User talk:Profoss

File:Equatorial Guinea location map.svg

What's up Profoss, just wanted to point you to the recently refurbished version of File:Equatorial Guinea location map.svg. I asked “map god” NordNordWest if it was possible to add some more borders. Here's the the talk dealing with this issue: File talk:Equatorial Guinea location map.svg (Du kannst doch deutsch, nicht?) He promptly reacted and painted some more borders. So if you like, you could take this new map as a template for your locator maps. But that ain't mandatory for sure. By the way: nice picture at your user page. (a little bit scary, too) How come that the norwegian army uses good old german MP5, while I had to carry this piece of crap in the german army? --TUBS 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wie gehts? Ah! lovely! I thought the borders was a little bit odd, I've added "fix Eq. Guinea maps (upd borders)" to my todo list :). German was actually my worst subject in school, (gradewise) and how I past it is beyond me. How ever, I can vaguely make out heads and tails of that german discussion.

Haha, yeah, I should have changed that photo ages ago. Apparently they've started replacing the MP-5 with another piece of German engineering (MP-7). Oh I liked my MP-5, it was a lot better than lugging around this ancient heavy weighter ;) Profoss (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I can feel you. The G3 was a heavy burden until I got my all-new lightweight toy-like plastic gun. But now enough of guns. You mustn't get the wrong the impression that I'm into arms.--TUBS 08:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no worries, I'm not really a gun nut myself. Anyways I've made uploaded the updated version of Category:SVG locator maps of Provinces in Equatorial Guinea (location map scheme). Profoss (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

While Bahamas still on top of my to do list (patiently waiting for NordNordWest checking his Bahamas locator map), I found some distraction doing African island states' locator maps. I.e.: locator maps for Cape Verde, Seychelles, Cormoros and Mauritius. I'll upload them within the next few days. Hope I didn't interfere with your plans. --TUBS 20:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wie gehts? No worries mate, that isn't a problem at all! the only thing I've got lined up is Djibuti. Just can't figure out which region this island belongs to. (yeah, I know, it is nitpicking really :). And I was wondering if you had any insides on how to make maps for subdivisions that aren't on the locator map (districts, municipalities etc). Profoss (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tack. Jag mår bra. Framåt Rosenborg! That's basically all I know in one of the nordic languages. But that was Swedish, right?

The German Wikipedia states that this rock is a part of the capital district. Can't tell if this is true (don't forget: an Austrian may be the author ;-).

Well, subdivisions is really hard w/o good templates. It will take you forever and I doubt that Africa is the right continent to ease the upcoming pain, cause african sub-divisons are not well described on wikipedia and good online resources may be scarce. Sometimes Open Street Map contains also sub-division borders (export maps as pdf and open them in Illustrator or other vector graphics software --> pdfs are often the best vector based templates you can find), but I question if this holds true for African countries. If you don't talk about African subdivisions and you don't care which country to start with, check out [1], [2] and so forth. But remember my words: it takes you forever, it's hard to convince regional projects of new designs, you won't earn much appreciation and the smaller the admin areas the more frequently borders change and maps will depreciate. This warning was issued based on experiences I made with the locator maps for 12.000+ german municipalities and counties.--TUBS 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Va bra! Yeah, that sounds Swedish alright :) Hmm, interesting, It is true that frequent border alterations would make things difficult, that and the fact that some countries see increasing the subdivision as a way to increase employment. I tried some retraceing with the Burkina Faso provinces map, and it worked pretty well, but that was just one border, I dread the possibility of doing the same thing for hundreds of borders. Oh well, there is plenty of other maps to make, just have to finish off the African maps first (it is part of a dugnad on no.wiki).

