Jianhui67 is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Hy :)
my name is doro frankenberg, and i'm a part of the band called 'Capricia'. you sand me a warning that i have uploded pics that i dont have the copyright for them.. but thay are my pics :) so i hope that it's OK .thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogie100 (talk • contribs)
Hi Doro, I assume you are refering to File:Capricia band.jpg, right? I found this image on http://www.metal-archives.com/band/view/id/3540335556#, which was last modified in 2013. So, the photo was surely not created today. If you did indeed shoot the original photo, please send an informal confirmation about that fact to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . The content of your email will not be disclosed to anybody than your OTRS-volunteers, who will then add an o.k.-note to the image page.
1st one: Well, User:TFoA contains a statement that suggests authorship. However, we should ask for a permission to OTRS.
3rd & 4th one: not easy to say whether in these shots the colored windows have own copyright. Might go through a DR in order to attract other opinions. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diese beiden Files snd jetzt in Ordnung gebracht. Kannst du die Löschdiskussion schließen und die DR-Bapperl aus den Fil-Seien nehmen? ich glaube, ich als Fußgänger darf das nicht eigenmächtig, oder? Liebe Grüße und dir ein gesundes und zufriedenes 2014! --Martinatalk23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Anlass sich für Offline-zeiten zu entschuldigen!! Inzwischen hat's ein Kollege eredigt und das hier war einfach ein guter Anlass dir Neujahrsgrüße zu hinterlassen. :-) --Martinatalk16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of Aitizaza Hasan,is not copied from AFP:
Sir,
You tag the Picture as copied fron AFP. This picture has been pubished in many local and international newa papers and electronic media,social media and also in posters.you can take picture from any other source/so can one say that it is copied from a specific agency. If i am wrong please guide me \ Lots of thanks.
The picture of Aitizaza Hasan,is not copied from AFP:
Sir,
You tag the Picture as copied fron AFP. This picture has been pubished in many local and international newa papers and electronic media,social media and also in posters.you can take picture from any other source/so can one say that it is copied from a specific agency. If i am wrong please guide me. Lots of thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarghun11 (talk • contribs)
Picture of Miangul jahanzeb for D.R is not a copyrigh voilation
Sir, You tag the Picture as copied from a specific site. This picture has been pubished in many local and international news papers and electronic media,social media and also in posters.you can take picture from any other sourceso.The said web might also copied from other source.it is a public figure,spic ture. How can one say that it is copied from a specific agency. If i am wrong please guide me.Good wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarghun11 (talk • contribs)
Hi Zarghun11,
sorry, I couldn't reply earlier as I am very busy in real-life currently. While I admire Aitizaz Hasan and think he is a true hero, we still need to respect copyright. You need to provide reliable information about who is the real photographer or why this photo should be under a free license, which allows any kind of use, including commercial use. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1389401211123.jpg-620x349.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Túrelio, I noticed on the talkpage of Er. Avinash Singh that you nominated two files for deletion, but one of them was recently uploaded by another account under the same filename. Can you check to make sure that it's different from the version you previously nominated for deletion? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roerich is of great renown in India!
There are in India ar least TWO museums dedicated to Roerich; plus art institutions; paintings in various museums etc.
Please google Roerich, also follow references and links, also Wikipaintings, to know of Roerich's - and the Roerichs' ! - importance to India.
P.C. Haesner, Berlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.159.23 (talk • contribs)
Hello, Túrelio. How are you? I have a big problem about this user, he uplaods freely a big quantity of photos of politicians, now he reached the 70th warning but he ignores the warnings and today uploaded more photos. Please I need an administrator help. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should any of these 2 DRs be kept open or closed now as keep or delete in your opinion? The second DR seems a little more complicated but I don't think the image in the first DR can be kept. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not think about his English wiki account. Thanks for taking action on the second image as there ere 2 replacement photos. As for this image in human flickr review, I see no one wants to mark it. All I know is that the flickr account owner does claim in Cyrillic to have taken this 2009 photograph on the flickr source...as I copied the name into google translate and got the same flickr name here as the flickr account. (Егор Васильев is 'Egor Vasilyev') The uploader has few images though here. Best Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this image is 'own work', I don't know why there is a NC restriction on the flickr license. Unfortunately, I will have to sign off soon as its 1:15 AM here in Canada but someone may fail this image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While there seems to be a problem, in fact it is not, as the person who uploaded this image in 2008 in well known here and is the same who added[3] the Flickr-URL in 2014. However, I am not sure why he did this. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the uploader tried to get this image deleted also in November from its history but Yann reverted this. I used your edit to revert his attempt to get someone to flickrfail the image but he may succeed in the future. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, anscheinend hat die causa Schwedenhaus/Monitor doch keine weiteren Kreise gezogen, sonst hätten die das wohl nicht gerade jetzt hochgeladen. Da es sich um eine Bearbeitung handelt (Portraits vermutlich unabhängig aufgenommen) und eindeutig um eine professionelle Aufnahme, scheint es mir angebracht, eine formale Bestätigung (OTRS) einzufordern. Eigentlicher Knackpunkt ist aber die stark werbliche Aufmachung; letztlich ist es ein Werbebanner. Allerdings haben wir dafür m.W. keine festen Regeln, sondern was akzeptabel ist und was nicht, wird oft etwas zufällig entschieden. Vielleicht wäre ein normaler LA die beste Lösung, weil er ein breites Meinungsspektrum ermöglicht. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Uploader (Radio Wuppertal) ist wohl auch Radio Wuppertal (einer vom Team). Das erste was ich gedacht hatte ist (auch) ein Werbebanner, aber nur auf den ersten Blick. Ich denke formell so weit mit Auge-zu-drücken alles in Ordnung, aber deine Meinung wollte ich mal hören. Ich wäre glücklicher, wenn von den abgebildeten Personen ein "normales" Portrait existiert - ich finde die drei recht willkürlich ausgewählt. Das Team ist größer. (Vgl. auch dieser Edit) --Atamari (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so just so I'm clear, even thought I now own the picture that once belonged to him (the person in the photo) and took a scan of it, it's still copyright because I'm not the U.S. government and don't have rights to it? I thought copyright changed if the person died? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's different. If it was shot by a U.S. goverment employee (such as another soldier), it is by U.S. law in the public domain. However, even then it should not be labeled as "own work". In case it wasn't shot by a U.S. goverment employee, it gets rather complicated, per File:PD-US table.svg, and we would surely need information about the photographer. The fact that the depicted died has no consequence at all for the copyright of the image, except if the depicted was also the photographer, which is unlikely in the case at hand. --Túrelio (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Turelio, could you explain me how is deleting all my photos from Wikipedia, and many received authorization from the author to put them in their respective page. Who are you? Explain to me what you're doing or I'll report you for abuse, since excluding contents are indiscriminately. I demand explanations, if you have convincing arguments. Waldir Bronsonn (User talk:Waldir Bronsonn) 01:56, 02 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) To answer your 1st question, I am an administrator of this site (for details see Commons:Administratoren), as is also evident from my userpage.
2) Tone down your threatening wording, which is completely inappropriate.
3) Let's see the facts:
in June 2013 you had uploaded File:Charles bronson Wiki.jpg and claimed it to be own work. However, the same image had already in 2011 been published here, where it had been credited to "Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images". Violating Getty's copyright can be very expensive.
a few days ago you had uploaded File:Penitentes- Dos Ritos de Sangue a Fasncinação do Fim do Mundo. 2010.jpg under a CC-BY-SA license. As the source site does not mention any CC license, it has been tagged as missing permission. What is so hard to understand in that? You are requested to provide a valid permission from the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS).
you claimed your upload File:Marcelo grassmann.jpg as own work and from 2013. However, it had already been published in 2012 at this site and credited to the depicted person.
File:Chuva, 1957.jpg is a reproduction of a painting by Oswaldo Goeldi, who died only in 1961. Thereby his works are protected til end of 2031. The publication of your reproduction violates his copyright. Where is the evidence of his permission?
File:Mengele, 1982.jpg is a reproduction of a painting by Rubens Matuck, who is still living. Where is the evidence of his permission?
by the way, did you really shoot File:Guy Veloso.jpg by yourself or did you get the photo from the depicted person?
