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/dodatni/403329.pdf), and therefor, according to croatian law is free for use. Although the law based on the example of the Berne Convention discusses only official texts, in the frame of official jurisdictions other categories of authored works also often appear as parts of the official text, its annex or independently (e.g. urban planning maps in spatial files; drawings of traffic signs; drawings of the national coat-of-arms, of municipal coats of arms, of flags and the music of the national anthem; sketches and plans from the patent file after the official publication of the patent). In its purpose these works do not differ from official texts, therefore it should be regarded that they are exempt of copyright law too.--Ex13 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, done. --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Pictures

I dont know why you deleted all my pictures of Gran Canaria in every pages. I will not update any page of old Wikipedia anymore.
I think that you are a big problem to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janayte (talk • contribs)

You can not take photos from various others photographers and declare them your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Kirk_DeMicco's_Headshot.jpg

This image was removed as a copyright violation, however, this is an image that Kirk DeMicco (my boss) owns as it is his own headshot. Is there a way we could have this picture reuploaded please?

File:Chris Sanders' Headshot.jpg

This image was removed as a copyright violation, however, this image is owned by DreamWorks Animation Studios, Chris' current employer. I work as Chris' assistant, and received this image directly from our PR team. Could we please have this image reloaded? Thank you.

Also for the above: if you not created something yourself you should not select the "This file is my own work" option in the upload tool (third step: "Release rights", two options). --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How would I go about fixing this error so that we can use the picture? --Dechun (User talk:Dechun)

Upload it with correct author and source information and make sure that the copyright holder voluntarily agreed to a free license, free in terms of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia will not let me reupload as the same file has already been deleted by you. --dechun (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A change of the file by one byte will fix that. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Princess Elisabeth of Hesse 1.jpg und Princess Elisabeth of Hesse 2

Hallo Martin, wo ist denn das Problem mit der Quelle von beiden Dateien? Eine URL ist doch angegeben. Und wieso hast Du nur „meine“ Dateien getagt und nicht den Rest der Kategorie Princess Elisabeth of Hesse? Da hat so gut wie keine Datei eine Quelle. Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich würde gerne wissen, woher die Information stammt das der Urheber unbekannt sei. Oder ob du dir das ausgedacht hast und es eine gute Idee findest, solche Fantasien als Wahrheit zu verkaufen. Dafür habe ich die Diskussionsseite der Dateien verwendet. --Martin H. (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture in Ana Yancy Clavel Bio

Hi, I just added a picture on Ana Yancy Clavel bio http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Yancy_Clavel the picture I just took it on september 30 and you erase it because Copyright violation, I just used the picture in her fanpage in facebook and wikipedia and it's my own work, can you please help me to solve this problem, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio u2 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)

No. Editing someone else photo will not make you the sole copyright owner. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How can be you sure that I only made an edition? I have that picture in my cam and yes I use it complete it but it's mine you are denying me the right to post it. I have THAT PICTURE in MY CAM! Please solve it, Yes I used other before that the owners provided me and you erased it, but this one is complete MINE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio u2 (talk • contribs)

Here i let you a picture of MY cam, with that complete picture, then I have the right to make any edition I want. Please solve it.

You can easyly verify that I took the picture with a sony alpha a 33 look at the internet, find a picture of the cam and compare with this image if you have any other doubt.

Here's the link of MY CAM, with the picture. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/552600_531771590182595_771721407_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio u2 (talk • contribs)

As long as I didn´t get an answer from you, I'm here to ask you to solve the problem with the picture that I took to Ana Yancy... The bio cannot be without a picture and as I explain before that one was took by me... there you have the photo of my cam with the pic.

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Martin H.'s talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emilio u2 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Emilio_u2

Well, you uploaded copyright violations before. Files taken from websites and forums. You will not need to take photos from such dubious sources if you previously created your own photos. Therefore I not believe you, how to resolve this is your problem. --Martin H. (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

Hi Martin H. When on OTRS I came by File:Pietro Foresti.jpg, a file uploaded by PeterMalovia (talk · contribs), a user you blocked on 27 September for sockpuppetry. Fifteendegreesbelow (talk · contribs) added the {{OTRS pending}} template on it and a found a matching OTRS ticket (ticket:2012100110008752) which looks valid. The same user send more permissions via OTRS. Is Fifteendegreesbelow another sockpuppet of PeterMalovia and who is the main sockpuppeteer then and why? What did he do? Uploading copyvios? Trijnstel_talk 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

More accounts you blocked and of which permissions we received on OTRS: River2zero (talk · contribs), Brbrsan (talk · contribs) and MSSWWRP (talk · contribs). Who is this person? Three of eight tickets are closed; I'll leave the other five open for now awaiting your answer. Thanks in advance for the help. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Its the same person, off course. All belong to Category:Sockpuppets of MartinMartin226. If you ask me "who" this is: Dont know, I suspect a sockpuppet zoo of some writer doing it for the money. The various topics and behaviour suggest so (evidence: en:Special:Contributions/MartinMartin226, en:Special:Contributions/Michaelatstarbucks, en:Special:Contributions/Wikicoffee1373), the name "Dr. A." added with this edit shows a realation to a real spam topic. Identifying this in Wikipedia is their issue, by screaning what files the accounts there added to the articles I found the sockpuppet zoo on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Could you please check Fifteendegreesbelow (talk · contribs) too - and block him if he's confirmed? I suspect that's a sockpuppet as well. The OTRS tickets look valid though, so we will put the corresponding permission templates on the image files. Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Its an obvious sockpuppet, no need to check this. And blocking will also not solve the problem: What he can not do is creating random accounts and claiming authorship (and credit) for this accounts. An account always represents one person. This one person is not the author and not the person who can claim credit for the work, no matter how many different account names he uses. All I wanted is that he provides true author information and stop uploading with many accounts. With correcting the previously wrong information and using only one account (on Commons at least) the problem seems to be resolved. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaaah. It took some time, but now I understand it. ;) Yes, this should be fine then. Thanks for the information! Trijnstel_talk 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Julian Lane photo

You deleted a Julian Lane photo. I actually put the wrong source in. That wasn't the photo that came off of the UFC website. The one on there was similar but wasn't exactly the same. That one actually came from Julian Lane himself off of his facebook. There shouldn't be any copyright issue with a facebook photo, they are used and shared all the time. Would you please undo that deletion? --Willdawg111 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Shared" on facebook does not mean that the file is free content as defined in and required by Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. Published on a website and visible for free has nothing to do with free content or "public domain". --Martin H. (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Restore deletion File:L'Homme Nouveau 1526 - LR.jpg

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Martin H.'s talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, you have cancelled File:L'Homme Nouveau 1526 - LR.jpg

Alain Tasso, the writer of the article has asked me to publish it on wikipedia, the newspaper management was informed and did not object to this.

As I have received an Editor's summary: Notification of possible copyright violation for File:L'Homme Nouveau 1526 - LR.jpg I would like to liaise with you, asking you to kindly restore the file.

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Quetion

How I can deleted my files ? --Anaxibia (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hey Martin, [File:City of Santo Domingo At The Ozama.jpg this picture] seems to be this one from the noted Photographer Otto Piron. You can even look in the picture uploaded from commons in the bottom righ corner of the picture you can read (c) Otto Piron. The rest of the gallery is shown here. Do you consider this a copyrigh violation? I doubt neither User:EdwinCasadoBaez or User talk:Inefable001 (who have many times violated copyrights) are the holders of the rights of this picture. Thanks, Osplace (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Clear case, per the watermark. Of course facebook is not the source where EdwinCasadoBeaz toke it from, but Piron published it somewhere else. And for EdwinCasdaoBeaz I think there are more problems. Some examples:

• en:File:MaleconG.jpg, same watermark
• en:File:DR-1 ExpresoKennedyElevado.jpg - what about the black rectangle at the top? simple answer: it is stolen from here.
• en:File:JoeNathanField-StonyBrookUniversity.jpg - the EXIF data tells me that it is not own work.
• en:File:DR-1 kennnedy2.jpg posted 2 days before in posting number #1737 at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=52895339&langid=5
• with the above "DR-1" photo I also think all the other "DR" photos uploaded in March 2010 are copyright violations

Imo the best idea is just nuking this guys uploads from all projects. Clear copyvio uploader. Im interested if he agrees.

--Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:CircassianAlphabet.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:CircassianAlphabet.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:CircassianAlphabet.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Hi Martin! How can I delete my own files? I want to remove some pictures. Thanks in advanced. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Not learning

I don't see any problem with anything. The author agreed to change the license to Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons and if you have any problem with that, contact him, not me. I did promise him to give credit to him and I did put his name as the author.

Also, my dear friend, the cropped version isn't done by me. If you have some vision problems, please don't blame me for something I haven't done. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. The author clearly gave permission to use it. Still can't see any problem with cropping it, even when I didn't do it. Again, do whatever you feel like. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:R&Hiro

You are mistaken, the rights may not be violated by reason of the official cooperation of Wikipedia and the Russian Agency Commons:RIA Novosti -- R&Hiro (|talk) 17:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The cooperation includes files that we already have on Commons. Thats all files uploaded by User:RIANbot. The rest of their database is not free. --Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

your ancient request

Category:Images from USAID Africa matanya • talk 21:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! Will do some categorization work later. --Martin H. (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Tess Broussard at the Emmy Awards source

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at dgk4wiki's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tess Broussard at the Emmy Awards source

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Dgk4wiki's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Wolbo's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Wolbo (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My uploads were removed

Hi, I wanted to have an undeletion requests for those other images you had removed. At first I found them on google images, but I searched them thoroughly just to find the real source of the images that I uploaded. I'd even searched for the author's name. I have provided all the sources, but still they were removed.

Sure they are removed. Thats because the copyright holder did not publish them under a free license. The copyright holder not agreed to what we require (Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms). You just took the files without asking if the copyright holder agrees too a free licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi sir, I have put exactly all the necessary information like where did I find the image and who is the author. Although at first I only found it in google images and to some other random sites. The author of the picture didn't forbid those sites to use those pictures and I can see it in other any public domains. I believed it's a free license and you could check it yourself. The author of the picture is a fan of After School korean group and actually a korean fan. I'm not plagiarizing these pictures I plagiarized if I didn't put all the sources which I did in particularly. I'm not starting a contest here I only want to explain my side here. I hoped you understand, and I hoped you could return back the pictures you have filed to deletion or you can please undo them, thanks.