Lovely, I've uploaded new maps based on that possibly unreliable (yet delightfully austrophobian) piece of information :). Profoss (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Never forget: All Austrians are evil based on what I know. Guess where these guys were from: The Terminator aka the Cheater, a familly full of anti-democrats controlling Germany and several other foreign countries and of course the evil in persona. Hahaha, hahaha. That was of course a a joke.--TUBS 07:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I'm not the one breaching Basil Fawltys first rule in communicating with Germans. :) I just noticed your maps for Mauritius and Cape Verde, good work, I just need get my act together and create articles for them on no.wiki. Profoss (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Eric Kraan.jpeg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Eric Kraan.jpeg, 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:Eric Kraan.jpeg]]). 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:SVG locator maps of districts in Lesotho (location map scheme)

Hello! You made several maps of Lesotho. Unfortunately a piece of Mafeteng was missing in the original map. The location map is already updated. Are you going to update your files, too? Regards, NNW 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:SVG locator maps of provinces in Zambia (location map scheme)

Hello! Me again. There is a new province Muchinga in the East of Zambia (see File:Zambia location map.svg), so your files need to be updated, too. Regards, NNW 11:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Riksbot

Congratulations! Task was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko: Lovely, thanks! :D Profoss (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Memorial Vimy face.jpg

File:Memorial Vimy face.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Nasjonalbiblioteket-bot and Category:Unknown

Hi, could you please modify your bot not to fill up Category:Unknown anymore. I've emptied it now several times (expample). This is a parent category for some speedy deletion categories and not, as you might think, a directory for images of unknown authors. Thx. --JuTa 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Juta, oh, sorry I didn't realise, I'll make the necessary modifications before uploading anything else. Profoss (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thx a lot. --JuTa 11:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Nasjonalbiblioteket-bot and Raumas

Hi. Have you noticed there are two municipalities named Rauma, the other is in Norway and the other in Finland? I have moved your regent upploads from Category:Rauma to Category:Rauma, Norway.--Htm (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Htm, hi! I was completely unaware of the finnish town with the same name, I've added Rauma = Rauma, Norway to the exception list. Profoss (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Nice work with those interesting historic photos. --Htm (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Begnadalen kirke

Et par bilder av Begnadalen kirke fra Nasjonalbibliotekets samling (dette og dette) er datert "før 1964", altså som om det er forrige inkarnasjon av kirken (en åttekantkirke av Grosch etter samme modell som Rogne; den brant ned i 1957). Både eksteriørbildet og interiørbildet tyder imidlertid på at det dreier seg om dagens kirke, som altså ble innviet i 1964. (Se dette bilde på Kirkesøk for å sammenligne interiøret før og nå.) Det bør kanskje omdateres uten at jeg har noen ytterligere holdepunkter. Vinguru (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Postkort av Oslo

Hei! Postkortkategorien for Oslo er blitt ganske uhåndterlig pga størrelsen. Den har kun en underkategori, Postcards of Grorud, og den inneholder to filer. (!) Jeg tenker det kan være lurt å endre den slik at den favner den administrative bydelen Grorud, da får den med mye mer. Det er 15 kategorier i Category:Wards of Oslo og jeg tenker at det kan være en fornuftig måte å organisere dette på. Ser at Marka ikke ligger der, men det kan jo ordnes. Ka du tru? --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Det høres ut som en god løsning. Kan jo bli litt avansert å holde styr på ymse bydeler for de som ikke er veldig godt kjent. Jeg må inndrømme at jeg har katalogisert postkort fra Grorud som Oslo. Profoss (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeg også. ;-) Skal skrive forklaringer slik at det blir enklere, det er også ofte greit å sjekke no-wp. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Blir nærmest overveldet av dette, tror jeg skal la det modne litt mer i hodet først. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:SVG locator maps of provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (location map scheme)

Hello ! Thank you for making several maps of Congolese provinces ! However, there are now 26 provinces instead of 11 since 2015. You can see this link : [3]. The map in this link is correct but the province of Lulua (center of the map) has a new name : Kasaï-Central.

Could you please modify the SVG maps with the 26 new provinces ?