Olá, Túrelio! Obrigada pela mensagem que deixou. Bem, tentei fazer o upload como "fins educativos" (o que é permito pelo Commons, pois temos vários casos assim), só que não consegui preencher bem os campos, já que foi minha primeira vez. Não haveria como você fazer a gentileza de fazer esse upload sob essa licença, já que tem mais experiência? Precisaria desse filme para ilustrar três artigos da Wikipédia. Abraços! Luz del Fuego (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luz del Fuego. Sorry, but I don't speak Portuguese, though I was able to get your posting translated. The problem is, Commons' policy does not allow upload which are "free only for educational uses", see Commons:Licenciamento. So, as for the movie poster, you might try to contact the movie company and ask them to provide the poster under a free license. For details see Commons:OTRS/pt. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio! Schaust du bei Geleenheit einmal über diese Category, da ist die obere Hälfte doppelt, habe wohl wieder was falsch angelegt - danke schön! Viele Grüße ----Martin1009-the Seeker22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Martin 1009, ich habe die Gallery in der oberen "Hälfte" einfach entfernt, da dieselben Bilder ja auch ganz normal (per Kat.) angezeigt werden. War das so o.k.? --Túrelio (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dankeschöön Túrelio, das war super. Ich kam einfach nicht in den Bearbeitungsstatus. Ausserdem muss ich mich seit Tagen bei Commons anmelden, obwohl ich vorher schon bei WP war. Es wird die Sprache und die Anmeldung von Commons verlangt, vorgeschlagene Sprache ENGLISH??? Bisher wurde alles von WP auf Commons übernommen??? Verstehst du das? Viele Grüße und ein schönes WE von ----Martin1009-the Seeker20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ist bei mir gelegentlich auch, wenn ich von Commons auf :en oder :de wechsle. Sobald ich dann aber auf (eigene) Beiträge oder Beo klicke, bin ich doch schon eingeloggt. Es handelt sich anscheinend nur um eine Verzögerung des automatischen Einloggens. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Danke Túrelio, ich werde das mal weiter beobachten. Noch eine Frage zum Abschluss: Darf man das Foto einer SCHALLPLATTE von 1966 (Polydor/Stern TV) hochladen?? Erstmal vielen lieben Dank Für deine stete Hilfsbereitschaft. LG----Martin1009-the Seeker21:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--58.69.155.97 10:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)First, let me express my gratitute to you, in teaching me how to let my photos reach the entire universe of wisdom. But sad to say, (after more than - Total editcount: 120,085[4] from 10:40, 27 January 2010 (4 years ago), using just 2 cameras, Sony high tech and Nikon AW 100, even if I covered 14 Philippine provinces, including their more than 300 towns, with their cultural heritage and treasure, the churches, town halls, landmarks, plus the photos for stub articles, and Wikipedia articles without even a single photo, the schools, institutions, and the like), -- there is a serious personal attack[5] and repeated clandestine attempts to block me from sharing my wisdom in the great encyclopedia of treasure photos. The truth is the truth no matter zero human being believes in it, taking from Bishop Fulton Sheen. I spent more than $ 21,000 for transportation and necessary expenses since I devotedly reached the farthers 8 hours to and 8 hours back from the farthest Philippine town. I was accused of using Commons as personal hard drive to store my photos, even if I stressed tersely that I solely upload to Commons, never in any site or internet website, from 10,000 to 120,000. Second, before I contributed to Commons, I was invited by an administrator and I thought that it is next to impossible due to the tons and litanies of Rules that could be manipulated to tailor made a stalker, enemy, detractor ... to design blocking. For instance, Wikipedia Administrator User:TheCoffee has only commons.wikimedia.org 02:15, 26 March 2008 2,864 [6] vis-a-vis my 120,000. This may show, that many editors would rather not follow the inclusive or put as many photos you feel and believe to be shared than be censored by technicality. But I have faith in the philosophy of the makers of this Commons and in you, among others, who believe in good faith, despite repeated mistakes. I have no idea, how many administrators here agree with the accuser, and I believe this will go on. For example, the blurry, the bad pictures, like redundant ones, and the over-categorizing [7] attack, even my alleged mistakes in categories are so few compared to the unchallenged categories I created 1, 495, the 300 Philippine towns, and schools, etc. In view of the foregoing, please help me discern, if I need to RETIRE as a better exit, or do I need to be blocked; you comprehend the game of numbers; I and you may not know, how many votes will I get if a template of blocking is copy pasted in my soul and spirit. Simply put, or tersely, can I still continue despite the repeated stalking, editing and personal attack by 1 editor? I decided not to log in but I know this will be read. However, I believe in you and your love of good photos despite my alleged mistakes, Sincerely.--58.69.155.9710:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi R., I am sorry that you had such an experience, which should not happen, but regrettably happens to many of us at some time. 1) I don't see in Briarfallen's posting any threat of you getting blocked, for which there is no base in our policy anyway. 2) Try to not take this too personally. Though the posting reads rather unfriendly, the poster probably just was angry as he got the impression that nothing had improved since his earlier postings. 3) Nevertheless, you should try to take the factual points of criticism and the proposals for improvement to your heart and try to correct your upload- and edit-behaviour in regard to uploading of near-duplicate images or such of inferior quality. [I'm going offline for the moment, but will return later this day.] --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much and good morning from here, the beautiful Philippines, the scorching heat but very good lights for photos. Before these serious attacks short of request of my blocking, I asked P199 to adopt me, but refused since there is no adoption in Commons - my point is: my undying and eternal love to focus on photography and to leave the matters of review of my categories, bad pictures and duplicates as they think but not for me a lover of inclusive photography - to patrollers, reviewers and those who would rather clean Commons as part of the collaboration. I deeply understand the predicament of these 2 editors, even stating that I am defiant. I share your experiences here and in Wikipedia the pains you bear and even bad languages. A cursory perusal of my talk pages reveal, how respectful and how I bowed to their requests even if the categories are really in the gray areas. For example, Filipino-Chinese, the article of Wikipedia fits very well with my photos of 2014 Manila Chinatown, Chinatowns in Asia. I want Class D and E readers including very ignorant of Wikipedia Chinese and town officers to access my photos by putting many but sensible categories so that they would have a chance to see my photos. For example, when I photo a town like Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, all the officers Facebook, and they asked me how to get my photos. Imagine how ignorant they are. So, I told them, in about 5 days, just type this town in Wikipedia, then go down, then copy the link address of Commons for this town and copy paste it in your FB for printing, viewing. Same with 2nd year high school 14 years old students here, that I discern, the maker of Commons would like to share his wisdom via photos. PLEASE monitor my talk pages, I desire to listen to them but I cannot really comply with all what they want. You know, I covered by photography in these 120,000 photos the 200 towns of 14 provinces, and I still desire to photo more provinces unless they want me blocked. Therefore, I know that no amount of explanation can satisfy my haters. And it is a matter of time that I will be blocked if they have the numbers. No amount of efforts in these 120,000 photos can overturn the numbers if they have to block me if they decide so.
I did photo the entire San Fernando, Pamanga, [8] and all the towns of Pampanga here 22 towns[9] and all the towns of Pangasinan[10] 48 town, yes all of them including the following towns of the following provinces: * Aurora[11] * 6 towns, in Batangas[12] 33 towns, Benguet [13] Tuba and Baguio, all 25 towns in Bulacan [14], all 23 towns in Cavite [15], 1 in Ifugao [16], in La Union [17] 13 towns, 31 towns in [18] Laguna, 18 in Metro Manila [19] 12 towns in Quezon [20] 14 in Rizal Province [21] 18 in Tarlac [22] 14 in Zambales [23], and of course the churhes, schools and landmarks = or more than 200 towns.
Special request to determine the Consensus of Admintrators on my status: Wikibreak template on my Userpage
My question therefore is: a) do you have the numbers of administrators vis-a-vis theirs, that I will not be blocked, or do they have the numbers to block me? Let me explain to you, that blocking is a personal vote, not a technical one; I am a magistrate, and in America, the US S Court is highly divided say 5-4 on many cases, and here in Philippines, there are lots of 8-7 votes, finer points of law cases, b) is it time to RETIRE and put the RETIRE template in my User page rather than be blocked? Many hard-working editors here were blocked due to the numbers garnered by their haters. Will this happen to me? c) May I ask you to adopt me if it is possible in Wikipedia, if it will do good? --180.191.1.14003:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IN VIEW of the foregoing, may I respectfully request you to ask the consensus of Administrators on the very issue of whether I should be blocked and stopped from uploading, editing Commons, as stated by an editor in your a talk page. I am willing to retire as an alternative, but if they have faith in me despite my philosophy of inclusion and Faith, then I will continue. Rest assured that I will try my best to follow the rules in my limitations and beliefs. I await your help on this matter, I know you are busy. Sincerely and thanks--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this photograph which I took myself. You then deleted it for possible copyright violation. I left an undeletion request a few days ago, because the photograph meets copyright criteria (I took it). I suggest that if you need confirmation you email Mr Orrell at the address on his website. Thanks for your help with this.
Blrojas (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can have the lower resolution image above deleted. I cannot remove the uses of this lower resolution 2008 image on the .Ka wikipedia website. Both images have the same source so the flickr account owner (Mr. Jarvis) likely cleaned up the image a little after I uploaded the original photo in 2008--with his permission. Mr. Jarvis likely decided a few years after 2008 to license his images freely as he states here...so he must have then released his maximum resolution photo which wasn't available in 2008/2009. That image is of the Temple of Dakka as this image is of the Temple of Maharraqa as Mr. Jarvis notes. Right now there are 2 images of the same Dakka temple. Kind regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leoboudv, I've replaced the image on :ka. However, they are not fully identical; take a look the foreground. So, I am not sure whether that is relevant and whether we should keep the lower-res version. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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!
This photo is from the Parliament of Australia website.[24]
I read this statement regarding copyright on the site. With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.[25]
You are correct as I didn't check for exceptions to this in the metadata.
Thanks CamV8 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I have done the same thing with the brewarrina fish traps photo. oops. You may delete this image.
Hi CamV8, image seems to be fully o.k. for me. Created in 1893 and "Materials in the Freshwater and Marine Image Bank are in the public domain. No copyright permissions are needed. Acknowledgement of the Freshwater and Marine Image Bank as a source for borrowed images is requested." --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, yo no hablo sufficientemente espanol. This edit is nearly 1 year old, so, you are coming a bit late. Anyway, I put my rationale into the edit summary[26]. The images on both external links have far lower resolution than "our" version. So, they cannot be the true source. However, in order to be sure about the authorship and copyright, somebody should directly contact the depicted lady (laura.carrera[at]cesvide.mx) and ask her about that. As you are fluent in spanish, could you do this? --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, would be greateful for a hint. I have uploaded some pics coming from the same internet source and under the same Creative Commons license. You have marked some for deletion, while you have ignored the other ones. The two examples are:
Would you bother to explain the rationale? The former is a photo by an anonymous author taken in 1937, the latter is a political poster produced in 1977. I would rather guess that a 76-year-old photo with no author traceable is more likely to have the copyright expired than a 36-year-old poster of the political party which still exists. Thanks, cheers Dd1495 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is about the source sylmpedia.fr. The immediate source page (linked above) does not contain any information about source and author of the photo. Theereby you cannot conclude it's an anonymous work. Due to the legal consequences of such a classification, it requires far more research than just having a "source" which does not contain such information. Therefore, to me sylmpedia.fr doesn't look as a reliable source for uploads to Commons. About the second file: I had seen it, but found it less relevant (low resolution, etc.) than the other images. But that's not a final judgement, it's just due to my limited spare time. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, thanks for your prompt answer. I appreciate your lack of time, though anyway would expect some consistency when tagging files for deletion. If SYLMpedia is a dubious source, perhaps we should by default reject all images derived from it?
As to exact images discussed (one tagged for deletion, other ignored). I totally agree that the "requete" photo does not contain exact info on source and the author. However, the "Parti Carliste" image does not contain either - but you decided to spare if from the hatchet :-).
To start form the other end, if you give one image ("Parti Carliste") a benefit of the doubt, why another image can not enjoy the same benefit? You gave two reasons: resolution and relevance. The file Requetes carlistes (or, for that token, "Don Javier", a photo from 1914-1918, almost a hundred years old) is also of low resolution. The "relevance" criterion you use seems to me applied totally arbitrarily; not sure why a poster from 1977 is more relevant (to what, acutally?) than a photo from 1937.
Last but not least, please let me note that I have not tagged the "requete" photo as being an "anonymous work", as you imply. I have indicated that the author of the photo is "unknown", meaning I do not know the author. Yes, maybe there is someone in the world who knows the anuthor of the picture, but for the rest of the world - including myself, yourself and the wikipedia community - it is an unknown author. I have combed the Internet for some time and written e-mail to three sites also displaying a photo, but got no answer. I guess it does not qualify as "far more research", though I actually wonder at what point we should be satisfied that the research was sufficiently thorough and we can allow a picture with an author we do not know to be published in Wiki.
A conclusion: suggest you tag also the "Parti Carliste" for deletion or remove the deletion tag from other SYLMpedia files.
Sorry to bother, but I justify my grumbling ;-) not also by my self-interest (which is getting my photos accepted), but I hope also by the interest of the community (which is removing arbitrary judgement and getting the criteria clear). Cheers, Dd1495 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edmunddantes, thanks for uploading these superb photos. However, are you Nancy Wong? If not, you cannot upload her copyrighted works. If yes, please provide her permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Turelio,
I am Nancy Wong and I am also Edmunddantes. I uploaded my superb photos onto wikimedia commons and give myself permission to do so.
