User talk:Rama/archive 8

Robo

Bonsoir,

Es-tu sûr de la légende de cette photo : Image:Robo mp3h1547.jpg ? Olympus me semble étrange !!!

Amitiés. Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hum, ça doit être un modèle commémoratif... Rama (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gandhi marseille.jpg

L'auteur n'est pas connu. Yann (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Je sais, ça. Ce que je te demande, c'est de le connaître, ou d'effacer l'image. Rama (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fais une demande de suppression. Yann (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NSD vaut suppression. Et je te signale que NSD veut dire "licence ou auteur non précisé". Tu n'as pas donné l'auteur. Si tu enlèves encore ce template, je signale le problème plus haut. Rama ( ) 19:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bukowiecki stanislaw.jpg

Rama, I noticed you added {{No source}} template to above image. I am not sure what other sources were you looking for in case of this image: the book it was scanned from is provided and the author is anonymous as mentioned in Template:Anonymouse-EU. Could you specify what were you expecting? I also added {{PD-Polish}} license tag since it clearly fall under this license as well. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

the "author" field states "unknown", not "anonymous". The two terms are not equivalent. If the author is indeed anonymous, that fact must be backed up by a source just like any other author. If no author is named, the document cannot be automatically assumed to be anonymous. Rama ( ) 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In case of well known photographs (Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg comes to mind) I understand the difference between anonymous and unknown. The photographs are famous enough that someone researches the history of the photograph (like ISBN 978-8779340992) and mentions that author was never known. However in case of majority of photographs, nobody writes books or articles about it so you will never find that information. That is why for old-little known photographs unknown is practically equivalent to anonymous. But in case of the above image this point is unimportant since it fills requirements of PD-Polish and that license do not require known author, only high probability that author was Polish. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, in the general case, unknown is not practically equivalent to anonymous, at least not in terms of what you can legally do with the image. Unknown is only the most difficult and frustrating case possible, because it will be even harder to source than if the author was named, and in most cases you are "pretty sure" that it is public domain.

For the precise image, yes, PD-Polish covers the case. Thank you for clearing this. Rama ( ) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rama, ce n'est pas à moi qu'il faut mettre un message d'avertissement pour le manque de source, mais à l'utilisateur qui a uploader l'image. Yann (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

170?

You marked these postcards as "no source", but the source was shown (name of editorial company).

Now you add hunderd years to 70 years of copyright protection. I am afraid it is not proper interpretation of law. Julo (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

These postcards have are marked as "no source or author". They have a source, but no author.

The 70 years of copyright protection runs from the death of the author. The 100 years are added to ensure that any author would be dead at the time and allows to bypass the necessity to identify him.

For example: a postcard is published in 1900; by your "it's older than 70 years so it's fair game" standard, you upload it on Commons. Actually the author published it in 1900 when he was 20 years old, died of old age in 1980, the work is copyrighted until 2050, and the heirs can sue you.

This is a very proper interpretation of the law indeed. Rama ( ) 11:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• First: answer on my talk page, not on yours.
  Next: why did you add 100 years, not 107 or 98? My grandma died being 105 years old, and oldest people of the world can live 120. Maybe you should add 120? The number 100 is taken just from one's mind, not from the law.
  Next: it is anonymous work, because its author was not descripted. On the back side of this postcard there was the name of the editorial company, that's all. The author is and always will remain unknown, i.e. is anonymous. Templates {{Anonymous work}} or {{Anonymous-EU}} are just for this case. --Julo (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I reply wherever I please.

Next, I add 100 because I can assume that one would be at least 10 years old before having one's work published. Your grandma is safe with that. But yes, you can add 120 if you want to be totally sure, and thus count 190 years. I used to count 200, but I tried to minimise the threshold.

No, "anonymous" does not mean "unknown". "Unknown" means "I did insufficient research to find the name". That could be because it is actually impossible to find it, or because I am clueless, or because I am of bad faith. "Anonymous" means that you can provide a source that confirms that a work was published anonymously. "Anonymous" is like an actual author, only harder to source. Rama ( ) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to check, if your opinion about the legality is right or not right, is to read opinions of other users. For now, the commons community opinion is: the license anon-Eu is legal and adequate, and it was not "voting". You should accept it, please. 78.8.3.56 09:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it so that noone addresses the question? People are merely stating empty "keep, anonymous" without justifying why the work would be anonymous.

There is nothing to accept if legal matters are involved. Whether a file is in project scope can be decided by deletion request; sourcing and credits cannot. Rama (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Franz Josef Mariazellerbahn.jpg

Bonjour. Je n'arrête pas de recevoir des messages à propos d'un manque de sources de l'auteur de la photo Franz Josef Mariazellerbahn.jpg afin d'établir l'existence ou non d'un copyright. Tout ce que j'ai fait sur cette photo, c'est la recontraster (les noirs étaient trop clairs) afin que les utilisateurs des différents Wiki puissent regarder la dite-photo avec plus de confort, rien de plus. La photo ayant été prise en 1910, il y a de très fortes chances que le photographe soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans et que plus aucun copyright ne s'applique. La photo est donc maintenant libre de droits. En conséquence, aucune poursuite ne sera engagée contre la fondation Wiki pour son utilisation et je ne comprends pas pourquoi la question du copyright de cette photo n'est toujours pas réglé. De grâce, qu'on arrête de m'importuner avec des problèmes aussi futiles. Si c'était une photo relativement récente, avec un auteur pouvant être encore en vie, encore, je comprendrais. Maintenant, si on ne veut plus de mes services pour restaurer les images, qu'on me le dise.