Thank you very much. Mightymights (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mightymights, Hi! I used File:Democratic Republic of the Congo location map.svg as basis for the location maps, and I'm afraid it hasn't been updated with the recent changes. Profoss (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will ask the user who created this map. Mightymights (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, a new map with the 26 provinces is available here. Mightymights (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mightymights, Hi, it has been a couple of years since the last time I made one these maps, I think I've got the hang of it now and I have a rough draft ready on my computer. The only question now is... what's the nameing convension? A lot of these provinces have the same names as the previous ones. Renameing the pre-2015 provinces and upload the new ones to Democratic Republic of the Congo - <province>.svg or Democratic Republic of the Congo - <province> - 2015.svg? Profoss (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should rename the pre-2015 provinces. For example File:Democratic Republic of the Congo - Bandundu.svg -> File:Democratic Republic of the Congo (11 provinces) - Bandundu.svg. We could then create the file File:Democratic Republic of the Congo (26 provinces) - Bandundu.svg. Mightymights (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mightymights: Sounds like a plan, I have followed that naming scheme and started uploading to Category:SVG locator maps of provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (26 provinces) (location map scheme). Profoss (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Awesome ! thank you very much. I've added the maps on the french wikipedia. Mightymights (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Nansen Collection upload

Thank you for your uploads! Nansen's photos from Siberia trip are really unique. But I see there's only half of what is at the library's site. May I hope for images starting from No-nb bldsa 3f257 up to 3f494 (or more?)? Figure19 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Figure19: Thanks! I've had a little poke around at the National Library today and apparently the reason why those images are missing is because they haven't been redigitalised yet. The ones in the Nansen Database is the old 1999 digitalisation and the ones uploaded to Commons is from the more recent redigitalisation. I'm not sure why these ones have been missed, the metadata was lacking from the database dump as well. I'm going to try to dig a little bit more but I can't make any promises. Profoss (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As for me - it would be good to have resolution higher than by my link above, no matter of 1999 scan session or later. Thanks for the hope, at least. --Figure19 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bilder fra gamle bøker

Er det grei skuring (juridisk og etisk) å plukke arkitektbilder fra denne boken til Commons? -- Vinguru (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hei, ja jeg ville si det, jeg skulle gjerne lastet ned hele, men dessverre har ALTO-xml APIet forandret seg og fungerer ikke lenger. Jeg skal prøve å legge den på hukommelsen. Profoss (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hamarbilder

Mange fine hamarbilder som er lastet opp. Dette bildet fra Østre torg er speilvendt. Hvordan ordner vi det greiest? Laster det ned og vender det i et eller annet program? -- Vinguru (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hei, ser ut til at noen andre har tatt grep og ordnet det. Jeg har sagt fra til nb så det kanskje blir vendt her også. Profoss (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Supert. Vinguru (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sonja Henie

Hello I see that there are some more recently added photos of Category:Sonja Henie from the Bokhylla.no-site and I just discovered that there are a few short-films also at the same site of her and at least this one Sonja Henie på Lillehammer says : Tilgang for alle. Does that also include available for Wikimedia Commons, if so i would surely like that and other short-films of her copied over there. Please, Best wishes Migrant (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hei, takk for god respons på bildene, de kom fra Sam Eydes fotosamling og stammer nok fra tiden Haakon Eyde (Sam Eydes yngste sønn) var forlovet med Sonia Henie. Dessverre er det slik at bildene er ganske enkle å få tak i, men videoene må omkodes osv. Dessuten har jeg sluttet hos Nasjonalbibioteket, så der forsvant muligheten til å få tak i de filmklippene. Profoss (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Burundi