You apparently not know, what "free" or "public domain" means. Published on a website and visible for free has nothing to do with free content. But Commons is a project only for free content. Read en:Gratis versus libre. What you talk about is "gratis", what we mean with Commons:Project scope is libre. The copyright holder must explicitely publish the work under a free license. And next time please make sure to read the basic rules of a project before working on project. --Martin H. (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Wolbo's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Wolbo (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI (Sockpuppets of Jerry Dandridge)

user:Der Koder! ist höchstwahrscheinlich ganz sicher Jerry Dandridge. Gruß, --Martin1978 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Korrekturen: 14:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

user:SUIT UP! ist der nächste. Grüße, --Martin1978 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Unbekannter Kerl... Grüße, --Martin1978 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DiscoverGibraltar.com

Good morning. Last night, I received a message from you, expressing concern that I might not have permission to use File:Panorama from Green's Lodge Battery.png. I am a contributor to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and I have recently been working on the GibraltarpediA project. If you look at the source for the image DiscoverGibraltar.com, you can see that Jim Crone very kindly made a gift of his photographs to those of us who are working on the project. The information is on the left hand side of the main page, and if you click on it, you will see the details of the license. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. I try to be very careful when it comes to licensing and when I occasionally make an error, I immediately correct it. Thank you. ACP2011 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin, Anne (ACP2011) asked me to contact you as I was the person who helped Jim Crone with his generous contribution to freely share his web site. I can see that "use for Gibraltarpedia" can be read as a restriction but actually its only an example of how it can be used. I was hoping that we might concentrate on the important part of the license which is cc by sa and that is clearly stated. This means that even if you see the clause above as a restriction then surely the cc-by-sa removes that restriction. Anyone is able to use this information as once used then it can be reused by any other project, newspaper etc etc.

It could be that you are still unconvinced in which case I propose to get Jim to add the words "for example to use for Gibraltarpedia" ... would that suit? Victuallers (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Amina Mama photo

Hi Martin H., The Creative Commons license for File:Amina mama.jpg is on the website where it's hosted, in the lower right-hand corner. Thanks, Groupuscule (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The license must come from the copyright holder, not someone else. I wrote this done now in a deletion request. Permission from the true copyright owner is required, sorry for not beeing clear on this before. --Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi Martin! I noticed that Lancelot Canning recreated File:Shaun of the Dead Logo.png, a previously deleted file that was last uploaded by Hilary Cummins, whom you blocked as a sockpuppet of Jerry Dandridge. Coincidence or not? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No coincidence. Another sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought so. Thanks for taking care of it! —LX (talk, contribs) 22:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Massera 19 85.JPG

I suggest you to read the argentine law before making a deletion petition.

This picture was taken from the ARGENTRINE PUBLIC TV "Art. 28, Ley 11723 vigente en Argentina indica que : "las noticias de interés general podrán ser utilizadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas, pero cuando se publiquen en su versión original será necesario expresar la fuente de ellas." The license tag must be

This file is in the public domain because Art. 28, Ley 11723 vigente en Argentina indica que : "las noticias de interés general podrán ser utilizadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas, pero cuando se publiquen en su versión original será necesario expresar la fuente de ellas. This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead. This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.

"

"Publicadas, transmitidas o retransmitidas" means you can freely use them. the law requires atribution just if you use them as an exact or verbatim copy. Remember that this law is from 1933, it is, in fact a freedom of information article, but it also fits as a free license.

--Turkmenistan (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For more information please visit [19].

You are the one who it's caliming nonsense arguments, the CNN it is NOT a Public TV Channel, but the ARGENTIN PUBLIC TV it's a Public TV Channel. So, please, You stop talking bullshit and read more before talk with me in a bad mood... The screenshot/picture that I've uploaded comes from the Argentine Public TV, so, it's an Argentine Law depending thing. And this ARGENTINE PUBLIC TV NEW screenshot (in fact, a picture) published in december 9 1985, at the end of the Trial of the Juntas, it's an Interest Public New (noticia de interés general), and according to Argentine Law 11723 this image (that comes from an interest public new) it is able to be used, transmitted or retransmitted but when published in it's original source will be necessary to express them. And I explain on this file's description the source. --Turkmenistan (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All (most) countries exempt current news and mere facts from copyright. This still referes to the thing "news". Not the thing "recording". Thats two different things. While the news or the mere fact is not eligible for protection the recording of a person is a completely different, protected work. Dont mix this two things up. Dont speak of "news" when you not speak about the news but about a audio-visual recording of person talking the news. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Aviazione e Marina 1969.53.jpg

The file uploaded is a scanned copy of an Italian monthly, now no more published, that I have in my archive. Chesipiero (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not entirely your own work but someone else work. --Martin H. (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What photo is considered free ?

Hello, Martin H.

You wrote: Unfree photo stolen from the internet. --Martin H. (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What photo is considered free ?

Read the first steps, read Commons:Licensing. Something is free if the copyright holder voluntarily agreed to publish something under the conditions of Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Free refers to en:free content, in Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia and other Wikimedia projects everything is about freedom and free content, if you join a free content project you should inform yourself what free content means... --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that all those pictures which on a site, where I wanted to add a picture by something, differ from my picture. I think you not identically behave to the people doing identical actions. You want that Your choice was higher than my choice. You forget that Wikipedia it an encyclopaedia is made its users. Where democracy and equal possibilities ? I only wanted to be in a position as well as other to improve Wikipedia. Sorrowfully that such administrators as you mix it to do. You laid me to that I stole a photo groundless. I would like to hear from you facts confirmative that photo not my - differently you are a liar.

Adding unfree photos with false author and source information to a free encyclopedia is not an improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Author of high-usage by me photo I. You deleted him. You consider me the not author of this photo. What reason do you consider on that I am a not author of this photo ? Who then in your opinion author of this photo ? Talks about that this photo is not free and not my without present on that grounds is an ordinary delirium. Why do not other photos retire and my retires ? I can not understand a difference. What are other photos freer than my ?

Quinquavigintillion, the photo you uploaded is stolen from a website such as http://pairody.com/201209/winona-ryder-frankenweenie-premiere/winona-ryder-at-fantastic-fest-4/. It is sligthly edited (you admit this yourself with talking about a sony logo) but that will NOT make it your work, its still the work of the person who created the photography. Now go out, make your own photos, stop taking other peoples work and declare it your own work. Thank you very much. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You laid me to stealing. I will ask once again. Do you have grounds to consider that knot on which a picture is located look like my not my ?

South arabian bronz statue.jpg

I got this picture via email it's not the same one in the source provided. i provided the "source" as external link for more information about the subject in it. The picture was taken last year not even in 2007 but section 4 of the yemeni law clearly states that any work of "heritage" (in this case it's a statue from the 4th century) is not protected by copyrights law. and this apply to all pictures of ancient nature --Kendite (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

as for the last picture i uploaded it was a mistake actually and i removed it from the article..--Kendite (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A photographic reproduction of a work of heritage is still a photographic work and not a work of heritage too. A recent photo is also not of ancient nature. Make your own photos, you can just take other peoples photos because they are NOT free for that reason. --Martin H. (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I contacted the owner of the photo and he changed the licence so i uploaded it again here [20] --Kendite (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now this works. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ctg4Rahat

Good afternoon! I think the removal of this page was unnecessary. By the way, user were asked about unlocking. --Art-top (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your message from 14:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Martin First, sorry i'am new here and my english is not so good... Also i don't know how i can answer to you directly in your message. I uploaded two photos from Lee Sun Hee (Korean Singer) photos : "Img 20120810182803 41f66c65.jpg" and "Img 20120810182956 728f6517.jpg". You said that they has been marked as a possible copyright violation. I'am sorry, i found this photos on this website : http://www.wikitree.co.kr/main/news_view.php?id=80003. It is in Korean language but if you translate this page with a translator you can read on the bottom that this website use Creative Commons Licence 2.0 When i uploaded this photos, i see that Wikipedia use Creative Commons Licence 3.0 or 2.05. I don't know exactly the difference between Creative Commons Licence 2.0 but hope that is not a problem to use it. I just want to use this two photos to illustrate a page about Lee Sun Hee that i want to make in French Wikipedia. But if it is a problem with the copyright, i understand that you remove this photos (just hope it's not a problem with this two photos). If you remove this photos, also i try to found a another who is free. But it's not easy for me to ask the right in Korea... they speak Korean, i speak French and i don't know how i can explain to this people how they can give me the right to use this photos on wikipedia. Kind Regards Toko

I dont think "Wikitree" is the copyright holder. That looks like a website where people take photos from elsewhere and publish it again. But the license must come from the original copyright owner. For example [21] has been published the same day, 10 hours ealier, saying it is "official photos". [22] has been published a day later claiming it under a non-free Creative Commons Non-derivative license. They all have the same source, but neither of them is the copyright holder and neither license is valid. For two reasons: 1) unlikely that "official photos get published under a free license 2) non of the sources complies with the license requirements (attribution). --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

US Antarctic Program

Just to let you know I've finally managed to get the deletion listing done for the USAP images, which we discussed here last month.

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion od File: File:Mastercastle band 2012.jpg

Hi Martin, I'm sorry I made some mistakles uploading the file File:Mastercastle band 2012.jpg
It's not really my file. But I contacted the owner of the site and it added on footer of the page www.piergonella.com/news.htm the words: (All content of this page including photos is published under Creative Attribution ShareAlike 3.0).It's all right on this way?
Thanks a lot
Demetrio99 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the copyright holder agrees to this it is ok. However, to upload the file here you need to correct some things. 1) The source is incorrect, its not your own work. 2) The license allows reuse of this file anywhere for any purpose including commercial purpose, but the author must be credited. At the moment you claim credit for yourself, thats unlikely ok for the original author, the upload is in violation with the license conditions. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

thanks a lot for the advices. I'll try again in the right way

Demetrio99 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Martin

Dear martin.

You deleted every documents about Seoul government(subject name : SOC bulild-transfer-lease program).