Thank you very much.
Nancy Wong
San Francisco
February 22, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmunddantes (talk • contribs)
Hi Nancy,
I had hoped something like this.
However, when looking through a number of your uploads, I've found that for some you wrote "author=Edmunddantes" and for some "author=Nancy Wong". This is a bit confusing, especially if actually all photos are by Nancy Wong. Remember, that the author-entry is legally binding for re-users of CC-BY-licensed images. They have to credit the name out of that entry.
In addition, for File:WAYNEWANG1981.jpg you have actually send such a kind of permission as I asked for in my comment on your talkpage. Why don't you just mail a summary-permission for all these uplads to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and ask them to add them to the original ticket? Besides, having such a ticket on your uploads will save you from future "questioning" by other recent-upload patrolers. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DIM SUM PIX:
Hello. You've been captioning the Dim Sum photos over at Wikipedia as "A [deleted] scene from the film", but the images on Commons are credited as "Photo by Nancy Wong". Are these on-set photos that you took yourself, or stills from the film that you've just accidentally applied boilerplate credits to at Commons? Wikipedia has to be a little more careful with the usage rights of film stills, so it'd be good to know which they are. --McGeddon (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
See above post. This account is by Nancy Wong. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I just wanted to check that she hadn't accidentally copy-and-pasted "Photo by Nancy Wong" onto some uploaded film stills from Dim Sum, given that she's been captioning them as simply "A scene from the film" over at Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
From Nancy Wong:
Hello, all: I, Nancy Wong, aka Edmunddantes have not "accidentally copy-and-pasted" my own photos with "Photo by Nancy Wong" on any of the photos I've uploaded. These are my personal photos from "Dim Sum" from 1983. They are casual snapshots I took myself in San Francisco which I had kept for 30 years and am now releasing. I'll be uploading some more photos later today 2/24/14 and would like you all to know that my photos belong to me and that I'm sharing them with the wiki world and these photos do not need to be tagged. All my photo files are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Thanks very much for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.23 (talk • contribs)
Hi, Túrelio! Please restore the file Absenth - Erotica 69.jpg This image is the cover of the music album of my band and all rights belong to me. I do not violate anyone's rights, spreading it in free access. The picture was painted by artist Yaroslav Dmitriev my idea and my order specifically. I have every right to publish this file. If necessary, we are ready to give references to our official websites and groups on social networks and send you the same thing there, from there designated official email addresses. Maybe it might help you understand what I really am the legal owner of the file? I hope you will take the right decision and restore the deleted file. Thanks in advance for your understanding. We just wanted to create a wiki article dedicated to our new album and did not want to infringe on someone's rights.
Sincerely, Oleg Govorov, vocalist and producer of russian band Absenth (http://absenth.me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshleavesser (talk • contribs)
Hi Oleg,
o.k., I can temporarily restore the image. However, as this is a commercial product and as another artist (Yaroslav Dmitriev) was involved (who should also be mentioned in the description!), we need to ask you to send a confirmation of you being the rights holder and willing to release it under the choosen license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (for datails: Commons:OTRS/ru). --Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)--Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply to my request for a speedy delete. If you read the previous entry on my talk page you'll see that another expert has challenged my identification and I agree with him. Is there any other way to remove your own uploads when they are wrong/you want to improve the image? By the way, I cannot remove the image from the Italian Wikipedia website. Charles (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the same problem with :eu. I've left a note on the talkpage. So, if you are sure that it is misidentified, then a removal should be no problem. Nevertheless, it should go through DR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why is the reason behind reporting our photo as possible copyright violation? It is a photo that was taken by us, Alien Huang Hong Kong Fans Club and is acknowledged by the one in the photo, namely Alien Huang. Thank you.
--Alienhuanghkfc (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this image is available all over the internet and has surely not been shot today, as you claimed. In addition, it's obviously not some low-quality fan-shot, but a professional promo-shot. Such shots are always copyrighted. So: who is the true photographer? You need to provide his or her written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Firstly, we did not state that it was taken today in our statement at all, the description of the photo was 2013新城勁爆頒獎典禮黃鴻升獲獎.jpg and the 新城勁爆頒獎典禮 was on 2013/12/26, we just changed the photo today because the photo was deleted. It was taken on the day of the prize ceremony 20131226 Metro Radio Prize Ceremony, in HKCEC, Wan Chai, Hong Kong. Secondly, please do not underestimate fan shots nowadays. Our fan club uses Canon 7D with the lens Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM. I am not sure which one of our equipment is what you called low quality as they are pretty professional equipment if you know something about photoshooting and we also use the programs Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop for fixing the photo afterwards. I am not sure what you have against us or about fan clubs in general but our high quality photos are all taken by me and I am the photographer of the fans club. If you doubt my skills and my equipment, please visit our flickr photo album: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alienhuanghkfc/sets/ if you viewed our album and still think that our photos are low quality fan shots, I have nothing to say. And by the way, although we are a fans club, we do have access to the press conference to take this kinds of photo and this type of photo taking is also acknowledged by the one in the photo namely, Alien Huang, himself. If you do have the contact, please do contact Alien, he will know me, the photographer from AlienHuangHKFC. Thank you.
--Alienhuanghkfc (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alienhuanghkfc, sorry, no offense meant by my remark about fan vs. official promo shots. It's just my general experience from several years. And no, I don't have anything against you or your club. However, every day scores of own-claimed images are uploaded to Commons, which are in fact not own work, but copyvios. Detection of such images is important in order to prevent re-users from getting exposed to litigation for copyright infringement. After looing into your Flickr-stream, your claim seem credible to me. However, is there any formal agreement who is the legal creator/rights holder of your shots? Usually only a natural person (such as you) can be the creator or primary rights holder. Did you transfer your copyright to the alienhuanghkfc? --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how can a single person be a fan club? Anyway, as Alienhuanghkfc is likely an institutional entity, which can't click on a camera, I would prefer if you send a clarifying statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), where this information will be treated confidentially (even I have no access to OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turelio,
I have received a warning about the media uploaded on Wikimedia missing a permission information.
How long do I have to prove that I have the permission?
No problem. It's a legitimate question. Per default you have 7 days from yesterday. If there is a real chance to get permission, you can always ask for a delay. In the moment when the permission-email has been sent to OTRS, you should tag the image file with {{OTRS pending}}, which will further delay the deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine passed the MP3 on to me, then I looked for the image of the actual CD cover and found you have none in your data so I shared what I found. Sorry it doesn't work for your purpose, since I can't find a copyright or link other than what I googled :-) You may proceed deleting it you will
User:Judgefloro per Judge Florentino Floro filed a one page Petition for Legal Determination with the IPO, 28 Upper McKinley Road, McKinley Hill Town Center Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634, Philippines, IPC building, which duly received the formal Query; he talked to Atty. Limbo who stated that Director Blancaflor is out of the country but will be back. The Petition will be assigned to the Lawyer in the newly created Bureau of Copyright, to wit:Copyright law of the Philippines enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known as Republic Act No. 829 enforced by the law: the Intellectual Property Office, or IPO, with the coordination of the IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines. IPOPHL creates Bureau of Copyright October 23, 2013 the amended IP Code Republic Act No. 10372 SECTION 1. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”. Tersely, per the Judge Floro Petition, Commons and Wikipedia will, in due course, receive an official legal opinion from the IPO.[27] Cheers.--58.69.155.9713:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Túrelio and good morning, take your time: IPO Letter and Petition filed [28] IPO Letter FoP filed with the IPO Bureau of Copyright newly created by amendment law of 2013; the IPO promised to render and issue a legal opinion after arrival of the Director from abroad.
I have contacted composer Aaron Walz about changing the CC copyright on his image for the wiki page I'm working on, and he has done so. Can you please reinstate the image (Aaron Walz.jpg). If it's still not up to specs, can you please let me know how else it needs to be changed. I am new to this whole Wikicommons-Wikipedia editing thing, and I'm finding the learning curve quite high and convoluted.
Zdravim, soubor byl smazán, protože jsem hlupák starý a hlava děravá a zapomněl jsem přidat informaci, že byl zaslán e-mail pro potvrzení OTRS a tedy tam jen chyběla šablona: {.{OTRS pending|year=2014|month=march|day=14}} (bez tečky samozřejmě). Povolení k uveřejnění posteru mám přímo od distributora. Do budoucna slibuji dávat si na to OTRS pozor.. :| --User:Mr paranut
Sorry! For some reason I assumed you spoke Czech.. My bad. I was just saing that I forgot to add the "OTRS mail sent" info as in {.{OTRS pending|year=2014|month=march|day=14}}, because I have permission to add the poster. Which was now cleared and reinstated, so no harm done. Next time I will add the OTRS info there with upload so we can avoid this. Have a nice day :) --User:Mr paranut
Mire. No sé inglés. Después por favor vea cual son los motivos. Porqué son tan tozudos ustedes con estos temas. No english. Ok? Yo fuí quien quería borrar (delete). Pero ya ví la forma de cambiar el tema. --Parair (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No entienden ustedes que fui yo quien pidio el borrado, destruido de la imagen. No pueden verlo en vez de hacer esto. --Parair (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand english at all and Google translator does not work in my computer. I do not understand, what is wrong. I re-opened the request. --Parair (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand even a basic level of english, you should get a spanish-speaking Administrador involved. I have reverted your edits in File:Firstdukeofalbadetormes.jpg, because 1) you have violated Commons:Overwriting existing files (You are not allowed to overwrite an existing image with a different image. The new image needs to be uploaded under a new filename.) and 2) as an ongoing deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firstdukeofalbadetormes.jpg) cannot be closed by simply removing the deletion note from the image page.
Schaust du dir mal bitte den User an, ich glaube nicht das bei dieser Postkarte die Rechte geklärt sind (auch wenn sie von Flickr gekommen sind). Auch zahlreiche andere Bilder sind in der Urheberschaft zweifelhaft (hier ohne Hinweis auf Freigabe) oder mit Wasserzeichen versehen. --Atamari (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hab ihn jetzt zunächst mal darauf angesprochen, die Urheber- und Quellen-Angabe richtig vorzunehmen. Die Prüfung der Legitimität der ursprünglichen Bilder von Flickr-Benutzerin Leonora Enking muss später erfolgen. --Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio,
zwei Bilder des Artikels zu "Walter Maier-Kößler" haben einen Achtungs-Vermerk von dir bekommen. "File.Ruinenlandschaft.jpg" und "File.Schiffe.Ölbild von Walter Maier-Kößler".