Hello. At first, sorry for my english. I have one request, hope you can fix it. The maps of Burundi administrative division you made is not actual anymore. All are in the category Category:SVG locator maps of Provinces in Burundi (location map scheme). In year 2015 started exist new province Rumonge and were made any correction of borders province Bujumbara Rural. The new, actual situace is pictured in File:Burundi, administrative divisions - et - colored.svg or File:Burundi adm location map.svg. I´m wondering if you can fix all of them. Thanks a lot. --Unpocoloco (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Unpocoloco: I'm currently on holliday, but I'll have a look when I get back home. Profoss (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nasjonalbiblioteket-bot

Hi Profoss,

thank you very much for the import. It's nice that the Fridtjof Nansen bildearkiv images have multilangual descriptions. But in many cases the German plurals are wrong. For example it is Keten and not Keter (a first nation of Russia).--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up, but unfortunately the discriptions are from a now closed database that will probably get pulled from the internet in the near future, so it doesn't make sense to correct the database. Profoss (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2016 (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!

Affected:

• File:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jarry1250 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

File:ORP Orzel.jpg

File:ORP Orzel.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

Dd1495 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Staffeldts gate 5

Dette bildet av Staffeldts gate 5 er tentativt datert til perioden 1899–1930, formodentlig på grunnlag av Narve Skarpmoens fødselsdata. Den avbildede bygningen ble imidlertid ferdigstilt først i 1937, så det er grunn til å tro at bildet ikke er eldre enn det. jf. Oslo gårdkalender. Dermed er det tvilsomt om det er Skarpmoen som har tatt bildet. — Vinguru (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Bislett 1953

Hei, jeg har identifisert personene på File:Friidrett, Bislet - L0020 342Fo30141605030038.jpg som Audun Boysen, da:Gunnar Nielsen og en:László Tábori. Problemet er at Tabori ikke opererer i resultatlisten for Oslo-lekene 1953. I 1955 derimot, vant Tabori 1500 meter foran Nielsen. Kan det være at bildene, eller en del av dem, er fra 1955? Filbeskrivelsen (lik for alle bildene fra Bislett 1953) sier" A: Sverre Strandli, slegge; Imre Nemeth, slegge; Joseph Czermak, slegge; Egil Danielsen, spyd; Gordon Pirie, langdistanse; Audun Boysen, mellomdistanse (med Nielsen); Gunnar Nielsen, dansk mellomdistanseløper.B: Tabori; Ikaros; Boysen; Strandli; Danielsen", betyr A og B at det er to serier, kanskje fra hvert sitt år? - 4ing (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ikke umulig, jeg skal ta det opp med fotoansvarlig og se hva kildene sier. Profoss (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Friidrett, Bislet - L0020 342Fo30141605030077.jpg er fra 1953, finner et bilde i Aftenposten 7. september 1953 av Sverre Strandli med likt antrekk og startnummer. - 4ing (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Videre plan for opplasting av bilder fra Arkivverket

Er det planer om å laste opp alle bilder smed Commons-kompatibel lisens om ligger på https://foto.digitalarkivet.no/fotoweb/? Det er noen godbiter jeg gjerne skulle sett her, men vil ikke laste opp selv dersom boten kommer til å gjøre det. - 4ing (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Det er definitivt planen. Akkurat nå har arbeidet stoppet litt mens vi standardiserer metadata på grunnlagsmatrialet (jeg gjorde datorettinger on the fly for unntak i det jeg lastet opp). Men jeg håper å få satt igang med det i løpet av februar. Jeg har allerede ordnet med lisensene i grunnlagsmatrialet og vi har satt noen til å se på NC-lisensieringen som kan ha vært satt feil. Profoss (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Takk for det. Jeg ser for øvrig at det har blitt en del dubletter ved at en del av bildene tidligere har blitt overført fra Flickr (f.eks. File:Gateliv_i_Gamlebyen_i_Fredrikstad_sommeren_1963_(8076780009).jpg vs. File:Gateliv_i_Gamlebyen_i_Fredrikstad_sommeren_1963_-_8076780009.jpg og bilder i Category:Photographs by Thomas Neumann). Jeg har valgt å ikke merke noen av disse som dubletter, da metadata/beskrivelse avviker og kan gå tapt. Er dette noe som vil bli tatt tak i? - 4ing (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeg har ikke hatt noen plan rundt merking av disse dublettene. Det beste hadde nok vært å markere de som dubletter og migrere til et bestemt eksemplar (som regel har den nyeste opplastingen best oppløsning). Profoss (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Riksbot picture: Cropping

Randi Kolstad, manually cropped

Hi Profoss,

for usage in Wikipedia it would be great, if your bot would automatically crop the pictures.