These document came from the archives of the Seoul government(subject name : SOC build-transfer-lease program), opened under the Freedom of Information Act.

I obtain this document according to Korean laws.

And I achieved the right of distribution.

Could you restore my documents?

Thank you!

The act means you can see the information. It does not mean that it is free to upload here. Files on Commons must be free for reuse by anyone for money making purposes, the copyright holder must agree to this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Work Time Studio

Hello Martin.

I'm wondering if you could tell me why the page I took time and effort to create was able to be deleted without giving me the opportunity to challenge the nomination to delete the page. I feel that the page was nominated unfairly, and deleted prematurely, before I was even able to find out the reason it was removed.

Thank you,

Mitchel Haas

Nothing is deleted so far. You not created any page here. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, and sorry for my confusion. Also, thank you for informing me about the actions I needed to perform, and giving me the time to make them. Mitcheljh (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin.

Dear martin.

Thank you your reply.

I understand what you mean.

But in S.Korea, 'Public information act' also allow freely distribution.

I think this complications comes from the difference between S.Korea and America.

Please restore my documents.

Sincerely yours.

from <Walker of Mt.YOUNG-MA>

Please provide a source. The act does not mention what you say. The copyright law does protect the documents. So there is nothing that makes them free of copyright protection. I dont care if you distribute the documents. But I dont think you can upload them here, because uploading them here means much much more then just distribution. Files on Commons are free for modification and for commerical reuse. Thats more then just distribution and it is not covered under the act. --Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin

Thanks your advice.

I think the dissension came from the communication.

The act what I said were 'the pubic information act' which were established in S.Korea.

It doesn't limit free for modification and others.

The source are as follows.

Thanks!

Sincerely yours

- Walkers of MT.YOUNG-MA -

• In Korean

http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=102479&efYd=20100505#0000

That matches the text of the act that I already know from an official translation. The act not allows free modification, reuse or redistribution. Thats the problem. The disclosed content is protected by the copyright law, you can read it like any other publication, like any other book or newspaper or other copyrighted text but you can not do things with it required by Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms because the copyright law in the first place does not allow you to do this and the act says nothing that overrulse copyright law. So finaly: No, this content is unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Griveaud

Vous avez exprimé des doutes sur la liberté de droit de la tenue fantoche du général Griveaud, de même que sur son portait par Camoin .Si je me souviens bien il était question d'une photo et celle-ci m'appartient étant son petit fils de même que le portrait de Camoins est en ma possession. et issue d'une photo que j'ai pris. la Photo en tenue fantoche est une photo officielle... Bien à vous

File:Michael Frick.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Michael_Frick.jpg&filetimestamp=20121112194352

File:Michael Frick.jpg

Hallo Markus!

Wie verlangt, habe ich der Urheberin des Fotos die Lizenz zum Ausfüllen geschickt. Sie hat die Lizenz bereits gestern an die angegebene Mail-Adresse (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) gesendet! Wann wird das Foto freigegeben?

Habe ich vielleicht was mit den Metadaten falsch gemacht? Freue mich auf eine Antwort

Sobald die Freigabe von den Mitarbeitern von OTRS geprüft wurde. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

License laundering

Don't throw insults and suspect imaginary intentions. i upload photos to use them in Arabic wiki articles. 90% of pictures here are for Al-Akhdam. Don't annoy me If you don't have an evidence i uploaded it for usage on an article i don't know anything about making money and how anyone would profit from it. Yemen is not a Party of international copyright agreements. meaning, if a picture taken in Yemen, the law of that country applies to it--Kendite (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have enough evidence. It was you who gave the photo an entirely wrong fantasy date. It was you who uploaded it here with manipulated EXIF before it was uploaded to flickr. I think it is 99% likely that you are also the flickr user and for sure you are the IP adding the flickr source because no other user has an interest in doing this within minutes following the flickr upload. --Martin H. (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OsloFashionAwards.jpg

Please explain why this image was deleted as it has been given to Oslo Fashion Awards by myself.

See the explanation and further instructions on the uploaders user talk and see the deletion log of the file. --Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

seeking expert help

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at KDylan1's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Franz Brandl - Foto

Hallo/Hello,

You deleted the photo on the page of Franz Brandl.

This is no copyright-violation, because I am the owner of it. How can I change it back?

Regards, Zechyr

Die (sehr, sehr geringe) Größe der Datei ist exakt die selbe wie auf der Webseite des Künstlers. Warum? --Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Template deleting

Why you delete {{Creator tov tob}}?--Agent001 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you create it? 1) creator templates not belong to template namespace. 2) the initial reason for creator templates is to track the death dates of historic artists. This guy is not historic nor notable in any way, just write the name in the author field, thats enough. --Martin H. (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

>Why did you create it? because Creator:Rustem Adagamov for example.--Agent001 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Who has an Wikipedia article in 5 languages (including de.wp with afaik the most restrictive inclusion criteria). --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Hong Kong editor

I see you have also noticed a wacky editor from Hong Kong with a bazillion aliases and many more senseless categories à la "Overcast days in Yau Tsim Mong District". Is there a discussion somewhere? Not that they need to be blocked, but I would love for someone to be able to explain to them how categorization works. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 06:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There is need for discusssion and instructions, but with an editor abandoning their accounts quickly and creating ~3 accounts a day (!) there is no discussion possible. And thats a problem. The user must name at least one page that he frequently reads so that we can talk with him. --Martin H. (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

William Caulfield

HI,

William Caulfield, the owner of the image, has emailed the email address that is on the image notification but has received no response.

I see that the notification to delete is still showing.

Can you tell me if that e-mail is the correct one for him to contact please?

Regards

Austen

File:WX2E9637.JPG, please follow the instructions in COM:OTRS, an OTRS volunteer will process the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin.

Dear martin.

Thanks your comments.

I think there are still remain mutual understanding each other.

You said that 'the public information act' which were established in S. Korea does not allow redistribution, modification and others.

But the law which are published in S. Korea does not have a limit.

(source : http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=102479&efYd=20100505#0000)

Could you please tell me which paragraph doesn't allow free for using these documents?

Thanks!

Sincerely yours

- Walkers of MT.YOUNG-MA -

There is a copyright law. The act does not say that the copyright is removed from the documents. This means: there still is a copyright on them. The copyright law not allows commercial reuse, it only allows reuse for education, and thats not enough for Commons. The public information act allow people to make use of the information, but it neither allows to do something with the documents, nor does it allow commercial reuse nor does it remove copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hubert_Sattler_Mekka_1897.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=41576333 You changed the description to a blatantly false one. --FA2010 (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy&paste fehler, kann schonmal passieren. --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cafestübli Angelica Kauffmann Chur

Hallo Martin, «This file is missing evidence of permission. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license.» ?!? Ich habe dieses Bild vor einigen Tagen selbst fotografiert und entsprechend als own work mit der entsprechenden CC-Lizenz eingestellt. Vielleicht kannst Du mir erklären, wo das Problem liegt? --SwissCossacks (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Die EXIF-Daten des Bildes nennen einen abweichenden Urheber. --Martin H. (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

... was erklärbar ist: Die EXIF-Daten zeigen meinen Real Name, in der Wikipedia bin ich als SwissCossacks unterwegs. Wie kann ich das Problem lösen? --SwissCossacks (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag (hopefully I didn't do anything wrong) as this seems pretty clear cut. I would recommend changing your camera settings for the future, unless you really want to display your real name. I changed my camera id to "Mr.choppers", since I prefer using a pseudonym. If there are still doubts, I recommend changing the camera info, taking a photo of something or other (with the same camera) and then uploading it. That ought to remove any possible lingering doubt. Sorry for the trouble, please share more photos. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 05:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation. --SwissCossacks (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Amiens/Soissons

Ich glaube (bin sogar sicher), es ist doch Soissons und gar nicht Amiens. Siehe bitte die ersten Argumente hier. Ich erkläre mehr darüber in den nächsten Stunden. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Lazika IFV.jpg

I just noticed that this was re-uploaded again. Yet another WikIunker sockpuppet? Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a second look, and I'm not so sure this is a likely sockpuppet anymore. The uploader seems to have uploaded another photo, but some bizarre Wikimedia bug is causing a deleted revision to be displayed instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

D'Atra Hicks deletion request

I am writing in response to your deletion request. Not sure I understand why hers was listed as "out of scope", but D'Atra has been a trailblazer in the arena of gospel theatre. Ms. Hicks' work in gospel theatre predates that of gospel sucess, Tyler Perry. Working with David Payton, Ms. Hicks proved the validity of the gospel theatre genre, by selling out dates around the country. With proof that this type of play could draw sell out audiences, promoters like Jay Lee Freeman, took the chance on promoting this type of play, which has led to the success of Tyler Perry and other gospel playwrites as they transition from theatre to film. Additionally, she took a chance on the genre, as "traditional" theatre did not allow actors to move back and forth between the genres. Initially, if one had SAG status they were prohibited from participating in non-union theatrical productions. While we cannot prove it, it was only after Ms. Hicks forays in both venues that entertainers like Gladys Knight, Montel Jordan and others started the cross over between gospel and other musical and theatrical venues. Because she has been acting and entertaining so long, I suspect you believe we have inappropriately taken for other biographies of her on the web.

First, I worked, like others, from the biography we created for D'Atra almost twenty years ago. Others have used that bio to create biographies of D'Atra. I actually have the original on the hard drive of my 20-yr-old computer that I keep as a back up.

Second, we did an extensive fact check and provided links where her work was actually discussed. We did this research at length and provided hypertext links to ensure that our biography had other sources for verification.

Third, we found substantive errors in many of the rewrites and we provided verifying hypertext links where we changed the canned biography as found on the internet.

Her picture was a work for hire. Ms. Hicks purchased the photographs to be used in her artist portfolio which can be confirmed by contacting her via email.

Finally, the listing of her work as an artist and singer was taken from other sources which were footnoted. Additionally, it should be noted that if we used or created sources, the listing would have been the same. Since the listing was provided in other verifiable sources, we opted to use those sources, however, we can provide an independent listing if there are copyright issues.

Many try to define her as a reality artist because of her foray on Divorce Court, however, D'Atra has had a long, fruitful and extremely diverse career which is reflected by her portfolio and her YouTube inclusions, but also look at her work prior to YouTube and even earlier. She deserves a page in Wikipedia.