Die Bildrechteerklärung zu "File.Ruinenlandschaft.jpg" habe ich am 22.2.2014 eingereicht, wiederholt am 16.3.2014. Die Bildrechteerklärung zu "File.Schiffe.Ölbild von Walter Maier-Kößler" am 16.3.3014.
Von der Permissions-Commission habe ich eine Eingangsbestätigung bekommen und eine Ticketnummer [Ticket#: 2014031610007628] eralten. Bei allen Bildern ist beigefügt "Freigabe beantragt". Reicht das aus oder muss ich noch etwas machen?
Viele Grüße
Maieruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maieruli (talk • contribs)
Hi, vorab ein Punkt: es gibt das Benutzerkonto User:Maieruli und das Benutzerkonto User:Ulrich Maier, was etwas verwirrend wirkt. Es ist zwar nicht grundsätzlich verboten, dass jemand 2 Konten (was ich einfach mal vermute) auf einem Projekt hat, wenn es Gründe dafür gibt. I.a. sollte die Zusammengehörigkeit beider Konten aber auf der jeweiligen Benutzerseite erklärt werden. Falls beides deine Benutzerkonten sind und du eines nicht mehr brauchst, kannst du es auch stilllegen lassen.
bei File:Ruinenlandschaft.jpg wurde der OTRS-pending-Baustein leider erst heute eingesetzt. Wenn das bereits bei Einreichung der Genehmigung passiert wäre, dann wäre es erst garnicht zu dem gestern erfolgten Schnelllöschantrag gekommen. Ob das eingereichte Material ausreicht, müssen die OTRS-Kollegen entscheiden. Klar ist, du benötigst eine Genehmigung von dem/den Erben von Maier-Kößler.
Hi, vielen Dank für deine schnelle Antwort. Ich bin recht neu in diesem Geschäft, was du vermutlich längst bemerkt hast, und mache deshalb noch vieles falsch. Benutzerkonto User:Ulrich Maier hatte ich zunächst eingerichtet, ohne angemeldet zu sein, bis mich jemand darauf aufmerksam gemacht hat, ich sollte mich lieber anmelden und ein Pseudonym wählen. Ich werde mich darum bemühen, eines davon stillzulegen.
Erbe von Walter Maier-Kößler bin ich selbst, die Bilder in den Städtischen Museen Heilbronn habe ich selbst mit ausdrücklicher Einverständniserklärung des Museums aufgenommen, die Einverständniserklärung des Museums habe ich meinem Antrag bei OTRS beigefügt.
Das Originalfoto File:Porträt con Walter Maier-Kößler.jpgbesitze ich (samt Rechten) selbst. Ich habe es digital abfotografiert, um eine jpg-Datei zu bekommen.
bei File: Schiffe. Ölbild von Walter Maier-Kößler.jpg habe ich das Gemälde selbst aufgenommen. Es befindet sich in Privatbesitz. ich habe die Einverständniserklärung der Besitzerin dem Antrag bei OTRS beigefgügt.
Nochmals vielen Dank für die Unterstützung und viele
Grüße von Maieruli
Hi Túrelio, thanks for the message you left for me. One of my images got deleted and I swear I gave up because I looked around on how to properly cite and I didn't know where or how to do so. Would you be so kind to help me out, please! :) And yes.. the user page, coming up.MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was suspecting I was doing something wrong (my name had such an uncomfortable presence on those pages) but I never get to work the Derivative template, that's why I never used it. Thanks for teaching me, I will leave a note to myself in order to not forgive how to do it, and I will correct the rest of the montages. --RoRo (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was not wrong what you had done, just a bit suboptimal ;-).
I'm sorry I have a question, how do I manage the "permission" question when I have 2 photographs with different licences? For example cc-by-sa and cc-by. ¿Could you help me? --RoRo (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As CC-BY-SA is a bit more restrictive, you should put a montage of a CC-BY-SA and a CC-BY licensed image also under CC-BY-SA. --Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die neuere Version habe ich mit JPG-Illuminator mal etwas retouchiert. Schau mal, ob dir das so passt. Andernfalls kannst du gerne auf die Originalfassung zurücksetzen. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry (for trouble and for bad English), but I wasn't sure what to change to solve the problem.
NIOSH employees wrote me, that all documents on the their site are in the public domain (third image, far right), and I took it from the Ronald Schaffer's presentation .
The other two images taken from Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand, how to perform license in such cases (files with a different licenses).
Please help me - I'm no expert on Wikipedia, and already have problem, then had "the procedure to understand the intricacies". In addition, some of the project participants hasn't been "very" constructive. Use images from the original is undesirable, since they are of very low quality and black and white.
Из-за низкого качества машинного перевода в нём могут быть ошибки. Прилагается оргигнальный текст.
Прошу прощения, но я не понял - что именно нужно изменить, чтобы устранить проблему.
Сотрудники NIOSH написали мне, что все документы на их сайте являются общественным достоянием (третье изображение, крайнее правое), и я взял его из презентации Рональда Шаффера.
Остальные два изображения взяты из викисклада.
Пожалуйста, помогите разобраться - я не специалист по википедии, и уже замучался разбиратося в тонкостях. Кроме того, часть участников проекта ведёт себя очень неконструктивно. Использование изображений из оригинала - нежелательно, так как они очень низкого качества и чёрно-белые.
I had sent an email already to OTRS, that is why I did the additional upload to the wikimedia because Cindy Ashley-Nelson requested that. I am not very adept with wiki or wikimedia, especially since each time I've made contributions I have received a wide variety of different directions for very similar requests, so I'm a bit confused as to what I'm supposed to do. Anyway, my OTRS ticket# is [Ticket#2014021310013299]. Thank you for your help. I will now email Cindy Ashley-Nelson that I added the image to Wikimedia (by her request) because it looks like the email I tried to send did not send. Again, thank you and apologies for my being dense. Jennnu (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though I surely didn't send you an email. This was likely just the system notification, after I left a note on your talkpage. Anyway, I have no replaced the no-permission by a OTRS-pending tag, as it may take a while until an OTRS volunteer has checked the permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Túrelio,
Ohmygoodness! I had no idea that it was auto generated (and your name was attached). Apologies for the assumption. Anyway, thank you for letting me know and for doing the fix. What is strange is the the OTRS pending tag was there last week. Not sure why it disappeared or was not visible. Thank you very much! All the Best,
Jennnu (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quiero saber porque eliminaste mi imagen Fachada Noche.jpg aparece un enlace roto del ministerio de defensa de ecuador.
no se a que hace referencia ese enlace si la fotografía es de un autor colombiano. Agradecería tu pronta respuesta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luz Aída Gutiérrez Rojas (talk • contribs)
I have no idea what you are talking about. The image is neither deleted nor do you have any deleted image in your upload history. --Túrelio (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yours is a good question, and I tried to contact her on Flickr but I didn't find the way (I'm sorry for my clumsiness, I didn't find a messages box nor an e-mail direction). I have read her profile page in order to see if she has given an explanation for those scans and she says: (...) And this year Santa brought me a slide scanner ... so I have been busy converting my father's collection of old slides (some going back to the 1940s) into a more visual format.. Could that explain the postcard scan format? Anyway the best way to know is to ask her, but I don't know how to reach her. Any ideas? --RoRo (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, may be one needs a Flickr account to directly contact other Flickr users. Never mind if you don't have one. May be I'll find another way. --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, wir planen demnächst vom Portal Münsterland einige Fotoflüge über das Münsterland. Ich glaube, es würde die Arbeit für alle sehr erleichtern, wenn ich das Recht bekommen würde, Dateien auf commons verschieben (umbenennen) zu dürfen, denn wir werden ja im ersten Schritt alle Dateien mit kryptischer DSC-Bezeichnung hochladen und erst nachher weiter kategorisieren und umbenennen. Ich habe gerade an einem konkreten Fall mal wieder festgestellt, dass ich nicht selber verschieben darf. Weißt du, an wen ich mich diesbezüglich wenden kann? Kannst du das? Viele Grüße WatzmannTalk21:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turelio,
thank you very much for your help with the deleted Foto .
As i am not a computer/internet specialist such things are to me " böhmische Dorfer " which means i am completely lost.
Do you know how i could get that photo of the russian website ?
Anyway I did not want to be impolite, if that seemed so, please excuse me !
Normally I am a very peaceful person...:))
Hallo Túrelio, Du löschtest hier und hier zwei Bilder. Als Löschgrund war angegeben „Copyright violation: En España los derechos de autor caducan a los 80 años de la muerte del autor“. Ich habe nirgends etwas zu dieser 80-Jahre Regel für Spanien gefunden. Weißt Du mehr dazu? mfG --Botaurus st (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn Du den letzten Satz meinst, der benutzt das Präteritum. Aber sei´s drum; wenn das jedoch stimmt, dann wird man durch den Commonslizenzbaustein ganz schön aufs Glatteis geführt und die Spanische Wikipediaseite es:Dominio público verbreitet Falschinformationen. Bei Commons habe ich dazu auch nichts gefunden was der 70-Jahre Regel widerspricht. --Botaurus st (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um das Ganze nicht auf eine falsche Schiene geraten zu lassen: ich habe irgendwann mal von dieser 80-Jahre-Schutzfrist gehört, mich aber nie weiter damit beschäftigt. Bei der Löschung bin ich dem auch nicht weiter nachgegangen (weil ich dafür gar keine Zeit habe). D.h., de facto habe ich die Begründung des Antragsteller lediglich als zumindest nicht offenkundig unsinnig bewertet und meinerseits die undelete-in-2023-Kategorie hinzugefügt, damit die Datei nicht in völlige Vergessenheit gerät. Wenn du denkst, dass die Gültigkeit der 80-Jahre-Schutzfrist für uns hier eher fraglich ist, wäre es das Beste auf Commons:UD einen Entlöschantrag zu stellen. Alternativ könnte ich 1 Datei auch wiederherstellen und in einen regulären Löschantrag überführen, der Zeit für eine ausführliche Diskussion lässt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzt habe ich das hier gefunden. Bei Tod des Urhebers vor 1987 gilt in Spanien die 80-Jahre Schutzfrist. Also können die Bilder noch ein paar Jahre gelöscht bleiben. --Botaurus st (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I wasn't aware of that, though I wondered a bit about the "wave" of such kind of uploads over the last days. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About File:Monti Rossi da nord.jpg you deleted, source was flickr (I also have the original file) but author (Boris Behncke) has assured me that he has sent the permission to permissions-it@wikimedia.org about on 14th of march as required.
How can I check the permissions and reload the file? We are both newbies.
