User talk:Patar knight
Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement
[edit]File:Yvonne Jones, Portrait.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Asclepias (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
URLs
[edit]Please use the actual image url (like https://www.flickr.com/photos/meandmyshadow/14445489695/ for File:Lion outside Tower of London (detail) Kenda Haste.jpg) instead of a search, album, or user url as the source. This allows the Flickr review bot to automatically check the photo without a human having to look at it. I have already fixed your most recent upload for you. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, first time uploading a group of images that other people released under free licenses, and I missed the radio button to individually provide licenses for them on the next page. I think I did the next batch correctly. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Scheer
[edit]Hi, as recommended in your message, I posted the following to the file's talk page just before it was deleted: "file is in the public domain, published by the Parliament of Canada at the following address: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Andrew-Scheer(25454)/Roles"
The commons upload tool offers a "published by the US government" option, but no such option for the Canadian government.
If this can be rectified, please advise.
JamesBay (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The reason there is a US government is that works of the US government are public domain. The same is not true for the Canadian government, and the pictures published by the House of Commons are not released under a free license. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for clearing that up. Just checked the Commons' statement on copyrights [1]; if notice is made that all rights are reserved by the House of Commons, does that provide for posting the image? Or does there need to be actual consent given for use? Please pardon my ignorance, copyright law isn't my forte. Cheers. JamesBay (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- If all rights are reserved, then it's not under a free license and cannot be uploaded here. Images on Commons need to allow commercial reuse and modifications, among other things. Unless you email the House of Commons and ask them to give up their copyright, it's unsuitable for Commons. It would also be unsuitable for Wikipedia, because images of living people must be free to be used there. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for clearing that up. Just checked the Commons' statement on copyrights [1]; if notice is made that all rights are reserved by the House of Commons, does that provide for posting the image? Or does there need to be actual consent given for use? Please pardon my ignorance, copyright law isn't my forte. Cheers. JamesBay (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Why the image I uploaded got deleted?
[edit]In the source it was said "Creative Commons 4.0 International". Paladinum2 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- The photo was cropped from a larger one that was sourced from Reuters, which is non-free AFAIK. [2] --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't know that, thanks. Paladinum2 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Like to the english version, could you remove the phrase "À noter que VOA republie des rapports d'Associated Press, de l'Agence France-Presse et d'autres. Ces contenus ne sont pas dans le domaine public. Vérifiez le crédit pour chaque image ou photographie. Notez également que VOA était un organisme fédéral jusqu'en 1998 et est devenu indépendant. Entre 1998 et juin 2013, VOA a versé tout son matériel dans le domaine public. Après cette date, l'usage est seulement non commercial. Par conséquent, ce modèle n'est valide uniquement pour le matériel publié avant juin 2013. Voir Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Notez enfin qu'il existe des déclarations contradictoires sur plusieurs versions linguistiques des sites internet de VOA, mais que les conditions d'utilisation sur le site parent, www.voanews.com, indiquent très clairement que la politique du non commercial s'étend à tous les sites de VOA.". The french phrase is the equivalent of "Note also that VOA was a Federal agency until 1998 and then became independent. Between 1998 and June 2013, the VOA put all its material in the public domain. After that, it became Non-Commercial use only. Therefore, this template is valid only for material published before June 2013. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Note also that there are conflicting statements on several of the language web sites, but that the Terms of Use on the parent site, www.voanews.com, very clearly state that the NC policy extends to all of the VOA sites." which was removed. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It was protected by User:JuTa, and I can't edit it since I'm not an admin. So you can ask JuTa or post at Commons:Administrator noticeboard. I think removal would be correct though, since the discussion at User talk:Krassotkin/Archive/2016 Voice of America seems to indicate that the license phrasing as non-commercial may have been a mistake. And in any case, VOA says their work is PD now. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, -M.nelson (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)