Other entertainers who are included in Wikipedia and started out with D'Atra include Palmer Williams Jr. who is listed not under his name, but instead under plays and television series written by Tyler Perry; and Tony Grant (singer).

I've included links about the origins of gospel theatre on the chitlin' circuit, some of which has already been incorporated into wikipedia, however, her entry will clearly provide a central element of how this genre transitioned from race theatre to mainstream enterainment.

Black Playwrights Decry ‘Chitlin Circuit’ Label While Keeping Audiences, Actors Satisfied http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2007/03/black-playwrights-decry-chitlin-circuit.html

New Venture tries urban theater with Talbot Beacon http://theadvocate.com/utility/homepagestories/3830585-129/new-venture-tries-urban-theater

The 'Mama' Of All Musicals Hit Gospel Saga, Now A Trilogy, Led To A New Stage In Black Theater http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-02-27/entertainment/17992363_1_vy-higginsen-doris-winter-black-theater

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycarsonsmith (talk • contribs) 03:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Long post, short answer: Wikimedia Commons is not the correct place for articles. Please read the project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin.

Dear martin.

Thanks your response.

I think that it is caused by due to a communications error.

My file shall be interpreted, governed, and construed in accordance with the laws of S.Korea.

I obtained these documents under Korean law. ('Official Information Disclosure Act' which was established in S.Korea.)

※ Source : http://www.law.go.kr/LSW/LsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=84171#0000

But my documents was treatd by US copyright law.

Would you reconsider it?

Thanks!

Sincerely yours

- Walkers of MT.YOUNG-MA -

No, it wasnt. The act of South Corea says nothing about copyright exemption for disclosed information. The copyright law does protect most documents, it only exempts the text of the law and judical documents. --Martin H. (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin.

Dear martin.

Thanks your reply.

I understand what you mean.

In the U.S. copylight act contain an exceptional clause.

§ 105 . Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

Historically considered, there are many conflict between Copyright Law and Freedom of information act.

But in today, U.S. solved these problems well to have some exeption in freedom of informaation act(FOIA) and copyright act.

http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_IV_4/page3.htm

The FOIA of Korea emphasize offical agency disclosure through acceces to offical information.

If someone requests a copyrighted offical information discloser under FOIA of Korea, what shoild the offical agency do?

The FOIA of Korea restricts the rights of information discloser request under FOIA of Korea exception clause. (caluse of article 9)

http://www.law.go.kr/LSW/LsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=84171#0000

Thanks!

Sincerely yours.

Walker of Mt Youngma

Thats about personal information, etc. The FOIA is NOT in conflict with copyright. You are allowed to watch the information and you can store it on your personal computer. The copyright law allows you to do this. But you can not upload it to this project. Because we require much more. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. This project is the wrong place for your information, you can cite information in Wikipedia but you can not upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please cite your sources (ko:위키백과:출처 밝히기) in Wikipedia and stop uploading this unfree sources. --Martin H. (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear martin.

Dear martin.

Thanks your explanation.

I have an opposing argument against your viewpoint.

First, US Courts have two famous cases; conflict between FOIA and copyright.

1) 45 F.2d 1476: Harold Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice, Appellant. (1984) http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19801328506FSupp822_11216.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

2) 506 F.Supp. 822: ST. PAUL'S BENEV. ED. & MISS. INST. v. U. S. (1980) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/745/1476/128830/

Recently Wikimedia Commons uploads NARA(National Archives and Records Administratio) documents.

It is important that are making the information available to the public.

My files are government documents that took under the FOIA of S. Korea.

Like you said, in U.S. revealed documents under the FOIA of U.S. not allowed to distribution due to copyright act. (But I Know U.S. copylight act contain an exceptional clause, so the opened goverment documents under the FOIA of U.S. doesn't be protected by the copyright act.)

However in S.Korea, FOIA have some exceptions even the information came from a private sector.(below, caluse of article 9-7)

Corporations, organizations or individuals is recognized as matters that may significantly harm the legitimate interests of the corporation be disclosed. However, the information listed below shall be excluded.

A. Information in the public from harm caused by business activities in order to protect a person's life, body or health, need to be

B. Information that you need to be disclosed in order to protect the property or life of the people from unlawful and unfair business activities

It shows that the FOIA of Korea have priority over copyright law of Korea.

I think if someone controls to disclose goverment documents which were already opened under the FOIA, that could be open to dispute.

So I have leaved several messages here.

Thank you!

Sincerely yours.

Walker of Mt Youngma.

First, we not talk about the US here. Second, that has nothing to do with copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

my files

Hi, I had these files many years in my computer and I don't know the source but I know all of them are in en:Qajar dynasty time (about 100 year ago) and according to Iran's law images or arts or that 30 years are free. now for source what should i do?SPhotographer (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your files. The source (publication) matters, for example the Iran copyright rule only matters if the country of first publication was Iran. Therefore a source is required. --Martin H. (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 :) how can i provide? I told you I don't know! I search in web I couldn't find a web site that it contained these files.I got them from a CD that had Iran's Old image collection. Some one scaned this old photo and he published them but I don't know who was the source.SPhotographer (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This means there is a source. Track it back. Ask the person who published the cd. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you i found itSPhotographer (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H, der uploader (ein Iraner und wohl neu bei commons) hat sich in dieser Sache über meine Diskussionsseite hilfesuchend an mich gewandt. Es zunächst einmal ist es ok, die source information zu verlangen, um die Bildbeschreibung vollständig zu haben. Trotzdem sollte man den Löschantrag auf hold setzen, da es immer etwas dauern kann, bis die Informationen nachgetragen sind, und es wahrlich schade wäre, die Fotos zu löschen, da sie, vom Inhalt zu urteilen, bis auf wenige Ausnahmen definitiv schon 100 Jahre alt sein dürften und in der Tat von historischem Wert sind. Es ist extrem schwierig, an gute Fotos aus der Kadscharenzeit zu kommen. Insofern sollten wir den uploader so weit es geht unterstützen, um eine versehentliche Löschung zu vermeiden. Grüße --Wvk (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Klar, dennoch bedeutet dass nicht, dass eine Quelle "unbekannt" genannt werden kann. Irgendwo her muss das Bild kommen, es ist nicht von magischer Hand plötlich auf seinem Computer erschienen. Das erfordert Commons:Licensing und das erfordert die Verlässlichkeit dieses Projets. --Martin H. (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stimme Dir zu! Der uploader hat es sich etwas zu einfach gemacht ... Grüße --Wvk (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture on Apellido Verdugo

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at joangarbo's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the image "escudos_apellido_verdugo.jpg" on then page "casa palacio de los Verdugo" was drawed by my father, who died in 2010, so I am legitime to use this picture as own. Thanks

Marquis de la Eirron

Hi Martin, be aware, please, that some pics uploaded from this user has a correct OTRS permission confirmed. Some of them, otherwise, was unclear .Some tickets still open. +PrinceWilly 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The user abuses names of honorable people to create Wikimedia accounts and upload stolen files. So where do you think where the forwarded emails come from... From his own keyboard, not from the original copyright holders. --Martin H. (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, I e-mail back the official e-mails address. Some confirmed, others not. It's from the british parliament. The problem of the releasing

it's that the user did't warned that the pictures could not be used only at wiki, so I e-mail them back. Some answered, others not. +PrinceWilly 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Statuses

Hi Martin, I read your message

I added the the copyright tag to my file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elbaradei_2.jpg

thank you for reminding me.

FOTO XAIME AGUIAR

En respuesta a su mensaje: Se me plantean varias dudas... En primer lugar, la citada foto tiene como objeto incluirla como imagen en la página biográfica correspondiente a XAIME AGUIAR. Segundo: La foto es de mi propiedad. La fecha de su realización es de 2001 y corresponde a un fotograma del film "The last patrol" en el que Xaime Aguiar intervino como actor. Tercero: Xaime Aguiar pertenece a la página relacionada con "actores galegos" (en lengua gallega). Cuarto: Está claro que desconozco la herramienta apropiada para incluir la citada imagen en su página correspondiente, por lo que espero me aclaren la duda o que la incluyan ustedes directamente, si fuera posible. Atentamente James Westwood.

Screenshots from "The last patrol" are not entirely your work. Most of them is the work of the creators of "The last patrol". You cant upload such screenshots here, see Commons:Capturas de pantalla. --Martin H. (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of photo of Andrew Rosindell MP

Dear Martin,

You seem to have requested that the photo of Andrew Rosindell on his Wiki page is removed?

You can contact this office on 0207-219-8475 or via rosindella@parliament.uk

We obviously have permission to upload the photograph.

Mr S Coleman Chief of Staff Office of Andrew Rosindell MP House of Commons LONDON SW1A 0AA

See the uploaders talk page for instructions. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Benjaminvetri

Thanks for the deletions yesterday, he's returned to upload more copyvios, can you delete them too and also provide a more stern warning/block if necessary. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tess Broussard at the Emmy Awards 2012.jpg

Hello,

the file, File:Tess Broussard at the Emmy Awards 2012.jpg was recently deleted. i have provided both a license and a webpage reference (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-848283). Please advise as to what the problem is with the photo.

The license was sent to permissions with the photo attached. (...) Email removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by dgk4wiki (talk • contribs)

From what I see from other users edits it seems like the permission was insufficient. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio ?

Hello Martin H., I think photos from [23] are probably copyvio, one is (with Nicolas Sarkozy) is labbled Image KR on the side, another one is indicated as "photo de presse". --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Jonalynvirayanightpfinspiration1.jpg

Good day. I noticed just today that you have left something on my user talk page. Not really familiar with this. I have re-uploaded the photo, which is entirely my own work. I have also added one which I am planning to re-upload after the image has been enhanced as it is blurry. I believe I have added license information to both which says, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

The image was taken down, I believe, by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry reading the revision history of the article. So I have message you both for help and am asking to have these images checked and approved.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viray_outside_max%27s_restaurant_origfilename_DSC00258.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viray_Singing_origfilename_DSC00585.JPG

Thanks.