Hallo Túrelio,
darf ich dich heute nochmals um eine Überprüfung bitten. Es ist im Grunde das gleiche Problem, das wir in Deinem Archiv hier: [29] schon einmal besprochen haben. User:Esculapio hat von der Seite der SOF in den letzten Tagen folgende Bilder in commons mit Verlinkung des Disclaimers eingestellt:
Ich hatte in der Zwischenzeit schon einmal zu den Söhnen und Erben von Herrn Dr. Senghas Kontakt aufgenommen. Sie hätten im Grunde nichts gegen eine Freigabe für Wikipedia, aber nur mit der Einschränkung, dass keine kommerzielle Nutzung mit den Bildern erfolgt. Ich freue mich natürlich über jedes neue Bild einer neuen Orchidee in der Wikipedia, aber ich weiß nicht, ob wir diese Bilder hier behalten können. Dein immer guter Rat wird helfen. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Orchi,
tja, es ist tatsächlich ähnlich wie damals ;-). Wenn die seitens der SOF bei den Urhebern eingeholte Erlaubnis sich lediglich darauf bezieht "Bilder auf die Homepage der SOF zu verwenden", dann ist sie praktisch wertlos und der SOF-Disclaimer fahrlässig irreführend. Denn der derzeitige Disclaimer liest sich ja fast wie eine CC-BY-Lizenz. Ich hatte schon den Baustein {{Attribution}} herausgesucht, bevor ich mich erinnert habe. Das einzig sínnvolle hast du ja schon getan, den tatsächlichen Urheber oder Lizenzgeber zu kontaktieren.
Leider ist auf :de (anders als fair-use auf :en) kein Nutzungsmodell ohne Lizenz mit kommerzieller Nutzungsmöglichkeit zugelassen. Durch das jüngste Urteil des LG Köln gegen das Deutschlandradio[30] ist nochmal klar geworden, dass NC-Lizenzen infolge der fehlenden Definition von "kommerziell" tatsächlich etwas problematisch in der Handhabung sind. Auf WMF-Projekten ist sie ja eh nicht erlaubt.
Bis Herbst letzten Jahres hätten wir (ich auch) in einer solchen Situation geraten, dem Lizenzgeber doch vorzuschlagen, die Bilder in einer geringeren, aber für online-Nutzung gut ausreichenden Auflösung unter der CC-BY-SA-Lizenz zur Verfügung zu stellen und sich die kommerzielle Ausbeutung der höheren Auflösungen vorzubehalten; also das Bundesarchiv-Modell. Da die CC-Leute Ende letzten Jahres jedoch — in einer 180°-Kehrwende ihrer bisherigen Darstellung — zu bedenken gaben, dass die CC-Lizenzen stets von Work/Werk sprechen und deshalb wohl das Werk als solches lizenziert wird, war die Unterscheidung zwischen niedriger und hoher Auflösung nur Makulatur. Diese Einschätzung hat zwar noch keinen Gerichtstest überstanden, erscheint aber rechtspositivistisch durchaus plausibel.
Ergo: wenn du die Senghas-Erben nicht von einer die kommerzielle Nutzung einschließenden Lizenz überzeugen kannst, werden wir die Fotos leider nicht auf Commons halten können. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.....wieder mal eine perfekte Auskunft. Leider bezieht sich das Hinterfragen bei den Bildautoren nicht nur auf die Senghas-Bilder. Von obigen Bildern ist nur das erste Bild von Senghas. Ich folge Deiner Empfehlung, die Bilder zu löschen und User:Esculapio zu bitten, weitere Bilder, die mit dem copyright - Logo versehen sind, nicht mehr hochzuladen oder mit SOF Kontakt aufzunehmen, um Genehmigungen zur commons Verwendung zu erhalten. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have delete a foto of my because copyrights. I dont understand Havana is MY dog. I make that picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floris16 (talk • contribs)
I think it is. It is rather surely not own work, whereby the source is missing. It might, however, be already PD-old, though we need more information. --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wäre eine Möglichkeit, um input von Dritten zu erhalten. Vom Uploader ist wohl nicht so viel zu erwarten[31], zumal er das schon vor fast 3 Wochen hochgeladen hatte. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the images that you just deleted (all were on the Campus of St. Mary's College) all have "Public Commons" permissions on their source pages.
The message (at the bottom of each page), says:
"This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: Rights assessment for associated source material is the responsibility of the user."
Here are the links to each source page (where the "Public Domain" message is at the bottom of each page):
To see the "Public Commons Permission" on the pages, please scroll down on each page.
though I tagged several of your uploads, I actually deleted only 2 of them. Anyway, the reason why I tagged them for missing permission was the unclear evidence for a free license. Yes, I had read the "fair use in the public domain". But, what does that mean? I know, of course, the fair-use doctrine in US copyright. However, fair-use material is not allowed on Commons per our policy (and also per the terms in US law). I also know that works produced by US federal employees, are PD-UV-Gov. However, Maryland is not federal. Does Maryland has an identical provision in copyright law as US federal? As I am not a US native, I would recommend you to contact an US-based admin colleague, such as User:Jameslwoodward who is well-versed with the specialities of US copyright law(s). --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problems with "fair use in the public domain" as Túrelio -- we don't really know what it means. "Fair use" contradicts "public domain" -- if a work is in the public domain, then "fair use" does not apply as all uses are permitted. On the other hand, "fair use" is very restrictive and must be considered for each use -- there can be no fair use in a repository such as Commons, as it is context sensitive. Also, commercial use is generally not a fair use -- although a newspaper could probably use one of these images under fair use, you could not print and sell post cards using the images as a fair use. Since Commons requires freedom for all commercial uses, these don't qualify. You might try contacting the state archivist and getting them to clarify what they really mean by this.
To answer the other question that Túrelio raised -- as far as Commons knows, of the fifty states, only Florida and California have no-copyright laws similar to that of the Federal government and even those have some limitations.
The photograpy that I upload is a direcly ceded photo for the archive of Ramón Escobar i scan that photo personally. That photo you can't found ever. Oviusly this ex-mayor of Segovia have got many images on the internet.
I don't understad why you block it or something... That photo is mine.
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback. The photos that I uploaded is what I screenshot from the Facebook page CityU Secrets.
Can I use these photos? And how can I get the licence for publishing?
Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reimgp1 (talk • contribs)
Hi Reimgp1,
the problem with material from Facebook is that 1) it is not free per se, and 2) that a lot of material on Facebook is already a copyvio. If you want to obtain a permission, you need to make sure that it is really the photographer or rights holder and that he/she is willing to grant the image under a Commons-compatible license. See Commons:Permission and Commons:OTRS for details. --Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Deletion of File:Hamish Mchamish In Waterstones.jpg
Hi. That picture was mine. I took it. The copyright is mine. I have now uploaded it again under another name, with a note to that effect as well as the boilerplate. Is there anything else I need to do, or will it stay there this time? Cheers. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment at File talk:Urmantseva Anna 9.jpg. I have put all your uploads into Category:Anna Urmantseva. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please put all my uploads into Category:Urmantseva Anna
Thank you
Hiris63
Sorry, but your source http://www.tvc.ru/channel/person/id/27 states twice "Анна Урманцева", not the other way round. --Túrelio (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Turelio, you deleted Martin Kusch photo, which I had uploaded, because of Copyright violation, but this photo is on his academia.edu website, and I sent him a message there, and told me that this photo is not copyrighted, would you kindly undelete the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda-saxony (talk • contribs)
Dear Turelio, You are obviously good at WikiCommons. Some time ago I made some copywrite violation and You reacted then. My question is as follows: there is a cover of a book that I want to use. When I take a photo of this book and then use this photo in WikiCommons - is this legal? Best, Janrzeszow (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Janrzeszow[reply]
Hi Túrelio,
I'm writing you because you seem to be "in charge" to these pictures like File:Jean XXII.JPG that I previously tagged as possible copyvios. A (very reliable) user (I know him from wpfr) wrote me on my discussion page and explained me that these murals are identical copies of paintings (fifteenth century) shown at palais des papes d'Avignon. I suppose that in this particular case we could consider that these pictures can be kept. But I'm not sure. Other point, I dont know how to precise this origin in pictures description (the user who contacted me wonders on that too).
Thank you, --Aga (d) 09:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aga,
not really in charge ;-) just working the speedy-queues and deleting a lot of the images you had tagged. If you know a knowledgable user on :fr, please invite him to the deletion-discussions on Commons, even if he can write only in French. As these murals are in France, we need expert opinion from the French legislation. --Túrelio (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have deleted only this one File:Allamah Sayeedi.jpg because you seem to have copied from the web. When you take a photo or painting or drawing, which had created by somebody else and which is still in copyright (70 years after death of author), and then change it or add something, you have created a derivative of the original work, which requires permission by the original copyright holder. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Túrelio. About images, I have uploaded (Works of Dimiti Tavadze – დიმიტრი თავაძე). I am Dimitri's grandson, George Tavadze and I'm current owner of these works. So what kind of information I must provide? Thanks Ahead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoracha (talk • contribs)
Hi,
thanks for uploading reproductions of the nice works.
Photographies of works of art can have 2 copyrights, one for the original work of art and one for the photography. However, to be the owner of a copyrighted painting does not give the owner any copyright over it. The owner is not even allowed to create postcards with a photo of the painting and sell them.
If you are the photographer, then we need only to take care about the original copyright. After Dimiti Tavadze has died, usually his copyright goes to his wife, except when he has decided otherwise and put it into his last will. When his wife has died, usually the copyright goes to their children, and so on. So, if his wife (your grandma) is still alife, then you need to ask her to sign a permission. If she has died already, then you need to get the permission from the person(s) who hold the copyright now, which would be your uncles and/or aunts. If there is more than 1, you need to obtain permission from all of them.
The process for a permission is explained in Commons:OTRS, which has also versions in other languages, but not in your one. Basically, the copyright holder needs to confirm 1) that he/she is the copyright holder for the original works and 2) that he/she gives permission to release these reproductions of the original works (filenames need to be listed completely!) under a free license, which allows any kind of use. I don't reed Russian, but probably you can get an idea at Commons:OTRS/ru. The permission then needs to be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . Now, if your grandma has no access to email, then you should prepare such a declaration of permission on paper for her, send it to her, ask her to sign it and to send it back to you. You then could scan it and email the scan to the above mentioned address. --Túrelio (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hello thanks for the message you sent me, I might ask you to remove the advertisements from those files, I am creating a project with a friend of mine for those images, and therefore should not be touched, you may remove alerts :) :) :)) )
I have no idea what you mean by "advertisements". Fact is that the required source information is missing from all those files. Due to the age of these photos it is rather evident that the uploader is not the photographer. When you reproduce an existing photography, originally created by somebody else, you do not become its author. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
since you can not become the 'old author of a photo, and the following copyright expired in europe, give me the ability to change file queoi marking that the copyright expired in Europe,, the author' s photos and died 70 age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.90.33.15 (talk • contribs)
I did not block you, so you still have the ability to edit. However, you should NOT remove the problem notes. I or any other admin will check whether the information is sufficient and then eventually remove the problem notes. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see those photos are a great testimony of the past, and 'idea of seeing queoi file that almost announce their end mind, however I give you permission to leave the warnings, but I hope it will not be deleted, because those photos are a real rarity, maybe you could help me modify the structure by placing the right data xd :) :))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.90.33.15 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for the note re: deletion of this image from the page Bunyip, Victoria.