Dites-moi, s'il-vous-plait, la procédure à suivre pour spécifier qu'une photo est passée dans le domaine public, ce qui règlera le problème une fois pour toutes. Ce serait quand même dommage que cette photo soit supprimée de tous les articles où elle mentionnée pour un faux problème de copyright, convenons-en.

Et si jamais la question bien improbable du copyright devait se poser, il faudrait voir avec le dépositaire original de la photo sur le site, et non avec moi qui ne suis que le restaurateur.

Merci de m'avoir écouté. Bien entendu, je n'ai strictement rien contre vous. Je suis même plutôt satisfait d'avoir trouvé un interlocuteur. Le ton quelque peu vindicatif de mon message n'est dû qu'à mon agacement. Si ce ton vous a choqué, je vous demande par avance de m'en excuser.

Au plaisir de lire votre réponse. --CorbeilCommon (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour, et merci pour votre compréhension. La masse de données que traitent les sysops de Commons les force à employer des messages pré-formatés qui peuvent paraître froids.

Sur le fond de l'affaire, votre message me conforte dans l'idée qu'il y a un problème avec cette image. Son auteur n'est pas connu, et il n'y a en fait aucune raison pour qu'il soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans. L'image est prise en 1910, nous sommes en 2008, il faudrait donc que l'auteur soit mort en 1938, 28 ans après avoir pris sa photo. Les humains vivent largement assez longtemps pour qu'il soit possible d'être vivant 28 ans après avoir pris une photographie. Votre argument est en soi bon, mais n'est valable que pour des documents d'au grand minimum 150 ans (ce qui revient à dire que nul n'est vivant 80 ans après avoir créé une oeuvre).

Le passage de « photo (...) prise en 1910 » à « très fortes chances que le photographe soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans » est correct, mais sans rapport direct avec le problème. Le saut de « très fortes chances que le photographe soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans » à « La photo est donc maintenant libre de droits » est, lui, faux. En l'état, rien ne permet d'affirmer que la photo soit libre de droits. Et il est nécessaire de pouvoir l'affirmer avec certitude pour que le fichier soit conservé sur Commons. Rama (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merci de votre réponse, mais j'aurais besoin d'un complément d'information, et de soulever deux points importants :

1) Que faut-il faire pour que cette photo ne soit pas détruite au bout d'un certain laps de temps ? Il serait dommage qu'elle soit supprimée physiquement du serveur ainsi que son référencement partout où elle a été utilisée, notamment certains articles de Wikipedia. Il est clair que si je n'avais pas pris la décision de recontraster cette image, aucun problème de copyright n'aurait été soulevé. En effet, la première version de cette photo a été postée le 12/09/2005 et aucun sysop n'a réagi, ni à l'époque, ni maintenant. C'est pourquoi je me demande pourquoi la première version de cette photo est passée et pas la mienne.

2) Pourquoi me cherche-t-on des problèmes à moi et non au posteur initial de la photo (User:Hemulen) ?

NOTA : il est possible qu'il y ait une réponse commune aux questions 1) et 2)

--CorbeilCommon (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Je vous rassure, personne ne vous cherche de problèmes à vous. Le problème reste purement confiné à l'image elle-même, ceci précisément pour éviter qu'il s'étende un jour à des personnes. Il n'est pas question de mettre en cause votre valeur comme contributeur de Commons, à vous ou à tout autre, pour ce genre de choses. Cela arrive à tout le monde, moi y compris.

La question du copyright de cette image aurait été soulevée de toute façon, et User:Hemulen a aussi été averti (c'est un peu plus haut sur sa page de discussion) ; le délai à soulever la question du copyright est dû uniquement au degré de vigilance des utilisateurs informés de ces questions, et de leur disponibilité. Votre amélioration des contrastes n'est en aucun cas fautive, et soyez assuré que les contributions de ce genre sont précieuses et appréciées.

Pour conserver l'image, il faudrait qu'une recherche aboutisse à identifier l'auteur et à trouver la date de sa mort ; si cette date se situe plus de 70 ans dans le passé, il sera confirmé que la photo est bien dans le domaine public. Rama (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing here?

[1] I added the source (or rather: I added the info template, since the source has been there from the beginning). Please remove the wrong template, and stop bugging me for files that are perfectly described and licensed. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

File lacks an author.

"Public Domain due to age" for an "unknown" author of the "late 19th century" is not a valid licence. For instance, if the drawing was made in 1890 by a 20-year-old who died at 90 (in 1960), the file is still copyrighted until 2030.