No need to reupload: You not provided any license with your first upload. --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Pills.jpg

Hi, I've published explicit licence declaration to this file here: http://keycz.cgsociety.org/gallery/ BTW: I dont know who and how I should notify of it, the templates for this are really confusing for newcomers. Ondra Karlik/Keymaster

See filetalk. --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Army of the Ukrainian People's Republic

You removed many licensed files. What is the reason?

What files? --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status:File:Sudeten German Students.jpg

What do I need to do?

Provide a source for the first publication ( enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published). This is also a question of accuracy, the description you gave to this files is not described in any history book I know. It appears to me that this is non-historic footage with misinterpreted context. --Martin H. (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you comment?

I started a discussion here on Template talk:ThisMonthInRecentYears. I would appreciate your insight. Evrik (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Henry Gannett.jpg

Sorry about adding the wrong source. I emailed to the USGS and they replied that the two Wikipedia images are from their archive and the date of the portrait is 1899, but again they don't say who was the original owner/source.

http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search_mode=noPunct&selection=Henry+Gannett%7CHenry+Gannett%7Cportraits+collection

Can I add this info as the source? — Ineuw 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because thats not the source. You can use the source libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov[...] to give a reference for the identification and an approx date info. The best sollution would be to forget about the old upload, to overwrite it with the version from libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov[...] and then to add that archive page as the source. --Martin H. (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. will do that. — Ineuw 22:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

in largest size http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/htmlorg/lpb239/port/port0062.jpg :) --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your help pls

Hi Martin. Can you delete these obvious copyvios: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Boomshakala? I forgot to select copyvio instead of DR in VisualFileChange. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Danke. INeverCry 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As per your resquest, I have added the missing information to the uploaded image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quartier_d%27Affaire_de_La_D%C3%A9fense_-_Paris_-_France_-_Mod%C3%A9lis%C3%A9_avec_3D_Turbo.jpg Please tell me if everything is now correct. REGARDS

JP HARMAND turbo3d@free.fr

A photograph was removed

Hi Martin. I am making a project of my grandfather. He was a teacher, poet, witter, painter and owner of many factories in Papantla, Veracruz Mexico. I uploaded a picture of my grandfather who I am talking about, but it was removed. It is a picture of my family album that we have like a inheritance since he pass away. So how he was a very recognized person in my own town. We wanted make a project of he due to a town and a school have his name. both as the picture of he and his painting are of my property because the original painting are in my parent´s house. At the same time the peotry that I put in the project was made by he. How is my first project maybe I forgot put some important concept. However all the information that I write or I upload are of my own property due to is information that only my father and me have as they are a legacy he left us. I hope you can help me to put them again or maybe tell me what information I need to put in each peacture such they cannot be deleted again. I am from Mexico and my english is no so good. I hope you can undester my and my writting too. Thank you for you help and wait for you fast answer. Best Regards. Consuelo Márquez Camacho.

Owning a painting physically does not mean that you own the copyright. You can not reproduce it unless the copyright holder - the painter - agreed. The painters copyright expires 100 years following the painters death. --Martin H. (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

hello

Hey Martin H. I'm Jobas and I'd like to apologize for causing you any trouble with my recent uploads, I do not have any intention to steal images or vandalize the project all I what i wanted is to put a picture in the article and i thought that since i'm the one who's uploading the picture it's mean it's my own in the wiki i really apologize for this lack of understanding, now i readed all the rule and undertand it now, and for the acount's I'm not a static member here so when i uploaded a picture and log out i forget the password so that why when i upload the next file i do it in anther account. any way i did that just in july and in this month (5 files) and all my uploading have been deleted.

I hope that you accept my apologize and accept me back to this project and i promise you if i will upload a file i will make it the correct way and you can put me in experience. Note: If i can know why the File: Yaqub_Hanna.jpg and Christmas.market_in_nazareth.jpg was deleted?

Best Regard's and i'm sorry for my English and hope that you will accept my apologize.

• 'not static' -> create your SUL account using ar:Special:MergeAccount or en:Special:MergeAccount.
• I accept you on the project, the correct way to do this is however to have all the bad uploads removed first. For example File:Christmas.market_in_nazareth.jpg which was not your work (no matter you call yourself Jobas or Souhaib.ma) but the work of the person written in the watermark. Or File:Yaqub_Hanna.jpg which was not your work as you say yourself in ar:File:59078 466446290338 6256366 n.jpg. Its a file from someone else that

1) you can not claim your own work

2) that you can not publish under a free license - only the copyright holder can do this

3) you have permission to use in Wikipedia... thats insufficient for our projects (Commons:Project_scope#Required_licensing_terms

4) you can not upload to our projects because it is unfree (foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy/ar for the very basics). Therefore you must ask for deletion of this file in ar.wp.

--Martin H. (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and Best regard's, and that will be my only account.Jobas (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ajout de deux photo exclusive prise par mon Reporter Simone Zeffiro pour Modelixir International, LLC

I'm Modelixir Magazine, LLC ! I think that I can allowed me to give to Wiki the Work of My Magazine ... you can contact me @ webmaster AT modelixir DOT com if you need...

Wiki is killing Wiki?

A barnstar for you!

<barnstar removed> With thanks for your role in getting control over the "New Rochelle sockpuppet" content. Orlady (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if something happens with this sockpuppeteer. I saw a lot of copyvios related to that city in the past, now with the sockpuppeteer finding everything makes sense. There are still old accounts with copyvio uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According Law of Indonesia

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Iwan Novirion's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:HU-GO.jpg

HU-GO.jpg is marked as possible copyright violation. This is a shot taken by us and there is no violation of any copyright. Please do not delete it and reload the shot.Tsoyozen (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Slash

You mix the 2011 with the 2012 (notice the clothes!), however, if you had bothered to check who is in the name of the flickr account you could see who is payable .... looks a little PARIDE! and for 2012 you can see much more video like this who was in Rome in 2012 while for 2011 ... bye --85.237.212.245 22:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ok bye.....very democratic--85.237.212.71 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Antonzurak.jpg

This is my question to the user "If you were polite photographs indicate the date of creation and the source from which derived." (Our original description is impossible.) Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

João Alexandre Lopes Galvão

hey, this is my great great grandfather, the pictures is mine and I took it from a family painting

best regards

Gonçalo Correia

Socks

Hi. I noticed that you blocked several socks associated with Rablu1. But sadly his disruptive behavior has continued unchecked ever since. Here are two of his other socks that you might want to add to the list

User:62.155.185.153 and User:Brugenhilde

I'm not active here so no need to respond to my post. But my intention is rather to inform you that Rablu1 is continuing disrupting Wikipedia and banning a few socks here and there won't stop him from doing what he is doing. I would take it a step further and put a range block on his ips for a few months and make sure to protect all the pages he has been editing in. Another matter of disappointment is that none of his socks have been blocked on English Wikipedia. It seems rather bizarre that this tedious editing pattern has gone completely unchecked on English Wikipedia since nobody seems to be willing to report him or don't know how to file a SPI report. 85.226.219.84 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can not resolve the English Wikipedia problems here with blocking users. I can only prevent Commons from damage by his copyvio uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

When talking to en.wp Checkuser you can refer to checkuser wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	All the photos uploaded are from my camera or photos provided by the Yavusa Tonga people who helped me prepared the article Sawana Trabeta (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Photos included on Sawana Article

Hi - all of the photos that are included in the article Sawana are either from my own collection of photos taken by me or provided by members of Yavusa Tonga who participated in the provision of information for our Village.

Regards

Trabeta

If a photo is provided by someone else, you cant claim yourself the author. One of your uploads contains a clear watermark that the copyright belongs to "The Fiji", you cant just go here and upload it with the claim that you created it entirely yourself. But thats what you did. Check your uploads and remove wrong information. --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi Martin H.

I am new in wikipedia.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amadeo_Barletta,_Amadeo_Barletta_Diario_La_Marina,_Diario_La_Marina_24_feb_1960.jpg

I don't know how to make a link to prove that the photo is my own work derivated from a new of Diario La Marina in Cuba

Diario La Marina was closed en 1960. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Diario_de_la_Marina

I changed the link to: http://dloc.com/UF00001565/citation, but I don't know is it ok for you.

I copy the page of the Diario La Marina at Library of Congress in Washington from microfilm. Microfilm Library of Congress, Photoduplication Service (DLC)sn 94021505 (OCoLC)28128056 (but I don't have a link)

Diario La Marina es also in microfilm at Cuban Heritage Collection http://ibisweb.miami.edu/search~S11?/XDiario+La+Marina&searchscope=11&SORT=D/XDiario+La+Marina&searchscope=11&SORT=D&Search=SEARCH&SUBKEY=Diario+La+Marina/1%2C49%2C49%2CB/frameset&FF=XDiario+La+Marina&searchscope=11&SORT=D&7%2C7%2C

Could you help me?

I don't want to violate any regulation

Happy new year!!!

Marlene Moleon

For uploading the newspaper article to Commons it is required that the copyright expired. The copyright term in Cuba for written works is according to COM:L 50 years from the death of the author. Otherwise you need a free license. You say that the file is published under cc-by-sa by the copyright holder, please provide evidence for that.

A second info: in Wikipedia you write "una de las primeras víctimas del asesinato de la reputación", thats simply nonsense. Please read es:Wikipedia:Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria. Claiming that someone is one of the first victims (which is simply nonsense for a phenomen that we know from ancient times already, even in written sources) is original research, giving a relatively non-notable example such as this one such a platform like an encyclopedia entry is manipulation of the real historic (un-)importance. --Martin H. (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martin H. for your answer, and I am sorry that I have to write a new message because I don't find the way to continued the conversation. (Message 206) (I find the way to do it)

The first day of the year was a very long day. I just finished my job after midnight.

It looks that the only possibility to keep posted the image is '" a free license"'. Could you explain me from who I need a free license.

I made a graphic design with a quote of Amadeo Barletta that it was published at the Diario La Marina. Do I need a license for a quote?.

You are right about "una de las primeras víctimas del asesinato de la reputación". I changed to "una de las víctimas del asesinato de la reputación en la década del 60 en Cuba". I think it is more accurate. Thank you for your advice. Do you think is OK now?

I am very tired right now. Tomorrow I am going to see what are the new steps.