The creator is currently using the tag CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. From the gist of your message I assume it is the 'not for commercial use' part that is not allowed. Does this mean that Wikimedia Media is a 'commercial' outlet ?
Image has been removed from page so feel free to delete it from the Commons.
Hi Henry, "a 'commercial' outlet" — no; but from the beginning of Wikimedia projects it was a requirement that the licensing for text contributions and for media files should also allow commercial use and creating derivatives. See Commons:Licensing for more details. If we hadn't this restriction, we could host many more files than we can host now. However, external re-use would be far more complicated. Few days ago, a court in Germany has condemned a public (sort of official) broadcaster who had used a NC-licensed image from Flickr.[32] Though most people in my country consider this broadcaster to be non-commercial, the court decided that they were not entitled to use this image. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio, a girl, new to Commons and unmindful of copyright rules has emailed me requesting the deletion of her uploads. I've gone ahead and marked the files for DR. You can find a confirmatory note from her on the DR page. I request an early action from your side. Regards, --Muzammil (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi turelio, i have a problem.
I created some article but all of them was deleted because i added wrong references.
I try to create reference but i am not be able to do it.
How can i add the reference perfectly.
Sometimes I take example from other article's references,bui i do not understand.
I have created ,any the articles of french language as well, but all of them has not deleted yet.
Could help me to add reference. Thanks. Highermafs (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me please why have you blocked the image Carlos Yuste Jiménez?? The picture has been made to Juan Carlos, has been made in a public venue (football stadium), and has been published in several websites becouse doesn't need a copyright.
It's my first time uploading an image and I don't know how can be re-published again. Could you do that for me?
Hi, that's rather easy. You had sourced it to Google, which would mean (C) Google Inc., and wrote author=unknown. However, the EXIF data clearly stated (C) CARMELO RUBIO/OSCAR MATEO/ANGEL MARTINEZ. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, turelio,
ich versteh nicht wieso du meine bilder immer löscht??? ich tue die bilder selber fotografieren da ich das spiel habe deshalb frage ich dich aufzuhören Sie zu löschen...by DonLinux — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonLinux (talk • contribs)
Hi DonLinux, 1) ich habe deine Bilder nur zur Löschung markiert, gelöscht hat sie ein anderer Kollege; ergo haben mind. 2 Leute deine Uploads als problematisch angesehen. 2) "bilder selber fotografieren" ist wohl nicht ganz zutreffend; es handelt sich um screenshots/captures vom Bildschirm. 3) Wenn du von Computerspielen einen Screenshot machst und diesen verbreitest, verletzt du mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit das Urheberrecht des Spieleentwicklers. 4) Ferner fanden sich deine Uploads bereits massenhaft im Internet. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Formal hast du sicher recht. Aber es ist sehr wahrscheinlich weder das Werk des Hochladers noch korrekt lizenziert. --Túrelio (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio! Sorry, if I upload images with incorrect license, but I thought that PD-Italy was good, in fact the images were old, and I thought that the license should be correct. Excuse me again, I am not an expert of Wikimedia Commons. -- Dallomo (talk) 13:57 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok thank you, but where can I found the source where the informations are explained? I commonly wrote the http address where I found the image, but I probably made a mistake. -- Dallomo (talk) 15:05 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok maybe I have understand, thank you very much! So if I upload that image, with that source, is correct? Or it will be deleted? -- Dallomo (talk) 15:27 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot tell in advance. However, only such kind of source information allows us to check whether the image is free or allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you very much, next time I will do it correctly. Excuse me again. Kind regards. -- Dallomo (talk) 15:44 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Turelio,
removed the deletion requests since I think that the photographer uploaded the pictures based on the original files.
See disc page of pictures.
Hello can you explain this? The file is in Indonesian and meta-data is complete.
The text content is "My own work using tools" and meta data says "Software used - Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows". He's Bebaskan pengetahuan/free knowledge 2014 participant and that image is his own face, (PS: A real madrid fans).--AldNonUcallin?☎19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the single photos are on Commons, you should put the links into the source-entry.
If they are not yet on Commons, you might upload them now ;-). But for now, you should write behind your username "(montage and all photos)". --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you.
Was machen wir jetzt mit diesen beiden Fotos [33] und [34]. Da scheint ganz offensichtlich etwas nicht zu stimmen. Ich vermute, dass der Licensereviewer etwas falsch gemacht hat. Die ursprüngliche Version gibt bereits an, dass es sich um eine nd-Lizenz handelt. Ich plädiere für löschen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe ihn bereits darauf angesprochen und möchte noch sein Feedback abwarten. Ich gehe auch davon aus, dass das schon at upload-time ND war. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you seem not to really understand the problem here. You manually Flickr-reviewed this image as being under CC-BY.[35] However, only 2 days after your review, the image is found NOT to be CC-BY at source. So, IMO it is highly likely that this image was NEVER under CC-BY. Why did you manually review this image at all? Recording a license of an image from Flickr is a legally serious act. --Túrelio (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a curator of The National Museum of Science and Technology I have the full rights to the photos I upload on Wikipedia by the username Emilie Sabel. Can you please make sure that our photos not are deleted and please make our work with contributing to Wikipedia easier by not stopping the photos I uppload.
We have a policy and all the photos we upload are either free to use because their age or it is new photos produced at the museum by our photographers or the museum have the full right to the photos.
Regard,
Emilie Sabel
Intendent/ Curator
Tekniska museet
National Museum of Science and Technology
Museivägen 7, Box 27842, SE-115 93 Stockholm
as this was our first contact, I have no idea whether you were invited by a Wikipedian (who should have provided some information) or you were acting on your own initiative and received no "instruction".
Anyway, as we are not able to identify and verify any on-wiki claims, we have our permission system OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), which allows rightsholders to send a permission by email, which is treated confidentially and evaluated by our volunteers.
This image is credited to "Jonas Berggren", who seems to be the photographer. So, you need to provide his permission, as he is assumed to be the rights holder. If he has transferred all his copyright to Tekniska museet, then you need to provide a permission from the legal department of Tekniska museet which confirm this transfer.
Furthermore, the EXIF data for this image state "Får inte användas i andra sammanhang än där Tekniska Museets verksamhet omnämns. Får ej lämnas till tredje part." and "Bilderna får inte ändras eller upplåtas/överlåtas till tredje part.". (transl. by Google: "Not to be used in contexts other than where the Technical Museum's activities are mentioned. Do not be provided to third parties." and "The images may not be altered or leased / transferred to third parties.") These are typical restrictions of press photos, which are not acceptable on Commons and which are also in direct contradiction of the CC-BY license, which you have choosen. So, for your own good, you or your legal department should first obtain an expressed permission from the photographer, that he agrees to the distribution of his images under a CC-BY license which allows anybody to use them for any purpose, including commercial uses. If he agrees to that, you should re-upload a version of this image which does not have these restrictions mentioned in the EXIF data.
Dear Sir,
I know that some of the images are not mine, but you must know that these pictures have been ulpoaded in order to complete their respective articles in wikipedia with visual complements that can only be seen in these pictures. The Order of Khorshid's insignia is only visible in the pictures that you asked to be deleted. How will someone ever see them is you delete them????
I do not doubt your good intentions. However, per our policy we cannot host images that are unfree. If an image is unreplaceable by a free image, you might try to claim "fair-use" on :en Wikipedia, if that is the project where you want to use it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Date-entry is for the date (at least the year, if known) of the work, not of the upload/reproduction/etc. Putting the upload-date into that entry is rather misleading, though it's often done. There are automated on-wiki tools which extract relevant media information and rely on the description-entries being used correctly. So, the fault, if any, is with the uploader, not with the patroler. Though I have 300k+ edits, when patroling recent uploads I don't have the time to search which might be the true date and whether I understand the language correctly. Instead, replacing the wrong data by a ? gives the uploader (or any second patroler) the opportunity to correct the entry. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Turelio,
There was hardly a problem, clearly the date that Upload Wizard fills in is the "upload date", it should be called so - if there is a fault it is with the Upload Wizard, it should ask for a date of the work. Could you indicate the "automated on-wiki tools" you speak of i'm not aware of? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you ..." - sorry, no, as I have no further knowledge about to them, only been told/read in the past in the context of using standardized description templates. If you are interested, my colleague User:Rillke might have knowledge/details. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to stop your harassment of deletion requests.
If you want to proceed any further, at least you should first answer the explanations on why your requests cannot be met. Your actions are not helpful.
Hi. I choose to continue this very important and fundamental discussion here and not on specific pages.
"Per Commons' foundation policy, all uploaded media have to be free also for commercial use. Media which do not allow commercial use per copyright, are not allowed on Commons." + "If you really meant what you wrote "The photographs are not for commercial use", this in itself would be reason for deletion, as it contradicts the license" Can you show a proper reference on this? I am stoked to say the least. When I submitted to the Commons License 3.0 I released these images as non-commercial. Are these rules changed? Is this a new policy of Commons? Is Wiki Commons becoming commercialized? I am most bewildered.
It does not seem to be the law in Denmark that is hindering publishing. It seems to be the laws of Creative Commons.
I am not angry (yet). I am frustrated. Because I was strongly convinced that such a situation could never happen under the licence I submitted to. Because Wiki Commons is flooded by images of a similar category, and if your deletion request gets accepted, a very very large amount of images will be deleted from Wiki commons. To give a small example the entire mural category should be deleted. A large amount of the images of the sculpture category as well, etc.. This would make a serious threat to the engagement in Wiki commons in the future.
Well, my assumption of you being angry was my mellow way of interpreting your aggressive and inappropriate wording (above) towards a unpaid administrator simply doing for what he was elected by the community, i.e. protecting artists from their copyright being violated, protecting uploaders and re-users from litigation for copyright infringement
Again the basics in short: sculptures are works of art, murals are likely works of art; both are thereby copyrighted for (usually) 70 years after the death of the artist. In Denmark, the Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Denmark exception for publicly installed works is valid only for buildings. Uploads to Commons have to be free in regard to copyright for any kind of use, including commercial use: Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. Any further specifics need to be discussed in the respective deletion discussions. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only one that is unpaid here. And there is no need to feel personally insulted. I am sure, that if you dont fancy the responsibility that comes along with a specific job, you will choose to step down. This is how it works for all of us. I am still missing reliable and good answers to my second post. I can see from the many other issues on your talk page here, that many people needs clear advice and answers, so I hope you will spend (invest?) some time dealing with this, if you care for the subject, as you imply. I will certainly be back on this thread later. To me this issue can perhaps mean the end of participation on Wiki Commons and maybe Wikipedia as well. If these projects are really being commercialized, I would rather like to be on the cashing end of things. I will return. Regards. RhinoMind (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the DMCA about Hermann Ottomar Herzog is not based on the URAA. This painter, originally German, then emigrated to USA, and a big part of his works were first in USA. As the WP article explain: "Following his death, his family retained a large group of his paintings, most of which were released to the art market in the 1970s." These are most probably the paintings which are removed because of the DMCA. I think it is important to get this right, because it is this kind of misunderstanding which leads people to reject the current proposal. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:T N Seema.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:T N Seema.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
It reads " All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The
material posted on the website may be reproduced without formal
permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study,
review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately
attributed. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and
not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context....."