From the information you give, absolutely nothing warrants "Public Domain due to age". That would be a valid reason for the late 18th century, not the 19th. Rama (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leica M3 mg 3848.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments for me the best one --Mbdortmund 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leica M3 mg 3851.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Your camera seems like it could stand a sensor cleaning, but other than the dust spots, quality is good. Thegreenj 01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartes postales et autres documents anciens

Je dois avouer que je ne comprends pas votre approche sur cette histoire de cartes postales et autres images anciennes. Je comprends complètement votre souci sur les violations de copyright, il faut en effet que les images sur Commons soient absolument garanties "libres de droit". C'est devenu une mode facile d'illustrer les articles par des cartes postales anciennes, certains ne le sont presque que par ça : par exemple Tramway de Saint-Romain-de-Colbosc. Ce que je ne comprends pas c'est que vous faites des demandes de suppression ponctuelles sur quelques cartes postales et images anciennes, alors qu'à mon avis il y a littéralement des milliers de CPA et autres images anciennes de moins de cent soixante dix ans actuellement sur Commons. A ce rythme, vous en auriez pour des siècles. A mon avis il faudrait procéder massivement par robot et supprimer toutes les cartes postales et documents anciens pour lesquels l'auteur n'est pas sourcé clairement. 92.131.157.28 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Compte tenu de l'état actuel de la technologie, je ne pense pas qu'un robot soit capable du discernement nécessaire pour distinguer les cas légitimes des cas problématiques (il n'y a qu'à voir à quel point les humains ne sont pas d'accord entre eux pour s'en convaincre). Alors on fait à la main. Wikipédia ne s'est pas faite en sept jours. Rama (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dendrocygna bicolor

Bonjour Rama,

Il y a quelques semaines, j'avais proposé une photographie comme image remarquable. Malheureusement pour moi, elle n'a pas été promue. Suite aux critiques qui avait été faites, j'ai proposé une nouvelle version, recadrée.

Pourrais-tu donner ton avis, sur la page de vote, s'il-te-plaît ?

Merci d'avance. Peter17 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Honnêtement, c'est vraiment très difficile d'avoir une FP. Mais tu pourrais essayer en QI. Rama (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

---

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Yann (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice template! What about this one? Template:Dont remove nsd or nld Rama (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Konigstein81.jpg, false accusations, and other assumptions

Hi Rama. Could you please explain exactly how Yann has a "recurrent conflit of interest" (your words after reverting the decision of an admin in closing this request in favor of keeping)? A conflict of interest (COI) would be a situation in which Yann took the photo, is in the photo, uploaded the photo, makes money off of the photo, or otherwise has something to do with the photo and thus, directly or indirectly, benefits from the photo being present here. Looking at Yann's page, there is no obvious COI, so please explain if you were aware of any actual COI. Or were you (yet again) unhappy with the repeated decision to Keep--using COI as a false justification for reverting Yann's decision to close and Keep. If Yann has no COI, that statement could appear to be libel. At the very least, it appears to be a case of sour grapes because you aren't getting your wish.

Furthermore, Yann appears to be following procedures here and doing his job as an admin. Twice (hardly a "recurrent" situation). It feels to me that the consensus of most people who participated is to Keep the image; a small (but vocal) minority wants it deleted. In either case, a consensus to Keep or no-consensus, the result, as I understand Commons' discussion guidelines, is to Keep the image until/unless future consensus shifts toward Deletion. That doesn't appear likely anytime soon given how long this has been under discussion.

---

I was rather shocked when I noticed on your User page that you are an admin here. My comments above were originally going to be added to the image discussion, but I thought better of it, since it's really more of a Talk issue, not discussion about the image itself. My comments to you were written based on the assumption that you were fairly new to Commons and that you didn't understand how the deletion process, discussions, and COI policies and guidelines work around here. Being an admin, I guess you probably (should at least) know them better than I do.

Here's how I see it... There is a presumption based on elements of the image and similarity to other images of the same apparent period that it should be usable here as it's anonymous. Your contention (and it certainly has validity) is that a presumption like that is not good enough. We need evidence that the work is anonymous. Similarity to other anonymous photos of the same period is not evidence at all. Not having that evidence, we should delete the image rather than risk polluting Commons with images in a copyright quagmire. The other people commenting (and yes, I fully realize that it's not a numbers type of vote here) do not seem to share your concern. They are satisfied based on the stated presumption that the image should be fine. In short, the problem is that some people care more and some people care less about the burden of proof required to claim something is anonymous.

That is an issue that goes far beyond this single image. Renominating the image over and over again (essentially a combination of edit warring and wikilawyering) in the hopes that eventually the image will be deleted is, frankly, highly annoying and not something I'd expect an admin to do. Why? Because it doesn't fix anything! To fix it, we need to address the larger issue: What is the burden of proof that Commons should require of uploaders or during discussions for deletion to reasonably assure that something is actually anonymous?

In the discussions, most of the people commenting seemed satisfied with the non-proof that was there. You and a few others were terribly upset by that lack of concern. So, let's establish a guideline that gives clear instruction on how to handle the situation. Open it up to site-wide discussion (and deletion discussions do not appear to be read by the masses) for feedback and modification. Then, after that new guideline is in place, we can reexamine Image:Konigstein81.jpg in light of that guideline and see if it meets the new burden of proof. If it doesn't, I'll be side by side with you in voting to delete it. If it does, I hope you'll be side by side with me voting to keep it.

Remember, as an admin, people look to you as an example of leadership. I saw Yann being a leader, and not bowing down to the wishes of a vocal minority, and I respected him for that. I did not leadership in your actions when you were repeatedly reopening discussions, seemingly only because you lost. I saw the traits of a vandal and a troublemaker, no matter how noble the reason behind the actions, and that made me discount nearly every good thing you had to say about the issue. I'm being blunt, but I want you to understand that actions sometimes do speak louder than words, and this was such a case.