Good night and thank you.

Marlene Moleon

--Cubalove (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin H,:

I was reading some information about licenses and copyrights.

Here I think there are three possibilities of interpretation:

1. The author is Diario La Marina because it publickly reproduced the letter from Barletta.

2. The author is Amadeo Barletta, who actually wrote the quote.

3. The author is me, who did this graphic image in 2010.

Which one is your best interpretation?

In the case that is OK to be me: how do I prove that it was me?

Is this the case, what should I put in Permission?

Sent with this template http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates?

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Or I only put: Own

In the case that Diario de La Marina is considered the author and the Cuban State is allegedly in possession of its copyrights because it intervened it in 1960, then I will reproduce Barletta’s quote and refer it to the that journal with a footnote without using the image.

I look forward to your instructions on how think I should proceed.

Regards,--Cubalove (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The author is the writer of the article. With your postwork which presumably is to marginal to generate any copyright for you. You need permission from the writer. If your intention is to use only the quote in Wikipedia you not need to upload the whole article. See es:Wikipedia:Citas#Citas_a_art.C3.ADculos_en_publicaciones. Concepts like en:Fair_use ("Permite la cita o incorporación, legal y no licenciada") not justify including a large part of a copyrighted work just for highlighting a very small part of it. Furthermore fair use or similar concepts are forbidden on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Martin, redux

I am looking at an OTRS ticket which appears to have been filed by 용마산뚜벅이 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who you have had some contact with above. From my preliminary research, it appears he may be correct: see Template:PD-KoreaGov. I might be wrong, so let me know if I am. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The template - and the text of the law - only covers documents mentioned in the template. Planning descriptions or architects illustrations are not such documents. --Martin H. (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was unaware of their content. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Martin and Magog the Ogre. On the strength of your consideration, I should like to add a short personal comment. Copyright law of S.Korea, contian an exceptional clause. Template:PD-KoreaGov These calause 7-2, 7-4 about public document. It also covers images, illustrations that cames from official announcement. Many public announcement include pictures and design drawings, such as 'notification as deciding city planning', 'environmental impact statement' and so on. Deleted documents are environmental impact statement of tunnel construction in Mt. Young-Ma that issued by the Seoul government. I obtained these documents according to the Freedom of Information Act of S.Korea. The Freedom of Information Act requires all public authorities to take the initiative in making information available through publication schemes. Thanks! Your Sincerely, Walker of Mt.Young-Ma 용마산뚜벅이 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your words "I obtained thse documents according to the FOI" and "from official announcement" contradict themself. The second is wrong, obviously it is not from any official anouncement. The law exempts legal documents from copyright so that this documents can be used by the public, this is neccesarry for the text of the law, for judical decisions and so on. There is no such reason for your documents. This documents are not PD, you can QUOTE them in Wikipedia but you can not upload them. (And given that you can quote them there is no reason to upload them.) --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Martin. Thank you your responds. These documents that has been deleted, are 'environmental impact assessment report of tunnel in Mt.Young-Ma'. It was published in Dec 2005 by Seoul goverment according to the Korea environmental law. [EIAS of tunnel in Mt.Young-Ma Thank you and Good luck! Sincerely Yours, Walker of Mt.Young-Ma 용마산뚜벅이 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@ Young-MA: if you believe that you would get a fairer hearing amongst other administrators and users in the community, you can try Commons:Undeletion requests. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Martin. Long time no see. Thanks your responds. Every document I had been uploaded, that are published by SEOUL goverment. S.Korea goverment revised copyright act in 30 Dec 2013. "Copyright Act Article 24 2(free use of public works) ① State or local government contract work or publication by creating business can use without permission." I hope to clear up the controversy through the legal revision. Thanks! 용마산뚜벅이 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem

Hi Martin. What's the problem abou my pics? --Martorell45 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

hello

hey martin how are? ... Happy New Year .. i'm just want to ask of this picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/canadianinternationalcouncil/6460218845/ i can upload it here in this project?

Happy New Year too, thank you! Cant use it, it is not freely licensed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Images uploaded by JoséContreras12

Hello Martín. You could review the images uploaded by the user JoséContreras12, because I have the intiution that he is committing violations of copyright and another that breaching the Wikimedia Commons rules. Thank's. Greetings. --Coronades (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The September 5 2012 uploads are a copy of http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=94202836&postcount=202. --Martin H. (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But then he's not committing fouls or yes? some images I marked as "delete" to be erased. --Coronades (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File:AvitalRonell.jpg

Hi, I saw you tagged File:AvitalRonell.jpg. I've submitted copyright license agreement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please remove last edit as soon as you have the opportunity to validate the Flickr mail agreement I sent as relates to wikimedia commons license agreement. (talk) 12:52 am, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Albanian personality photos

Why you marked as a possible copyright violation? I.E Wikipedia Shqip is public [24] See Albania: Copyright, Law (Consolidation), 19/05/1992 (19/04/1995), No. 7564 (No. 7923) --Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not! sq:Skeda:Baba Reshat Bardhi 1.jpg is a 2009 photo, the uploader has stolen it from the internet, it is not public domain for any reason. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

images deleted again.

Good Morning Marin H. Following your message in my talk about the painting, poem and photograhps of my grand father Donato Márquez Azuara. I want to tell you many things that I am doing to resolve the problems that they have.

• First, I am a new person in wikicommons and I am trying to do my best efforts in give them a solution to everyone of them.
• Second, I work all day during the morning and I care of my children during the afternoon so I only have time to review, modify and upload files during the night when I am not so tire.
• Third, I am in contact with others speaker spanish administrators like Ecemaml and Marco Regueira who befores delete my files gave me very options to write a correct information and all my work and time is not thrown away.
• Fourth, With respect to the Copyright all this works of my grandfather belongs to my family because He gave to my father before He passes away, so We are the ownes of them. How my father is an old person and he doesn´t undestand all the parameters used here. He ask me to help him with this project being overseen by he.
• Fifth, On the matter of the pictures of Donato Márquez Azuara How the pictures of himself and his generation and the first bottles made in his factory, all of them are pictures that we have too in my family album.
• Sixth and last point about the poem. Donato Márquez Azuara write several poems in paper sheets and after that put together in a file. Due to the sheets are very old and few readable its writing, we decided rewrite them in a new sheet. I understand that we used a backgrongu photograph from internet and it can be removed with out any problem, rewriting the poem in a blank, color o with texture paper perhaps from the power point. or else this would be copyright violation?

All these procedures are very cumbersome to do but I undestand that all of them are necessary because this is a public space and you don´t want have any problems but there is only one request that I want to make you. Please you don´t delete so fast my files, I´m really making my best effort to correct all this problems that you tell me and I am following all the steps that the 3 administrator tell me I have to do.

Now all my pictures was deleted again, all the things that I wrote them too and It is how all my work, effort and time be thrown away and the worst part is that you don´t help me solving my problem or guiding me to I can do a good job. You only insert a pre-made template series telling me my work was deleted becase it has problems.

I´m very upset and maybe this lines will seem a bit aggressive I never want offend you but maybe, it may be better that I continue to be advised by Spanish speakers administrator as far with Ecemaml and Marco Regueira who gave me differents solutions to my work.

I also apologize too for my English and I hope you have understood the above written.

My best regards.

Ing. Consuelo Márquez Camacho Xanath711 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AMB Brescia

Hallo Martin!

Für wie verlässlich findest du den flickr-user AMB Brescia? Ich habe vor ein Photoalbum aus seinem flickr-Fundus nach Commons zu übertragen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Scheinen viele Fotos von Modellen oder Spielzeugen zu sein. Was den Part der Fotografien betrifft sehe ich nach sitchprobenartiger Durchsicht der einiger Alben keine Probleme, Spielzeuge haben aber oft Probleme mit COM:DW womit ich mich nicht auskenne. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bei Spielzeugen ist die Sache relativ eindeutig. En Detail geht es um dieses Album. Die Fotos sind offenbar von einem gewissen "Claude Balmefrezol", der mutmaßlich dieser flickr Benutzer ist. Deine Meinung? --High Contrast (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hab ich nichts zu rausgefunden, wage ich aber zu bezweifeln. AMB = Associazione Modellisti Bresciani; Googlehits für den Fotografen lassen diesen zwar schon im Modellbau-Umfeld vermuten, allerdings in Verbindung mit einer Seite http://maquetland.com, nicht mit genanntem italienischen Verein, dessen den Flickr-Account betreibendes Mitglied die Bilder höchstwahrscheinlich nicht frei lizenzieren darf. --Martin H. (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Kirchengalerien

Hallo Martin H., wegen deiner Reverts schau bitte mal hier. --Tobias Weißig (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Golpayegan.jpg Susa beaker.jpg

An Email including the permissions and explanation about the photo has been sent to Commons@wikimedia regarding the photo Golpayegan.jpg.