The file has not been changed.It has only been renamed.Wikipedia would most likely come under "non-commercial research"
Hallo Turelio, du willst von mir die Bildhauer wissen. Ich nehme an, dir geht es wegen der Lizenz. Aber in Österreich ist einen generelle Panoramafreiheit, sodass der Bildhauer nicht bekannt sein muss. Diese Brunnen sind permanent und nicht für eine kurze Zeit ausgestellt. --gruß K@rl (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Karl,
es geht dabei sowohl um eine gewisse Fairness gegenüber dem Künstler, in dessen Urheberrecht wir (wenn auch legitim) eingreifen, hat aber auch enzyklopädische Gründe; denn das Foto eines Kunstwerks, dessen Name und Urheber angegeben ist, hat mehr Wert als das bloße Foto. Deshalb ist das auch nicht zwingend, aber doch stark erwünscht. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, das verstehe ich , obwohl ich gottseidank unserem Recht nicht ganz verstehe, warum ich in sein Urheberrecht eingreife, denn ich kopiere das Werk ja absolut nicht, ich sehe es eher als Würdigung wenn ich es dazuschreibe. --K@rl (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn jemand ein Kunstwerk schafft, schließt sein Urheberrecht daran auch jegliche Abbildungen des Kunstwerks ein. Letzteres wird durch die Panoramafreiheit etwas eingeschränkt, sofern die gesetzliche vorgegebenen Bedingungen vorliegen. Mal ganz praktisch: wenn du dir einen Original-Picasso gegönnt und dafür ein paar Mio. hingeblättert hast, hast du dennoch nicht das Recht erworben, von dem in deinem Wohnzimmer hängenden Picasso ein Foto zu machen und dieses auf Postkarten zu verbreiten (oder auf Commons hochzuladen.) --Túrelio (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This portrait is painted it myself, is a work of fantasy, I don't copied a picture or a photo. I do not have to pay royalties to Salinger's family or Salinger editors to paint "the face of Salinger" in my house, I believe.
I guarantee on my honour that is a my work, in no way whatsoever. Then it is obvious that might resemble some pictures, being that depict the same subject. On commons is full of pencil portraits of famous people or not, come on no joking matter!
By doing a little search on google you can see that is not a derivative work. If you find her on facebook or on tinypic, I can assure you that I put it on tinypic, and in other areas has been copied, because I donated to wikipedia in Public Domain. OK copyright, but also do not want to be cheated out of the right to download the works of my property. The legal responsibility of my works I think it is only mine.
--StefanoRR (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi StefanoRR,
as you uploaded it only today, how could it already be distributed over the web? Anyway, I did not delete your file, I only tagged it for suspected copyvio. Thereafter, another admin checked it and deleted it. So, I would recommend you to file it for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. However, you should provide the original photography, which you used or which was your "sample". --Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded in Wikipedia Italia on the day: december 25, 2013. After I uploaded on commons, today, the portrait was a double, and I've did deleted by it.wiki, after I lead the template: NowCommons (now I've re-loaded on it.wiki, after this today's speed deletion on Commons).
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/kindle/merch/rh/A/See-Caption-2_320.jpg
Original source as "model" Photo of Salinger as cadet of the military school. PD-US no notice, between 1923-1977? I "aged" the photo manually and used its as a model for the painting.
The "portait" is already on web because I've released free and gifted its to Wikipedia Italia. Copy of the page of Wikipedia Italia, a few days ago: http://www.revestito.it/?id1=93&idaux=98&wiki=J.D._Salinger (it's not a Wikimedia website, but a "copy" in another website).
--StefanoRR (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
which is from "Biblioteca Julio Cortázar" webpage, which is related to scaned version for books in Julio Cortázar's library; I just realized this detail, and that's the reason why I choosed "I'm not sure" option when uploading the photo. I hope it can be used now for Wikimedia Commons.
Thank you for you guidance, the image i used falls under fair use and for the purpose of public information it contains the logo, presenter, and show time.
al bernamij is a show that has high interest in region, please advise on what is the right picture or components of a right picture, I Dont think the show or the TV station would mind that picture
problem is that on Commons we do not (and cannot) allow fair-use. If your Wikipedia allows fair-use, then you should try to upload the image locally and claim fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have uploaded a new image, which is totally mine and I have all permissions to do whatever I want(I have took that photo). I'm new on Wikipedia, but my image is threaten to be deleted. What shoould I do? (Sorry, I have very bad English). Babur95mj (talk)
Why I my image and in fact other images being deleted because of copy right issues. I've created each of these images and the explanation i see is pretty generic.
khaibitnetjer/barry haynes 04/14/2014
The file was uploaded by User:Khaibitnetjer, but the EXIF data contained the statement "(C) Barry Haynes".
1) If you are indeed Barry Haynes (this http://www.maxart.com/ one?), why do you use Khaibitnetjer as username/identifier? The latter is the name which re-users have to credit when using CC-BC-licensed material. It can't hardly be pseudonymity, if you put your real-name in the EXIF data. Anyway, if 1) is true, please send a confirmation of user/real name identity to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), so they can issue a ticket, which will be put on all your own-work-uploads to avoid further complications.
Yes, and thank you very much for that. I saw your post on my discussion site before I noticed the post (with the link) on the site for the picture. Sofie Sigrinn (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This file was reviewed and flagged by a human (User:Sfan00 IMG) for transfer. By reviewing the file the user confirmed that it is safe to move it to Commons.
The photo "File:Pino Rucher and Pope Paulus VI.jpg" was given to me by my grandfather, Pino Rucher, who died in 1996. The photo (Pino Rucher and Pope Paulus VI) dates back to 30 January 1966 and the author is Fotografia Pontificia Giordani.
Well, the colleagues over at :en sometimes tend to look through :en-only-glasses. Anyway, I have already given my statement about what's missing on the image page. You may consult about that with User:Sfan00 IMG, but the discussion should take place at File talk:Pino Rucher and Pope Paulus VI.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I request the permission to wikimedia commons to have it reproduced and published on Wikipedia. The request dates back to 04 April 2014.Emilurex (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by that. But even per the license template shown on the :en page, there is no explaination/evidence that "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)". --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the template: PD-Italy
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
Public domain
The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation.
Italy
This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if:
wasn't in copyright in the United States due to being registered for copyright there (see Commons:Copyright tags#United States for most cases) and
was created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978 — then it was out-of-copyright in Italy on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996) (17 U.S.C.§ 104A) (in most cases; for all cases, see Template:PD-Italy/US). If so, please add {{PD-1996}} in addition to this copyright tag. If the image was created after 1975 or was published after 1977, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.
This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first published in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92).
Da man eh nix erkennen kann, spielt die Persönlichkeitsverletzung hier m.E. keine Rolle. Allerdings ist das Foto aufgrund der geringen Auflösung ohnehin praktisch unbrauchbar und könnte deshalb als "Out of scope" zur Löschung vorgeschlagen werden. --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, quisiera preguntarle el por que de que borren mis fotos de Wikicommons, son de mi trabajo, las tome en mi casa. Segun yo tengo claro que solo se admiten imagenes de creacion propia... Bueno... que pasa si son de mi creacion???
--Bruno Fenty (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heya i'm a little confused as to why the pictures that were deleted on my discussion page didn't pass review? Im not great with licencing understanding but was careful to look at the licencing at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ and i thought it passed by its description of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)? Is wiki commercial is that it? i have no idea ha!
Hi,
I try to ad my photo taken over my expedition Web Robinson. Would you be kind enough to explain why there is a copyright problem as it me and my own photo ? This photo is for my Wikipedia page.
Hi, I see that you've deleted nearly all pictures that I uploaded. It looks like the issue for most of them (I won't contest the 1000won bill) were also posted on my personal website, www.daehanmindecline.com. I run that website myself and took all the pictures, so I don't see a copyright problem. Short of just publishing second-best images that didn't make it to my website, what can I do to restore the images? Would it be acceptable if I uploaded them at slightly different crops, or made some other modification? For that matter, if I delete them off my personal website, would that make them acceptable here?
Sungkyunkwan Sinsammun
Sungkyunkwan Tangpyeongbigak
Sungkyunkwan Seomu
Sungkyunkwan Jongyeonggak
Sungkyunkwan Daeseongjeon
Sungkyunkwan Myeongnyundang
Galaxy express at jeonja salon 25 february 2012
Kingston rudieska rise again ska reggae festival 20131229
actually I tagged your files for deletion, the deletion was performed by a colleague of mine.
indeed, the reason why I tagged them as suspected copyvio, was that most were taken from or found at the website daehanmindecline.com. Please send an email from your website account (daehanmindecline.com) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in which you should state your authorship in these images, your will to release them under the choosen license, and mention the filenames of all files uploaded to Commons and also present on this website. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think they might be, as they have enough creativity to be copyrightable. Besides, ownership is irrelevant in regard to the copyright of the artist. You may buy a painting by a recent artist, but still are not entitled to take a picture of your painting and distribute it.
Anyway, my talkpage is not the right place for such discussions. You should voice your concerns on the deletion disussion page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oxbow Bend Park Hat and Boots.JPG, as it allows other editors to voice their opinions. Requesting a file for deletion doesn't automatically result in deletion, it just means there seems to be a problem. Feel free to consult my colleague Jim who is US-based and better versed in US copyright than I am. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you have deleted the file AFP_barakat because of a copyright violation. But AFP's pictures are free of copyright. It is why you can find the picture on other newspapers' website... When i uploaded the file i said it was a picture of the AFP...
Thanks, --AlgerianPanther (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, buit you are fully mistaken. AFP is a commercial news agency, which sells their material to newspapers etc. That is the reason why you find their images all over the world, because the newspapers, which use them, have paid for. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend,
I have uploaded all my photos, as you said.[39] Now, Please help me to add a license and required information. Please add the links to the source-entry.