Greetings, --Automotivnik (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Feilstavet bynavn i bildetittel

Hei Profoss. Ser du lastet opp flere bilder fra Tromsø og Trømsø i denne kategorien, Category:Riksbot - uncategorised 2017-05-15, men det burde vel ha vært Tromsø på de alle sammen, flytter du de som er med feilstavet bynavn ? Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by Riksbot

Hello, I am a bit puzzled: how do you know for example this image is CC-BY-SA ? Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 08:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@user:Racconish: Hi, from the licence information at the National Archives: https://foto.digitalarkivet.no/fotoweb/archives/5003-Historiske%20foto/Indekserte%20Bilder/L0058_902aFo30141701100002.tif.info Profoss (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See lisensinformasjon under "Regler for gjenbruk". Profoss (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. Do you mean the following general statement : "Se lisensiering under hvert bilde. Lisensen CC BY: Bildet kan brukes og deles fritt til alle formål. Lisensen CC BY-NC: Kommersiell bruk må avklares med rettighetshaver. Falt i det fri: Fotografiet er ikke opphavsrettslig vernet og kan brukes fritt til alle formål. Fotograf, rettighetshaver og bevaringsinstitusjon skal i alle tilfeller krediteres" ? Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 10:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, on https://foto.digitalarkivet.no/fotoweb/archives/5003-Historiske%20foto/Indekserte%20Bilder/L0058_902aFo30141701100002.tif.info there is a tab called "Regler for gjenbruk" which lists that image as CC BY. Unfortunately the photo curator has been over the photos after I downloaded them and relicensed it without the SA. Profoss (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Why in your opinion would this file be CC-BY ? And who should the BY relate to ? — Racconish^☎ 10:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@user:Racconish: Well, the BY is because of Norwegian copyright law, and points to the photographer and their employer ("Billedbladet Nå"), not the institution holding the photo. The photo itself is part of a large collection handed to the National Archives from the pictorial magazine "Billedbladet Nå", which is now defunct. Profoss (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which means the photographer is the copyright holder, not Riksarkivet. — Racconish^☎ 10:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@user:Racconish: Not really, this is the peculiarities of Norwegian copyright law, the photographers right to be attributed does not expire. How ever, because the rights of the photo was held by the employer "Billedbladet nå" the rights to the copyright was signed over to the National Archives. Profoss (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean signed over ? Could you please point me to the relevant section of the Norwegian copyright law here ? — Racconish^☎ 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the Images curator, but: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129003#JD_NO005_39J which was recently tried in court: https://www.budstikka.no/kultur-og-underholdning/foto/rettssaker/fotograf-sjowalls-arvinger-tapte-i-retten-vurderer-a-anke/s/5-55-262267 Profoss (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. You are claiming "this is the peculiarities of Norwegian copyright law, the photographers right to be attributed does not expire. How ever, because the rights of the photo was held by the employer "Billedbladet nå" the rights to the copyright was signed over to the National Archives". Therefore, I am asking you to clarify the relevant "peculiarity of the Norwegian copyright law". Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you, I wasn't trying to change the topic, just answering what I thought you asked about. Now that the question is a little bit clearer. The Author (photographers right to be attibuted is in section 3. Profoss (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But this is not the problem here. Either the original copyright owner was the photographer, in which case there is no reason to consider the National archives as the copyright owner, or there is evidence his copyright was transferred to the newspaper, in which case it would normally fall in the public domain after 70 years. I am asking you to point me to a specific disposition of the Norwegian copyright law according to which the copyright owned by a company is automatically transferred to the National archives before this 70 years term. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 11:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Norwegian PD is 50 years after the image was taken and/or 15 years after the death of the photographer, Sec. 42.A and the commisioner clause in Sec. 39j. Unless the photo is deemed a work of art, where the usual 70 year rule apply. Unfortunately the difference between photographic picture and photographic work has never been established by the courts. Profoss (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the author died in 2015, the 15 years computation would give a mimimal protection until 2021 2031. And it would not be CC-BY but PD. — Racconish^☎ 11:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