Susa Beaker photo is also a public domain image. taken from a museum object by museum de louvre and National Museum of Iran has the rights to use it and offers it without copyright in its digital Archive. Susa beaker is a found from Susa and has been made in 4000BC and now a part of Iranian heritage. Netbios (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As said on the talkpage: the object is not copyrighted, the photographic work is. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

which talk page are you talking about? Netbios (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Susa Beaker.jpg, deleted in the meantime. --Martin H. (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Mimm

Hi, hab grad über die Versionsgeschichte des de-Artikels gesehn, dass du ein Foto von von ihm schonmal gelöscht hast. Er hat aber nicht dreisterweise nochmal das gleiche genommen, oder? Auf anderen Seiten hab ich es auf die Schnelle jedenfalls nicht gefunden, könnte also clean sein. Grüße --X-Weinzar 11 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Weil ich es eben gelesen habe. Darf ich euch bei euren Gewissensbissen helfen? Sucht euch einfach ein aktuelles Bild vom Herbst 2012 (spielt ja jetzt beim SC Wiener Neustadt von Dennis Mimm aus:

• 
  Dennis Mimm zum Ersten,
• 
  zum Zweiten und
• 
  zum Dritten

Gruß Steindy (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Das Portrait ist ein beschnittener Re-Upload des schonmal gelöschten Bildes. Der Uploader (mit Verweis auf [25]) ist nicht der Urheber. Gleiches gilt für den anderen Upload, einen TV-Screenshot. --Martin H. (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

ImageNote

Hallo Martin, entschuldige bitte, wnn ich wieder einmal störe. Nur eine kurze Frage: gibt es die sinnvolle Einrichtung der ImageNote nicht mehr? Bei mir ist dieser Button nicht mehr vorhanden. Ich hatte diesen, auch wenn es ein erheblicher Mehraufwand war, wenn mehrere Personen im Bild waren, immer gerne genutzt, da man dem Betrachter damit wertvolle Zusatzinformationen zum Bild geben konnte. – Freundliche Grüße aus dem tief verschneiten Östrreich Steindy (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wenn du es in den Gadgets nicht ausgestellt hast, kann ich mir nur vorstellen, dass es an deinen Browser-Einstellungen liegt. Da kann ich dir aber leider nicht weiterhelfen. --Martin H. (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Martin! Ich habe seit Jahren XP und den IE8 und an meinen Einstellungen habe ich nichts verändert. Wenn es jetzt nicht mehr unterstützt wird, dann kann ich diesen Service für andere Benutzer eben nicht mehr bieten. Ich selbst brauche es ohnehin nicht, war nur für andere gedacht. – Freundliche Grüße Steindy (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kann ich dir nicht helfen, ich kenne mich damit nicht aus. Ich kann nur sagen, dass die Funktion bei mir nicht deaktiviert ist. --Martin H. (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Are you from Germany right? You are not English native speaker, do you understand the meaning of 'own collection'?

About the picture [File:ROC President Xu Shichang 28th Nov 1918 No.1.jpg], it BELONGS to me, which means, it is my property, it is my own collection. And I scanned it and uploaded to WikiCommons, do you understand my English? (2012 Forever (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC))

• • Hey Martin i'm just want to ask of this picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/3537575161/in/photostream/ i can upload it here in this project?

Dear Martin, Thank you for your feedback. I have permission from the Danish Acoustical Society to use File:DAS logo.jpg.

Legally, the society is represented by the president. Thus, I will forward a letter signed by the president confirming the permission to you in the coming week.

Thank you.

All the best, Doug Manvell

Application for permanent and indefinite blocking to the User:JoséContreras12

Hello Martin. I request the favor that permanently block to the user User:JoséContreras12, he has committed numerous copyright violations in WikiCommons and does not want to learn; impersonates templates. Lately, he Upload undue images from flickr and approves: File:Otto_Pérez_Molina.jpg→ http://www.flickr.com/photos/puchica/6698656213/in/photostream/. User do not want to learn about the rules of the Wikicommons community and violates constantly. Almost all his contributions have been removed for violating copyright.

The user has already been blocked once for repeated violations of copyright, as you can see here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jos%C3%A9Contreras12

Please block his account because it does great damage to Wikimedia Commons.

Thak you so much dear Martin. --G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I'm new here and is uoplade some photos after peered in any similar. I intend to put more similar files up, but first I'd like to hear your opinion if I do it the right way. good weekend --Gajolen (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

deletion

Hi Martin
I want to delete all my uploads and my account to close. Thanks.--Caracas (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reporting your Misuse of editor deletion permissions

You deleted a photo I took on my iPad for a specific use on a specific web page, therefor I own the image and all rights to it and I chose to publish it: You seriously spend your time doing this? Please be more judicious when spending your obviously limitless time trolling for images to delete.

"for specific use on a specific web page"????? This is not a file hosting service! I started a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jana Carr-Weerts Self Portrait 1 Wearing Hat.jpg and that discussion was decided with delete. And I will also nominate your other uploads for deletion now. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Fdutil's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re the picture permission

Dear Martin H.,

writing you re your mail http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mariauvarova&diff=next&oldid=89655581

I've received the author's permissions in his personal Livejournal account (see: http://victor-dmitriev.livejournal.com/138263.html?thread=883223#t883223) Also Victor has sent his permission in an email to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org on Feb 7. I'll fw his letter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as well. So there's no problems with the license at all.

Regards, Mariauvarova (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Found it on http://victor-dmitriev.livejournal.com/138263.html?thread=882967#t882967. You ask for permission of for Wikipedia and you got permission for Wikipedia. But thats not sufficient. You have to ask for Commons:Рамки_проекта#Должен быть опубликован под свободной лицензией, или не защищен авторским правом: The copyright holder must agree that anyone (not only you and not only Wikipedia) can reuse the content anywhere, anytime for any purpose. So you not have permission to say «this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license» because the copyright holder never agreed to that license. --Martin H. (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin H., yes, you are right. But Victor (the pic's author) has also sent his permission in Russian to the email: permissions-ru@wikimedia.org (Feb 6 instead on Feb 7 as I've mentioned before). And here's the text in Russian (in the below). I've fw his email to permissions-commons and cc it here as well:

text removed

Mariauvarova (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Forwarding the copyright holders email is enough, thank you. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wylve (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

is a patent document copyrighted?

Hi. You deleted one image I put of one patent document (All-on-4). Though, a patent document is a legal document, so, I suppose under de portuguese jurisdiction it has no copyright. Thank you. Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion requests

HI dear Martin H,

I wonder why you would delete my contributions?

Best regards/ Raza Mostafa Soltani

Hello

Hello Martin H.,

Sorry if I uploaded images that violate the rules of licenses. To be honest, I'm not used to those licenses, since it's way easier in Wikia than here. Anyway, I might be a bit of trouble these days, but I will do my best to not break the rules.

Thank you, Hassan Bahrani (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mistake about Guillermo Lasso's photos

This issue is already trying to be solved [26]--Sageo (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the problem continues. The user takes photos from other photographers and claims credit for him/herself - this means anyone worldwide is allowed to reuse the photo for money making purposes as long as "Mabel Velástegui" is given credit. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Error

Por qué me borraste el archivo de Falcaestadiometropolitano.jpeg si yo, personalmente tomé la foto en el Estadio Metropolitano Roberto Meléndez, viendo la Selección de Colombia. Es injusto que me la borren. Estás cometiendo un gravísimo error con Wikipedia, precisamente vandalismo, al borrar una imagen propiamente mía.

Delete

To delete all the posts I've written before, but I care for my paintings. Write me an answer here, or delete all of your pictures.

your mail to me: Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Zahar65 has been changed by Martin H.

Dear Martin, Enclose please find a permission from the picture Yael Neeman.jpg Thanks Zahar

From: Katarzyna Sikora [27] Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 4:57 PM To: Zahar65@gmail.com Subject: I confirm that the pictures of the writer Yael Neeman I took last year Katarzyna Sikora

Dear Wikipedia,

I confirm that the pictures of the writer Yael Neeman I took last year are released to the public domain on the web for Wikipedia and any interested party. Please credit me when possible.

Katarzyna Sikora

License review

Could you check if all is done correctly here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Izhmash-ak103-1.png&uselang=ru
Thanks in advance --RussianTrooper (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) PS - Also, about the file you deleted as copyvio (see the latest notification on my page) - this one was a derivative of the work posted by another user claiming authorship of the image.

I see no problem with that second file. --Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If so, could you then move the file into category "license review done" as it was with several previous files. I heard this is done by sysops here. Best regards --RussianTrooper (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Removal

Dear Sir ,

I have written an article on Delhi School of Social Work . Today I cold find that the article was removed with the reason that the picture in article was violating copy rights . I could assure you that the picture is originally taken . I am student in the same institute and I wrote the article to help people to know more about one of the first schools of social work in India.

Kindly help me to know how to go about it

Thanks

Arun D Paul

The article proposal is on Wikipedia, not here on Commons. The photo can be found on facebook in the same small file size. This means: you downloaded it from facebook, otherwise the file would have a larger size. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Questioned File: Artist Lennie Mace, 365DAZE publicity photo, New York City 1998

Thanks for notifying me. As for permission to use the data in question, my name is James Galloway, I'm the photographer of the questioned "Lennie Mace" photograph. I was approached by the artist, Lennie Mace, who is the subject of the photo. A Wikipedia editor solicited photos for inclusion within the Wikipedia article "Lennie Mace" and I'm aware the photo was subsequently inserted there. I granted my permission to use the photo by uploading it. Perhaps I did not upload it with the proper consent? Anyway, I'd like to do whatever is necessary, if someone can please walk me through what needs to be done! Not very computer-savvy!

See the information on your talkpage. Please send a written permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. --Martin H. (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, it was just brought to my attention there are questions concerning this photo file. I'm the Wikipedia editor who solicited the above-questioned photo and inserted it on the Lennie Mace Wiki. The photographer contacted me directly about a "warning" he received (?), which led me to find problems with other unrelated files except that they were all part of a few days of upload/insertion to Commons/Wikipedia recently. I also just submitted a request for reinstatement of photo/scan/art data which was already quite suddenly deleted from Wikis related to James Mylne (artist) and Ballpoint pen artwork. I'll assist in any way (I've dealt with this once before) but can you please assist likewise? At least allow us the time to get the proper documentation to you! Penwatchdog (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You have no deleted edits, so I dont know what you mean. For the first mentioned file see above. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Löschen meiner Aufnahmen von Anax imperator

Hallo Martin, ich weiß, es ist verwirrend, das mein Flickr-Konto einen anderen Namen hat als mein Web-nick (Yami no Yami <-> Brittas__world_of_photos), der Flickr Account ist auch deutlich älter als mein Web-Nick. Ich habe meine Gründe, das so getrennt zu halten (Mein Klarname ist schon goooglebar genug). Quintessenz: Diese Aufnahmen sind von mir gemacht und gehören mir, und ich habe damit meines Wissens in keinster Weise meine Urhebberrechte verletzt, indem ich sie sowohl auf Flickr als auch auf die Wiki geladen habe. In diesem Sinne wäre es nett gewesen, mich zur Klärung vor der Löschung zu kontaktieren, was es damit auf sich hat. Es wäre schön, wenn die Dateien wieder hergestellt werden könnten, ansonsten lade ich sie die Tage wieder hoch. Es sind ja meine. Liebe Grüße! Yami no Yami AKA Britta Niermeyer

Du stellst die Verknüpfung über die Metadaten der Datei immer noch her, auch das ist in Google findbar. Da die Datei auf Flickr die Weiternutzung explizit ausschließt (Alle Rechte Vorbehalten), die Lizenz auf Commons aber die Nutzung durch Jeden für jeden Zweck erlaubt (wie von Commons:Projektrahmen#Benötigte Lizenzbestimmungen gefordert) müsstest du bitte die Freigabe per Email bestätigen. Siehe Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung (Rechte-Inhaber). --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mach ich morgen (zu müde jetzt) :) allerdings ist das Tierchen heute geschlüpft und damit endlich in einem zweifelsfrei bestimmbaren Zustand. Es ist eine Aeshna cyanea, weiblich... Die Larven sind echt schwer zu bestimmen, wenn es nirgendswo richtiges Material gibt (und man sollte seinem Kind nicht erlauben, Tierchen aus dem örtlichen Teich mit zu bringen, die schlüpfen bei kontinuierlicher Winterpflege viel zu früh...). In diesem SInne muss ich die Dateien (auch in Flickr) umbenennen und in die entsprechenden Commons platzieren. Die Email geht dann mit den aktualisierten Daten raus, wenn das so in Ordnung ist.