Let's stop bickering about one dumb picture, and start fixing the underlying problem. That's the way to improve all of Commons, not just one picture at a time in a battle that devolves into potentially libelous name calling and slapping of templates on each other's talk pages. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you understand that my own responses were based upon a false assumption about your motivations. If I said anything that offended you, I am truly sorry. I think we were all more than a little frustrated, and we just need to move on (at least for now) in a more constructive manner. I hope you agree.

I will be asking Yann to read this comment, too. --Willscrlt (Talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not leaders. Adminship is a purely technical position.

While en.wiki and other projects may state that administratorship is only the addition of a few technical options (de juris), the reality is that admins are viewed as leaders (de facto), especially when it comes to following the rules of the site. Part of that comes from the fact that almost everywhere else online, admins ARE leaders, and that is what the name implies. (And also how many project admins behave.)

I realise that some people, particularly newcomers, have this misconception. But being a common mistake does not make a it true. I think that admins should be able to deal with the expectations of people by educating them, not by denaturing their position. Rama (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have revoked this particular closure because Yann is engaged in a campain to support actively hosting material that he regards as public domain but which cannot be confirmed to be so under the law [2] [3] [4] []. Furthermore, he has repeatedly stated his intention to use such media as precedents to justify uploading and keeping further images of unknown status [5] [6] [7] [8]. As such, he has a personal interest in the matter, and closing the request is problematic from him. That being said, Yann has a history of unilaterally restoring files and re-uploading deleted images [9], and has been de-sysoped from fr: for similar abuses of his privileges [10] [11]; that particular offence is probably one of his least.

Just like it would be unfair from me to delete the image, it is unfair from Yann to close the discussion on a "keep" (There is an asymmetry on that point: Yann is arguably abusing his privileges here, which I do not; on the other hand, there is a symmetry of positions and "ranks", and your "User:Yann's admin action to Keep, which was reverted by User:Rama who supported deletion" could as well read "User:Yann's action to Keep as he voted Keep, which was reverted by admin User:Rama").

As I said, I originally thought you were just a disgruntled user causing trouble because things didn't go the way you wanted. That is why I put that edit summary on there, and why I even bothered to revert it. I stopped short of calling it vandalism, because you raised several good and thoughtful points along the way (not something most vandals bother doing).

The matter of the two of you deleting and restoring and whatever else you two do is not really a matter I care to be involved with, but it certainly explains why you claim COI. Really, I think it's more of a POV issue (deletionist versus inclusionist in a slightly different interpretation, perhaps?) than a true COI. However, an overt statement of intention to do as he has done does sound like a conflict of ... intention? I don't know what you'd call it. Anyway, I don't think that such discussions are useful in the matter of the image under discussion. The two of you are essentially having a philosophical debate, in public, while supposedly debating the image. In short, it's not working and it's making everyone involved look like we are more interested in squabbling than in coming to resolution on deciding the fate of the image. More than anything, that is my frustration.

It is not exactly a philosophical debate, it is more "applied" than this. Yann has a general pattern of toying with copyright law, which he deems harmful (For instance, he has created a wiki, wikilivres.info, for the specific purpose of hosting material not acceptable on wikibooks by taking advantage of Canadian law; Yann does not live in Canada. Wikilivre has been a subject of complains because it mimics the naming conventions of wikimedia projects, and because links to it are added on fr: in a particularly massive way). The question is whether law is to be disregarded and bent on Wikimedia Commons, whether existing problematic images constitute a precedent, whether Commons can be utilised in such a wide-scale and extra-Wikimedia campain, etc.

Since these questions stem from precise images, and since every image represents a different problem, it is necessary to deal with offending images one by one. Hence the recurrence of some themes on image deletion pages. Rama (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the substance of the matter: discussions on Wikimedia projects are not votes, and people here cannot vote the laws of countries. There are instances where a majority of users is simply wrong and where it is legitimate to go against its opinion. I am not "upset" or anything about that image, I really do not care; if I was that small, I'd take pride in the number of similar images that have been recently deleted; as things happen, I do not. I simply care about Commons, and I find it necessary to keep it a sound project, where we do not stamp a "public domain" on media we know nothing about, and where we do not get utilised by people as a spearhead against copyright. Rama (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are not votes in the normal sense, but they are an attempt to determine consensus. Based on consensus, an appropriate action is to be taken. Naturally, if the consensus of 100,000 Wikimedians was to do something illegal, consensus alone wouldn't justify such an act. That, it seems, is your main point. I reiterate that unless we have clear guidelines, that are built upon both consensus and the law, that explain what are and are not important factors in determining the validity of copyright claims such as this, then there is no way to have an intelligent discussion at all. And that's exactly what we had happen... a discussion that has dragged on, with no satisfaction for anyone... not very intelligent on any of our parts.

Is there a clear policy or guideline that explains what to look for in determining copyrights from anonymous sources that would apply here? If so, why hasn't it been quoted and referred to so that people can read it, look at the photo, and see either "yup, it's fine" or "nope, it's clearly not fine"? If not, then why don't we do as I suggested, and develop such a guideline. Once it's in place, then renominate this image and any others that you feel do not meet the guideline, and then there should be no question about it. The link you mentioned above was a good start in that direction. Did nothing progress from that? The template that you started is not the same as a policy, because too few people uploading supposedly anonymous work know (or more likely care) about such templates. We need a guideline or policy in place to make it stick.