2031-01-01, but according to the photo curator, that's where Sec. 39j comes in, according to the curator. Profoss (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Section 39j is related to personality rights, which is a different subject. — Racconish^☎ 12:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Racconish: Sorry, the Photo Curator gave me the wrong paragraph, and I had a read through the recent court case regarding employer right to photos, https://fotografforbundet.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dom-av-01-02-2016-15-073674.pdf and the right paragraph is https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLO/lov/1960-06-17-1 eventhough the law is no longer active, it was active at the time, I can't find the text of the original 1909 law, but according to the court case documents it follows the same lines. "Fotografisk bilete som er laga etter tinging, har tingaren eineretten til når inkje anna er avtala med reine ord. Til reklame kan fotografen stilla ut biletet på vanleg måte, såframt tingaren ikkje forbyd det.", translates to "The orderer has the sole rights to photographic images made to order unless otherwise agreed. The photographer can still exhibit the image, if not explicitly forbidden by the orderer". Profoss (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The photographer died in 2015 and the current copyright law applies, i.e. a minimum of 15 years pma. — Racconish^☎ 13:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting take on the law, which is counter to the case last year, https://fotografforbundet.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dom-av-01-02-2016-15-073674.pdf (page 8-9) which emphesis that when the photograph was taken at a time where all rights was with the person who ordered the photo and that the law in 1995 does not change the employers right to the photos. The question is if the photographer living past 1995 means that the employers right to the photos laps and the photos then reenters the photographers domain. Unfortunately last years case regarded a photographer who died in 1945 so the scenario does not match completely. I'll put further uploads on hold and talk to the photo curator when she's back from holliday and/or ask Arts Council Norway. Profoss (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I will give you some time to clarify the matter before nominating the files in Category:Photographs by Bjørn Fjørtoft for deletion and come back to you in August. — Racconish^☎ 14:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the same goes for Category:Photographs by Ragge Strand and Category:Photographs by Bjørn Glorvigen. Profoss (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Racconish, Hi, I've had a chat with the photo curator about the copyrights to the images and she confirmed pretty much what I was saying previously, that the copyrights to the images belonged to the employer (billedbladet NÅ) which reverted to the National Archives after Billedbladet NÅ archive was given to the National Archive in 1998 after the magazine went out of business. I've also checked with "Fotojuss"-handbook ("Photography Law" handbook published by the Arts Council, unfortunately only available in Norwegian) which has an section on Press photos with an example from 1966 from the same Archive (page 92-93) which argues that the copyright belongs to the employer. The conclusion, translated from Norwegian by me: "The photography is under copyright protection until 1.1.2017, but the National Archive can dispose the material freely because of their agreement with the previous owner". Profoss (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Agnar Mykle - PA-0797 Ue-L0064 konvolutt-1986 01.jpg

File:Agnar Mykle - PA-0797 Ue-L0064 konvolutt-1986 01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

— Racconish^☎ 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Duplikater

Kan du sjekke hvorfor bildene som lastes opp av Riksbot ikke gir melding om duplikater. Enten er det noe i bildene som er annerledes eller så er det noe galt med algoritmen som brukes. Det kan et problem med avrunding og skarpe kanter, dvs en kant kommer i grensen på piksler under nedskalering, men det virker litt merkelig.