Songhegyo.2008.jpg

Hello Martin, You deleted Songhegyo.2008.jpg because there is a copy of the image at http://blog.kbs.co.kr/tvguide/779048. The image is attributed by Park Jae-hwan (글/사진 박재환) at the site, Park Jae-hwan (박재환) is a Korean Wikipedia user (User:Kinocine (his personal website:http://www.kinocine.com/), currently inactive) who took and uploaded the image to Wikimedia projects, So I don't think this is a copyright violation. Also, he uploaded other images taken by him. --Puramyun31 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this relation confirmed somewhere in OTRS? --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree to your deletion, currently Sorry, I apologize for lack of my knowledge that how Commons (and/or you) treats this situation and how OTRS system works (I'm not familiar with OTRS), because actually I have only uploaded images freely-licensed already by others. However, If User:Kinocine restart contributing to Wikimedia projects, I'll ask him about this issue and notify you as soon as possible. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jobas

• i woiuld ask if i can upload a picture from this site http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=45500617 and this one http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2012/09/05/feature-01

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobas (talk • contribs)

There is nothing on that pages that allow you to do so. Also the people there cant allow you something, the photos used on that skyscrapercity page are taken from various sources (the first are press photos from en:Agence France-Presse transcluded to skyscrapercity from en:Daylife servers, others include photos from transcluded from various flickr users without any sign of permission. The people who own the copyright must give you permission, not some people who collect other peoples work on a forum such as skyscrapercity. --Martin H. (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Bad_news

Hello, I replied to your comment (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Bad_news), If you pay attention and answer my comment, I'll very appreciate it. thanks. --Puramyun31 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide true author information

There's no need to be so rude! I have downloaded the images from a site that allows you to download and reuse them for free (for example gogmsite); and then I have modified them. There were mainly tiny modification (such as removing frames); and that's the only reason why I have put myself as the author. If I have made a mystake I am more than happy to acknowledge it and to apologize for it. I hope that uploading the source from where I have downloaded them would be fine.

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Franzy89's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Экипировка Ратник.jpg

Hi! You closed this discussion as "Deleted", but perhaps forgot to delete the file which the bot has now marked as kept. Just FYI. Cheers, SeanZCampbell (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Farhan Khurram

Farhan Khurram (talk · contribs) didn't learn a lesson from the 1 month block as he constinues to upload images without consent. I think 3 months or longer may be needed.--Officer (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sid.jpg for deletion

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Zinger007's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sure, you can go ahead and delete the file. although it should not be an issue, i do not want to keep the pic uploaded. Thanks!Sure, you can go ahead and delete the file. although it should not be an issue, i do not want to keep the pic uploaded. Thanks!

OTRS form

Hi Martin, remember me? Can you send me a form by email, User:Dr. Blofeld on wikipedia click "email this user" which I can send to somebody I want to arrange images with and OTRS ticket for. and them to send back and authorise to enable an easy OTRS. I remember there was a full form for them to authorize just to ensure there was no hang ups with the agreement. Please let me know on wikipedia and send the email form, cheers. I might also need you to help seal the OTRS after it. OK?Blofeld Dr. (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:email templates. --Martin H. (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Actually I was just about to ask an Admin if pictures on Gettyimages can be used here. I've noticed some that say you need to call or must be ordered, but none of those are ones I plan to upload. "Find high resolution royalty free images" are the first words on the website, so I assumed they were open to the public, at least for informational purposes.

I was also wondering if you can tell me how to tell if a picture on the internet can be uploaded here without asking having to ask someone for permission or not. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User PolyHB: file permissions

Hello! The files TIBEAN Polycon.jpg, TIBEAN Polycon submerged.jpg and TIBEAN Polycon Anlagenkomponenten.jpg have been deleted by you. At the 18.02.2013 I sent the following email to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" to give the requested permission for my uploads:

Gesendet: Montag, 18. Februar 2013 10:45 An: 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' Betreff: evidence of permission for file uploads by the user "PolyHB"

Dear madam or sir,

herewith I give the permission to upload and use the following files uploaded by the user “PolyHB”: 1. file: TIBEAN Polycon.jpg 2. file: TIBEAN Polycon submerged.jpg 3. file: TIBEAN Polycon Anlagenkomponenten.jpg

All files are already published on our website http://www.polycon-gmbh.de/cms/polyplan/de/cms?cms_knuuid=a5040ae1-ae7d-4098-bf2e-b619bb61ea67 or on our partner’s companies website http://www.polyplan-gmbh.de/cms/polyplan/de/cms?cms_knschluessel=schwerpunkte In both cases there are no copyrights on the files and documents that include the illustrations on our websites.

So whats the problem with this permission? Do you need anything else?

Thanks!

Reply

Do you think I will be able to upload them on wikipedia under fair use?

And how can you tell if an image is free use? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, if I find a picture on commons in another language, how can I put it on this English commons? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and reverts

Hello Dear Martin!

I want to report to you as an administrator, the constant edit warring that makes the user EeuHP on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg. The user uploads changes that destroy the quality of the file, example he changes RGB and HSL levels of the image, deteriorates its quality.

He wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs (and acknowledged it explicitly). He has uploaded several versions of the same image that have been deleted for being smallness file versions to March 11. I invite you to compare the quality of the file uploaded by me (March 11) and the uploaded by the user (that is the actual).

Realizing that his miniatures versions were deleted, began to untie the edit war on the file Nicolas Maduro in Brasilia.jpg.

The user says that do not know very well the rules of the community, but he shows no interest for reads nor accepts advices.

The user is shown rude, arrogant and to make matters worse he's mulish when I make a claim about it and try to tell him to read the rules of the Wikimedia community about the fairness of the editions. Also when I attempt to instruct him in the rules of the community. He has taken advantage of a mistake I made (edit my talk page which I repent) to blackmail me.

I have not dared to edit the file nor make corrections once more, I prefer to be cautious and to await your review and your view about the case.

Please I beg friend you intervene in this case to the thriving of our beloved Wikimedia.

Hugs and greetings

--G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 00:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Martin.

I don't destroy the quality of the photo. The only difference is that my version is more wider (in my opinion, this version is more appropiate) and has another (little) nuance of lighting.

If Coronades03 accuses me of wanting to impose my version, I could accuse him of the same thing (the version that he prefers is "his version").

I'm not arrogant with him, but our relationship is not friendly (he was opposed to my version of Maduro's photography -the first- and he undid this, and then he wanted to delete my photos of John XXIII and Nick Clegg with unsubstantiated reasons).

I haven't tried to blackmail him, I only said Don't tell me that my actions are "unnecessary" and that I don't know the rules, because he made a mistake in three times.

I think that we can reach a compromise if we talk (both speak the same language), but the first thing is to talk and not to treat the other as "unnecessary" and no want delete his contributions.--EeuHP (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The user now accuses me of wanting to impose my version when all I did was an cut and improvement the quality of the image using professional software.

He also accuses me of wanting to erase "his photos". He boasts of "his photos" when they are not of his own work. If you want Martin can look the history files of "his photos" and see that all I did was put a template <<No source since>> because it was obviously necessary. Just look that he takes advantage of a mistake I made (not three as he says) and other files to which I have contributed, to divert the thread. But this it doesn't matter, that's not really the topic of this discussion.

If a user contributions destroy the quality of a file must be reversed, for example just for spite altering the RGB and HSL levels that resulting in the reddening of the image tone. These contributions are unnecessary because they are not needed and cause damage

Clearly, the user does not understand or respect the impartiality of contributions. Obviously he opposes that any user improve his contributions when be necessary.

Mistakenly he call "oppose an version" to the improvements that any user can make to a contribution made by him. He does not accept that anyone to contribute to the contributions made by him (this violates exceedingly one of the most essential and basic rules of our community). Note again that the user wants that his changes on the file are those shown in the wikipedia article at all costs.

I already spoke with he before referring the case to you, and as you can see the user is very stubborn and he not pay attention to the suggestions and wants to impose its will over all. Therefore I was obliged to take the case before a administrador.

I have my tranquil conscience, you're a excellent administrator and I trust that your contribution will the best for the good of our beloved community. --G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 03:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I do not accuse. I only said "if I am accused of seeking to impose my version, you can also receive the same charge."

2. The photo of Nick Clegg was a modification of photo of a user Tyh8 uipd. Coronades03 could have checked in Wikipedia Commons that the original photo was really. But he preferred to request that my photo was deleted by "uncertain origins."

3. My version of the photo does not destroy their quality. Coronades03 issued personal opinions like facts.

4. I do not think I can be called "stubborn" when Coronades03 does what I do and his conscience is tranquil.--EeuHP (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I realy cant help you. --Martin H. (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Hello. Please help me find answers to my questions.

How can you tell if an image is free use? If I find a picture on commons in another language, how can I put it on this English commons? Are images on flickr.com free use? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A file is free if the copyright holder voluntarily realeased it under a free license. So files on Wikipedia are free if the copyright holder uploaded them under a free license. Or if the uploader proved that the copyright holder released them under a free license. Files on flickr are free if the copyright holder uploaded them to flickr and published them under a free license, see Commons:Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)