Building consensus is not just a procedure to be followed. It's an important process that helps to make sure that everyone's voice is heard. Renominating an image over and over until it is finally deleted (defeated?) is a negative process that undermines good will. So does undeleting images after they have been properly deleted. The two of you may never agree about the relative merits of deleting vs. keeping these images, but you should be able to agree to some ground rules by which anyone can judge an image to be legal or not to store on the Commons. Right? I hope so.

Also, many of your links are to French language comments or fr.wiki. I studied French in high school many years ago, but my grasp of the language is too poor to gain more than a very poor idea of the general topic. Sorry.

Thank you for responding, as always, with civility, good manners, and thought. I am glad that you understand that I am just trying to help. Have a good day! --Willscrlt (Talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is not having the image deleted. I would rather have the image stay as much as anybody else.

The point is that we have a policy to tag images that are improperly sourced with "nsd". Here, when the image is tagged "nsd", its uploader re-tags it as "deletion request", which is improper in itself; then, people "vote" keep for ideological reasons (Yann), in reaction to what they regard as a disturbance (yourself), or because of a well-meant but uneducated desire to keep the image, all this without answering the core question; eventually, the image is marked as "kept", and what do we have? An improperly sourced image, which, per standing policy, is to be tagged with "nsd". See the problem? Rama (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are no lawyer, but you dont'stop your pov-pushing based on your own fears, unfounded so far. You may be an old admind, but you are not the boss. It must end by a communauty decision. -- Perky (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know of which community you are talking of Perky. Images we don't know the author because we did not search enough are not anonymous works. If I take one photo on Flickr and upload it here as anonymous work of someone of the 21th century, I believe you will clearly see the problem here. The NSD state is not a POV but a fact here.Esby (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like Esby says, this is a problem of facts. You cannot have the community vote about facts. Wikimedia projects are no substitute for reality, they are part of it. Rama (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

purge sur éléments infondés

A l'intention de FL: il a été fait droit à votre demande.

Je saisis au bond l'occasion de clarifier quelques points:

• "Commons" n'est pas une licence, mais un projet Wikimédia, à ne pas confondre avec "Creative Common", une famille de licences (dont certaines ne sont pas libres)
• Les licences libres (GFDL, Cc-by, Cc-by-sa) reposent sur le droit d'auteur. Une oeuvre sous l'une de ces licences n'est pas libre de droits. L'expression « libre de droit » désigne les oeuvres du domaine public exclusivement.

Le terme « libre » n'a pas le même sens dans « licence libre » et dans « libre de droits » : « libre de droits » signifie « pour lequel aucun droit n'est réservé » ; « licence libre » signifie « licence accordant au minimum le droit d'utiliser et de diffuser l'oeuvre, sans contrepartie financière, modifiée ou non, pour tout usage y compris à but lucratif ».

Bonne continuation. Rama (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merci de ces précisions, mais je les connaissais un peu (mon message était "hâtif"). En revanche, pourriez-vous vraiment "purger" - je crois que c'est le terme - cette page "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Franck_laroze" afin qu'elle n'apparaisse plus en recherche google: ce n'est pas un "droit de disparaître" puisque je ne suis jamais apparu sur Wikimedia Commons sous mon nom (c'eût été stupide...) et quoi que certains aient pu en faire accroire... Merci d'avance. Cordialement FL

Paléopinacotrombinoscope

Bonjour Rama,

En me promenant dans ta galerie, je suis tombé sur ton paléopinacotrombinoscope. Même si je ne peux qu'admirer la qualité de ces dessins, je me pose des questions sur leur statut. Par exemple, Image:Jean Moulin.jpg est une œuvre dérivée de la fameuse photo de Jean Moulin, qui n'est pas dans le domaine public ; je ne vois donc pas comment le dessin peut être diffusé sous une licence libre. Te sachant "paranoïaque" au sujet du copyright (c'est un compliment), je me demande si j'ai raté quelque chose ou si ces images datent d'une époque où tu l'étais moins. Ce serait dommage d'avoir à supprimer ces images, surtout que certains sont très utilisées. Bien à toi, Pruneau^talk 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour et merci,

ce qui constitue une oeuvre dérivée ou pas peut être relativement subjectif : il y a un domaine où l'on est dans la reproduction d'une oeuvre, un autre où l'on utilise une oeuvre en guise de documentation pour créer une nouvelle oeuvre originale, et le tracé de la frontière n'est pas net. Je m'interdis de décalquer, et que, autant que possible, j'essaye de dessiner le portrait sous un angle différent de d'original, si possible en croisant plusieurs images ; mais il y a des cas où je n'ai qu'une seule photo, ce qui est particulièrement problématiques (ça m'accule au choix entre l'invention et le risque accru de plagiat).

Aussi ma politique est-elle d'essayer de produire des choses, et de laisser le jugement à la communauté le cas échéant ; comme je suis trop près du dessin pour pouvoir le juger, je n'interviens pas dans le débat et j'accepte la décision sans états d'âme. J'ai déjà eu des dessins supprimés, et je vois ça comme un processus nécessaire et sain. Si tu penses que certains dessins sont trop proches d'originaux, n'hésite pas à les proposer à la suppression, je ne t'en tiendrai aucune rancune, bien au contraire.

Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Old postcards

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg is very interesting, and it would be nice if we could extract from it some useful policy or at least guidance as to how old postcards should be handled. I have hundreds which I could upload, but many will raise the same issues as this, and I don't want to have to go through the same old arguments every time. Even better would be to work out some rules on anonymous images generally, but I suspect from past discussions that that will be much harder. I am thinking of working up a policy page on postcards, at least. If you have any thoughts on the general principles that should apply, could you leave me a note on my talk page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is not appreciated

---

You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox. Yann (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you please grow up? Rama (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

---

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Yann (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While these template messages are a bit rude, the message is legitimate. You have edit warred and left rather uncivil messages, which is not something any admin should do regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Please try to calm down; perhaps taking a step back from that DR would be helpful. I've already admonished Yann on IRC; their attitude isn't helpful either - just so you are aware that I am being fair here (I think).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your insight, but isn't there is a paradox in reproaching someone to restore a nsd template, knowing that this template is not supposed to be removed until the information it requires (author and source) is given? We even have Template:Dont remove nsd or nld to that effect... Rama (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salginatobel Bridge mg 4080.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some CA visible at the left on the bridge supports, but an excellent view and technically acceptable. TimVickers 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

re:

As long an the author is unknown, he is unknown. Read the discussion PD-Polish carefully, please. As for today there is no reason for any change of legal status of photo.

Best regards:

Andros64 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

precisely. And an author that is unknown is an author about which we know nothing. In particular, we do not know

• whether he was anonymous of not.
• whether or no he is dead for over 70 years (or 100 years, or 50 years, depending on the applicable date), unless the image is so old that is it really impossible. Not improbable, not rare, but completely impossible.
• what his nationality was.

Rama (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first and only question is date and place of first publication (according to Berne Convention)( The law of country origin) and was the photo signed. If photo in anonymous in various publications, and was published over 70 years ago it is treated as an Anonymous-EU.

Best regards:

Andros64 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but you fail to prove that the photo is anonymous. "Unknown" is not equivalent to "anonymous". The "anonymous" nature of the photograph must be proved, which is usually difficult to do. Rama (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?

[12] The source has been there from the very beginning, for god's sake. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NSD requires source and author. The author is not given. How can we claim that this author died over 70 years ago when we do not know who he was? The image is said to be from "before 1884"; there are instances of copyright lasting for over 160 years, so we have absolutely no guarantee that this image is in the public domain. Rama (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If not even the auction house that sells the thing provides an author name, it will hardly be anyone that anyone has ever heard of. The chance that anyone will ever claim any right on this obscure picture is 0,00001%, as you are well aware of. This is just the sort of copyright paranoia that makes Commons such an unpleasant place to work for free content. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we respect copyright law, here. Welcome on Commons. Rama (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Canon-24-105L-IS-USM-img 0487.jpg

I've made bold to replace your original image w/ WB-corrected version. Feel free to discard my version if it's inappropriate because of art, technical or licensing reasons. Grain (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much for your help! Rama (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Benoît Mandelbrot.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support looks ok to me. I've spent some time categorizing pictures, the main competitor would probably be this one. I think the nominated picture is a better portrait. --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leitz Summicron 50mm M39 3798.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, interesting subject --Twdragon 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Frances E. Allen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Neutral There are many pictures of this person (from the same photographer, for most of them), I think the best one is the BW version of the nominated picture. I still think a colour pic is better for a VI, but I'm uncomfortable here with the blue reflection on the left side (well, the right side, actually) of the face. --Eusebius (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Question should I withdraw the present image and nominate the black and white version? (Colour was a problem given the environment, I attempted to produce acceptable versions but it is not easy). Rama (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  In my opinion, no. I would oppose to a BW picture if we have a colour one (whereas I'm only neutral here). But I don't make rules, there is no rule here (to the best of my knowledge) and other reviewers may have other opinions. --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I'm changing my vote in the light of that sentence in the rules: "A VI is the best available image of its type on Commons, not the best that can be conceived of." --Eusebius (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amx30_064_valmy.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Amx30_064_valmy.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-Nard the Bard 20:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Duquesne

Hi. Haven't you ONI drawings of Duquesne or Suffren class cruisers? Pibwl (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Chances that is I did not upload them, I do not have them, but I'll double-check. At worse, we can make them ourselves. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely do not have some. I have low-resolution photographs of Duquesne, but they are not in the public domain, and not good enough that I could make a drawing out of them. If someone has good enough photographs, I might draw something. Rama (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your copyrights

are violated here. Wenn du juristische Hilfe benötigst, kannst du dich bei mir melden. Ich könnte dir Anwälte empfehlen, die sich mit Urheberrecht auskennen. --ST ○ 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for replying in English, my German is somewhat rusty, unfortunately.

For a personal webpage as this one, I do not think that it is necessary to complain. I have had the dubious honour of having my work stolen by professional newspapers and reviews in printed form, and I concentrate my efforts on these fine people.

Also, I think complaining for all incorrect usage of these particular files on Internet would be a part-time job.

Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) --ST ○ 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

upload secrets

Where did you get the Music Barnstar picture?