Hvis du ikke kan følge opp så skriv en feilmelding i Phabricator. Jeblad (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

For det første finner jeg ikke noe informasjon om hvordan duplicate detection fungerer på Commons så det er litt vanskelig å sjekke. Jeg ser at de forskjellige filene har forskjellig md5sum. Et annet poeng kan være at nedlastningsalternativene ved Fotostation ble forandret (uten at jeg husker konkret når det skjedde), så det kan være at de har forandret seg mellom jeg lastet ned bildet i april-mai og lastet opp i juni og du lastet opp nå som har gitt forskjellig resultat. Som sagt, jeg mangler noe informasjon å gå videre med dette og kommer ikke til å bruke tid på Phabricator for et potensielt fringe case. Profoss (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fringe case? Noe gjør at bildene du laster opp ikke funker med duplikat deteksjonen, og da vil det bli veldig mange doble opplastinger. Jeblad (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate images goes undetected if previously uploaded by Riksbot. Jeblad (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Problemet ligger nok hos Fotostation, det ser ut til at den lager forandringer i metadata for hver nye nedlasting:

md5sum *
7f23013d8d40652ba552a77af094cc4e  SAS2009-10-3044(1).jpg
018b152d3d273b4f44fd4e249f1f0119  SAS2009-10-3044.jpg

Riksbot har i seg selv ingen filmanipulering. Profoss (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Overføre enda flere bilder fra Digitalarkivet

Hei igjen! Jeg ser enda flere gamle bilder fra Digitalarkivet uten copyright-beskyttelse som hadde vært morsomt å overføre til Commons-basen. Jeg er virkelig ingen dataekspert og lurer derfor på om det er en effektiv måte å overføre bildene der alle filopplysninger følger med automatisk? Jeg har jo hatt stor glede av å kategorisere bildene du har kopiert over fra Riksarkivet og så videre ved hjelp av Riksbot, men jeg er for kunnskapsløs til å bruke eller tilpasse en sånn bot sjøl. Så: Har du noen tips? Jeg har også sendt en mail til digitalarkivet. På forhånd takk for det du allerede har bidratt med – og for et eventuelt svar nå! ----Wolfmann (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Wolfmann: Hei, beklager litt sent svar! Det har stoppet litt opp i opplastningen, rett og slett fordi Arkivverket har begynt å rydde litt mer i metadataen de hadde på bildene og fordi jeg kom til et punkt der de fleste bildene var av såpass lav kvalitet at jeg hoppet over de. Det er på trappene en større innlegging av NTBs krigsarkiv som jeg tenkte å få overført i drypp fremover. Vi har også sett den store iveren med å katalogisere bilder og vår fotoarkivar var over seg av begeistring da hun så at du hadde katalogisert og identifisert hvert enkelt bilde av Stortinget på skitur. Kort sagt, jeg tenkte å kjøre en kjøring etterhvert, men vi må få ut mer bilder først. Profoss (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Profoss: Takk for svar! Fantastisk om det kommer mer, når det måtte skje. Ikke noe hastverk for min del. (Må for øvrig le av min egen besettelse med å finne ut av enkelte bilder og portretter. Føler meg litt som en detektiv, eller kryssordløser, kanskje. Tror merking av bildene kan komme andre til gode, på et eller annet vis. Litt merkelig at jeg bruker livet på dette, selvsagt, ikke minst når jeg veit at de rette fagfolka kjenner ansikter fra før og kan ramse opp navn. Men dette er vel min hobby, da. Jeg gjør i alle fall ingen skade.) Wolfmann (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:CubaCamaguey.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:CubaCamaguey.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

 

Castillo blanco (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:CubaCiegoDeAvila.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:CubaCiegoDeAvila.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

 

Castillo blanco (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Uluruwarning.jpg

File:Uluruwarning.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

124.47.132.150 03:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)