I created it by altering Image:Original Barnstar.png. Rama (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hi, why you deleted this file? I taken the photos from FlickCC.
(Cancellazioni); 17:43 . . Rama (discussione | contributi) ha cancellato "Image:Totti e Gila.jpg" (Copyright violation)
(Cancellazioni); 17:43 . . Rama (discussione | contributi) ha cancellato "Image:Perrotta Coppa.jpg" (Copyright violation)
Enok msg 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I though them to be Copyright violations. I was in error in one of the cases, thank you for pointing it to me:

• Image:Perrotta Coppa.jpg is an official photograph for which a formal autorisation has been received. I have restored the file, and I apologise for this mistake.
• Image:Totti e Gila.jpg is an actual copyright violation. The file was uploaded on Flickr, where it is credited to AFP PHOTO / ROBERTO SCHMIDT. It is stated to be under the Cc-by licence there, but this is unlikely to the point where there is no need to consider the possibility:
  • The flickr account is not that of Roberto Schmidt
  • AFP is a professional agency which (sadly) does not publish its photographs under a Free licence.

In general, it is necessary to have some critical eye before uploading images, because in some cases, people are not aware of exactly what they can do or not. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by the deletion of the first file, and do not hesitate to ask if you have further questions. Rama (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for reply. Enok msg 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for making the comment on the french speaking users talk page make sense. My French is not very good :( --Anonymous101 ^talk 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Duquesne

I have a LOT of side line drawings, if that's what you mean. Pibwl (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You do? If you send some to me by e-mail, I might be able to create a new one using yours as documentation. Rama (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will be easier to direct you to this link in a great resource of Russian books - last two links: Чертежи are drawings (nos. 10-12, v04-v06) and Иллюстрации are photos. Pibwl (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much! I'll try to do something when the opportunity arises. Thank you for an interesting reading, I did not know the Absalon and Esbern Snare. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: of course, there are models of these ships at the Musée de la Marine in Paris. I'll try to see whether someone can take photographs of these, at worse. Rama (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are much more Russian magazines and books on that site. Pibwl (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yvonne Vieslet - dcd 12 octobre 1918 a Marchienne-au-pont - 02.jpg

J'ai fais une mauvaise manipulation entre les touches " Previsuliser " et " Publier " ... elles devraient etre plus espasees ! Sorry ! mais je marretes pas les recherches ! --Bernard Piette (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Salut ... que penses-tu de ce texte ? --Bernard Piette (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

La popularité d'une oeuvre est sans aucun rapport avec son appartenance au domaine public. La seule question qui compte, c'est qui a pris la photo et quand il est mort. Le reste est touchant, mais ne se place pas sur ce plan-là. Rama (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Moien, j'ai ajoute un acteur le plus correcte ... avec un ecrit officiel et c'est a partir de cette image qu'il a eu des pirates --Bernard Piette (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Canon-musee-marine-2.jpg

Hi Rama, Can you please add a description of some sort to one or your images --> Image:Canon-musee-marine-2.jpg as it creates a confusion for this user Avron who keeps it categorized as unidentified machine , to me its just at the moment an unknown naval firearm or a small cannon. Have a fun Stonufka (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gilbertus

Hi,

This user is blocked indef for uploading copyvio. I have noticed that you have unblocked him before.. After his unblock he uploaded copyvio again (2x). I try to ping you on the irc but you wasn't there so i ask Howcheng.

Please tell me if you do not agree with his block. Sterkebaktalk 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My french is not so good. Can you help me on that talkpage please? Sterkebaktalk 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Laval.1940.1.jpg

I wanted to know if we're sure this isn't free. Since you deleted it, I will assume you're correct. Can it be used under fair use on English Wikipedia? The subject is deceased, so no other images can be taken, and I don't imagine any other images we find from that time period will be free if this one isn't. Please try to find some way that we can use this image either on Commons or enwiki. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Unless the author of the image or his heirs release the image under a Free licence, the image is not Free.

It is not usable as Fair User either. Fair Use applies to images which are being discussed for themselves, like Rising the flag on Iwo Jima, for instance; an image cannot be used merely to illustrate its subject. Furthermore, we do have Free images of Laval.

The only way to use this image is to contact René de Chambrun and obtain that he releases this portrait under a Free licence. Sorry not to have an easier way. Rama (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well we'll see if that can happen then. Thanks; I'll let you know what happens.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

van Gogh Cleanup Project '08

Hi Rama, you'd be more than welcome to give feedback on Category talk:Vincent van Gogh to my ideas on thisone, and to promote it among competent people. Most of it is technical "how-to", about sub-categories, filenames etc. -- therefore no absolute need to be expert in art. Thanks, --WeHaWoe (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you too busy or what was wrong with my question? -Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry, I must have missed your question, I did not intend to be impolite. Though I like him, I am not much into contributing van Gogh images (I am somewhat more oriented towards Flemish Renaissance painting), but I will certainly keep your project in mind if I see a van Gogh specialist.

I wish you and the project the very best. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

HEY, that project is not that much about v.Gogh [who was rather the reason to start with], but about cleaning up an almost unreadable artist's-category by possibly creating reasonable filenames and for sure creating reasonable sub-categories.

I think I recently did considerable work on that, but I B.A.D.L.Y need feedback, mainly on my proposed "design" of file [quite long] names and image descriptions. This has hardly anything to do with this special artist, but is imo of V.E.R.Y general concern for COM handling some major artist's files. Therefore, you're not "our of duty" at all ;))) --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow up regarding old postcards (and similar pictures)

Hello Rama,

Some time ago I read through (but did not participate in) the lengthy debate regarding the status of old postcards by anonymous photographers, where you seemed to be a strong advocate of deletion in many cases. Since then I've had reason to do some research on German copyright law for photos in connection with the deletion request for Image:Eitelprussia1883-3.jpg, and since at least some of the postcards involved in the previous discussion were German I think that my conclusions in general regarding photos from imperial (pre-1918) Germany might be of interest. Thus I quote here what I wrote in the discussion regarding the photo above:

The German copyright law of 1907 only gave a 10 year protection for photos (counted from time of publication). This was not prolonged until 1940 when the protected time was set to 25 years after publication (see [13]). Thus this photo - probably taken somewhere around 1910 - was in public domain already somewhere in the 1920s, and thus modern regulations (70 year after death of creator - which wasn't applied in Germany until 1985) can not be applied afterwards. /FredrikT (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Best regards. /FredrikT (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent news. If this can be confirmed, a specific template should be created to reflect your findings. Congratulations! Rama (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My source is the section "Geschichte des Schutzes für Fotografien" in the article on "Bildrechte" in the German language Wikipedia (see the external link in my previous post), but perhaps this is not in itself a reliable source enough to create a template? /FredrikT (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be better to provide a direct link to [14], but the template could mention the page on de:. Rama (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience of designing templates. Could you help? /FredrikT (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example: User:Rama/PD-2ndReich. I'll ask on the Village Pump for comments, could you do the same on the German equivalent? Thanks and cheers! Rama (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lupo has been kind enough to remind me that the EU directive 93/98/EEC makes this law obsolete. See Commons:Village_pump#German_PD-old for details. Well tried, though. Rama (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Lupo is right regarding photos taken 1939 or earlier. See my reply at the Village Pump. /FredrikT (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lithographie perree.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Œuvres d'art

Bonjour Rama. Je souhaite mettre sur Wikipédia des œuvres d’artistes québécois contemporains (peinture, dessin, gravure, sculpture). Je possède des photos numérisées de bonne qualité. Quelles sont les règles à suivre pour les publier sans problèmes. Avec mes remerciements, cordialement.--gilbertus (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour, et merci pour ta question,

dans un tel cas, il faudrait que tu obtiennes l'autorisation écrite des artistes, et que tu la transmettes à l'OTRS en envoyant un mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . L'autorisation doit impérativement mentionner clairement une licence ; je te conseille d'utiliser la deuxième lettre-type de Commons:Messages type, en choisissant la licence Cc-by-sa-3.0.

N'hésite pas à me demander plus de précisions si nécessaire, et bonne chance ! Rama (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

to see

[15]

Manfred Baumann Juliette Lewis photo

You've uploaded this photo of Juliette Lewis claiming you are the copyright holder. Are you Manfred Baumann? If not, do you have permission from him to release this photograph under the GFDL? If so, where is the OTRS ticket? Thanks. --David Shankbone (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The original image, Image:Baumann5.jpg, is in the public domain. I need no permission of any kind. Rama (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Thanks. I'm always worried about professional photographers creating legal problems for us. Not an issue here, though. Good luck. --David Shankbone (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Le Capricieux mp3h9704.jpg

As you will see in the description it might be the Brillant. Any idee which ship it is, in fact? --Stunteltje (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be Capricieux. Brillant had a different stern, I must have forgotten to change the description after classifying the photographs. I'll make the corrections, thank you for spotting the error.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nice pictures of beautiful ships, by the way. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lauching Duc de Bourgogne.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Rama, which software tool you use to draw the images, especially the French Navy ones like the Baraccuda and FREMM ones. Those are really beautiful. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you are too kind. The software is Inkscape. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi,

Could you help me on my talkpage. A user asked me a quistion i can not answer. Maybe you know more about the material and can help. You can find it here

Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

French governmental sources are in general not in the public domain, so the PD tag is a priori suspicious if not accompanied with a specific notice of authorisation. The 2D or 3D question is more or less moot because French law does not mention this notion, and the jurisprudence has not been consistent until now, which does not allow giving a definitive answer as to what constitutes a trivial reproduction and what constitutes a copyrightable photograph; however, in this case, I think that it is 3D enough to consider the image as an original photograph, be it only as a precaution.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Junon vs HMS Fox.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo permission

Hi, I was hoping to use one of your photos in my book. Email me at memcmurray@hotmail.com to discuss further. Thanks so much, have a great day!

Hubert Reeves

Mais t'as fini de flooder les catégories ? :D Y'a un mois y'en avais à peine quatre. A+ ~ bayo or talk 09:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Désolé, j'ai vraiment eu du mal à tirer une photo présentable de ce que j'ai ramené de cette conf. A la limite, celle avec le fond de feuillage est la meilleure, même si elle est en résolution relativement faible. Rama (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Duquesne

Great! pibwl (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maillart - Salginatobel

merci pour les images du pont de Maillart sur wikimedia commons.

[Wikipedysta:Tecra|Tecra]] --212.76.37.206 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)