Hopefully, --Arjuncm3 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are saying. Instead of speedying the image, I can open a regular deletion discussion which would allow input from other users, o.k.? --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio! Könntest du die Bilder: File:Was ist das (4).JPG, File:Was ist das (5).JPG und File:Was ist das (6).JPG löschen? Vielen Dank und ein frohes Osterfest wünscht dir ----Martin1009-the Seeker19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as Kemal Aydın is shown in this photo, he cannot be the photographer. --Túrelio (Tartışma) 12:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Guten morgen Turelio,
Diese Bilder von Kemal Aydın wurden in den Fünfziger Jahren aufgenommen. Die fotographer sind unbekannt. Die Bilder sind im besitzt der Herrn Kemal Aydın. Können Sie mir helfen, wie ich diese Bilder, die im Category: Kemal Aydın stehen, schützen kann.
Mit freundlichen Grüsse aus der Türkei.--Gemalmazileti08:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Gemalmaz,
wow, du sprichst deutsch!
Das Problem ist, dass die Schutzfrist (Copyright-Dauer) in der Türkei, wie in den meisten anderen Ländern, bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers dauert, siehe {{PD-Turkey}} und Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Turkey. Bei einem 1957 aufgenommenen Foto kann der Fotograf noch nicht 70 Jahre tot sein, also ist das Foto wohl noch geschützt. Wenn der Fotograf wirklich unbekannt ist, dann könnten die Regeln für "anonyme Werke" gelten. In en:Copyright law of Turkey habe ich aber nichts dazu gefunden, auch nicht in der engl. Übersetzung[41] des türk. Urheberrechtsgesetzes. Dazu müsstest du einen türkischen Kollegen fragen, der sich damit auskennt.
Wenn das auch nichts nutzt, könntest du Herrn Aydın fragen, ob er sich nicht doch noch erinnert woher genau das Foto stammt, z.B. Zeitungsbericht oder Aufnahme durch seinen Fußball-Verein. Dasselbe Problem besteht ja bei allen Bildern in Category:Kemal Aydın, die fast alle noch richtig datiert (Datum der Aufnahme) werden müssen. Wenn Herrn Aydın sich sicher ist, dass er das volle Copyright an seinen Fotos hat, dann könnte man diskutieren, ob eine von ihm ausgestellte Genehmigung ausreicht, um die Bilder auf Commons zu halten. Das müsste aber mit Leuten diskuiert werden, die sich mit dem türk. Urheberrechtsgesetz auskennen. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Turelio,
Vielen Dank für deine rasche Antwort. Ich werde mit den türkischen Kollegen darüber reden. Kemal Aydın meint, er hat die volle Copyright, weil die Leute von der Presse damals, ausser Zeitungsaufnahmen, auch die Bilder aufgenommen haben, die zB. Kemal Aydın gewollt hat. Diese Bilder haben sogar gekostet.--Gemalmazileti09:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the uploader, I merely have copied the file from Wikipedia to Commons as it was tagged with a free license and it popped up on the Wiki-Commons mover tool. I request you to notify the uploader. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs)
O.k., done now. But that doesn't change the fact that you were a bit lax when doing the transfer, as the (C)-note in the EXIF-data was already present all the time. You might (or should) be aware that a lot of the remaining older image files on Wikipedias are indeed non-free, contrary to uploader's claims. --Túrelio (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Это вам пишет Uthvfy62. Вы мне недавно отправили сообщения о прндупреждении на загружкнные мной файды. Если вы аишите по-русски, напишите какие претензии к загруженным файлаи, что б я точно понял без искажений ваше сообщение. Не правильное имя? А какое надо? Я не пойму. И ещё. Меня интересует вопрос. Я недавно создал статью на странице https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прокопчук,_Олег_Григорьевич Она дл сих пор не проверена. И я не знаю., приймется она вики, или нет. Хотя там весь котент ни откуда не взят, а действительно написан самим скульптором. Вы компетентны в этом вопросе? С ув.
It says you Uthvfy62. You recently sent me messages on prnduprezhdenii zagruzhknnye faydy me . If you aishite in Russian , which claims to write Failan loaded , what would I do understand your message without distortion . Not the right name? And what do you want? I do not understand . And more . I'm interested in the question . I recently created an article on page https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прокопчук,_Олег_Григорьевич She still has not been verified . And I do not know. , She priymet wiki or not. Although there all Cotentin nor where not taken , but really written by the sculptor. You are competent in this matter? Sincerely .
Каким образом можно удалить иди же редактироать сразу несколько изображений?
How can I remove a go redaktiroat multiple images?
I would like to ask you something before I upload some images in order to avoid copyright violation. I downloaded some images which I put their links below from flickr.com. However, I need to crop them. Can I crop them and then upload them in cropped version? Could you check their licences and let me know please?
I don't have enough information about copyright violation and Creative Commons licences. And I don't want to be banned from editing. So, could you tell me how I should avoid copyright violation please?
now I have checked all above linked Flickr-images. To me, they seem to be o.k., in regard to Commons-compliant license as well as no suspicion of Flickr-washing. So, you may upload them.
For the process: you should upload them uncropped and in the highest available resolution. Then, first let the Flickr-review bot confirm the license and only thereafter crop them. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this photo shows yourself, as your username-pipe "Anneliesuperfood|Annelie Whitfield" suggests, the scene makes it a bit unlikely that it has been shot by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jafeluv, convention or not, the information about when an uploaded media has been created (original creation, not upload or digitization), is encyclopedically relevant information. The question mark is meant as an "invitation" for the uploader (or any other user) to replace it by the correct date (year). --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I don't really think a question mark is in any way a stronger invitation than an empty date field. Besides, if it is, surely we should rather make a change to {{Information}} to display the question mark automatically (or even a warning message like it already does for empty author or source fields), rather than go around adding question marks to description pages by hand. In that particular case the author sent the photograph by email and did not specify when it was taken. The lack of that information does not invalidate the license in any way, so the date field is presumably less essential in freely licensed images than PD-old images, for example. We do have {{Unknown}} but I don't think that's really appropriate for this picture since it's obviously a relatively recent picture. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "go around adding question marks". However, when I'm patroling recent uploads, I check for all missing information, whether it's relevant for the image status (source, license, etc.) or just for encyclopedic reasons. Doing this at a later point of time would likely result in an even lower rate of getting a correct entry. It's bad enough that the mobile-upload procedure simply leaves out the complete Date-entry, when the uploader doesn't enter anything. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the request came to COM:UDR, new developpements have come. It seems that the photographer was in a mission sent by the Government of India, which would make the image {{PD-India}} (public domain 60 years after creation). Would you agree with that and restore the image? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The linked image on imdb is "by Joanna Brooks Photography" and without any usable permission. So, it cannot be uploaded to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio , thanks for the note. Actually, most decent size USN ships since WWI have had the responsibility and ability to publish for the benefit of the crew and their families (Plan Of the Day, travel updates, Cruise Books, etc.). That is even more the situation today with digital publishing and the internet. In my time ('70's), the Navy had rates specifically for that job: PH's, photo mates; JO's, journalists; LI's, lithographers. Today, all of those rates have been combined into one, MC, mass communications. The Navy has always published a lot of BS, most of it classified, but some of it gets to the crew and their families.
Blue Ridge is a command and control ship. In my day we carried an admiral of the amphibious command and a Marine general of the same. Today, it is the home of the 7th Fleet Command in addition to that other admiral and general in some operations. That's a lot of "scrambled eggs" BS that needs to be published both electronically and on paper, on demand. Check out BR's official FB page, MC's are still cranking out BS on the internet, and the current version of UP DATE both on the internet and on paper, but they no longer snail mail a copy to the family as they did in my time aboard (that's how I have these copies, I didn't write home often, but I did send my parents these issues and they kept them). https://www.facebook.com/USSBlueRidge
Hello Turelio. I see you send me a message about File:Un ver de la famille des Bonelliidae.jpg. This picture is a part of a set of >500 pictures of marine species given to Wikimedia by my photographer friend Philippe Bourjon, which are intended at illustrating a big article about the marine biodiversity of Reunion Island on the French Wikipedia. Philippe sends me his pictures every week, and I never encountered any problem about their validity. Do you want him to send you an e-mail for confirmation ? Thanks and best regards, FredD (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred, thanks for your reply. I am somewhat surprised that up to now nobody talked to you about this. A donation of that number of valuable pictures might even be publicized on our main page, as it is a good thing.
The permission or confirmation should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, not to me. See Commons:Permission for a short instruction and here Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for a ready-made permission template. You should prepare the permission for him, by using this template and adding the links or filenames orf all related uploads, which is of course only possible after you have completed the upload-series. As this may take some days, you might add {{OTRS pending}} to the description at upload, which will prevent further questioning, like mine. Your friend my specify how he wants to get credited on-wiki and by re-users of these images. --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't doubt that for your uploads. Nevertheless, permission is required. Besides, the NoUploads-template is default for all categories of creators whose works aren't in the public domain already. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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!
ENG
hello, my name is SergioPoverony i from OnMars Studio, we can made this is images for game and free copyright license for social nets and wiki.
i can show for you PSD (Photoshop) sources files.
Thank you/
Link to page https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Strike_Portable
RUS
Привет. Меня зовут Сергей aka SergioPoverony я нахожусь в команде OnMars Studio и мы делаем игру. Те картинки что я загружаю я сам лично компоновал. Я загрузил 4 картинки, эти картинки делались спеуиально для соц сетей и wiki. Вы удаляете картику ссылаясь на нарушение авторских прав.
Объяснитесь пожалуйста.
Спасибо. Наша страница на стадии наполнения. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Strike_Portable — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergioPoverony (talk • contribs)
Hi SergioPoverony,
if you are associated with or working for the rights holder, please send an email from the company address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in which you should 1) mention all related images (filenames), 2) state the authorship or rights-holdership of your company and 3) your intention to release the uploaded images under the choosen free license. For details see Commons:Permission (english only) or Commons:OTRS/ru. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't really know how to legalize an upload here. This photo was posted on flickr and I don't see why delete it. If there is really a problem please tell me why. I would like to know how to upload from flickr too. Fernanda Hall (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fernand, if you follow the source link and scroll a bit down, you will read "(C) Alle Rechte vorbehalten." or "All rights reserved". This image is totally unfree and cannot be uploaded to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:1924WOlympicPoster.jpg: uploaded in 2005 as public domain, I found that it's a registered trademark on Swissreg (date: 15.11.2012). Number of registration: 637231; copyright holder: Comité International Olympique. You can search here: on the left, click on "Trademarks" then use the trademark number 637231.
Should they be cancelled? I think the answer is "yes", beacuse they are registered tradermak. Thank you very much :) --Delfort (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Delfort, thanks for your attention. Trademarks per se are not a problem for hosting images on Commons, if the trademarked element is not also copyrighted. For now, I have added {{Trademark}} to all listed images. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you explain to me how come this licence is not for images that are free to use? Can you give me instructions on which Flickr licences are suitable for Commons? Thank you. --BiH (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BiH, if you are refering to File:Tomas Gorny.jpg: at time of upload, this image was under a cc-by-nc license, as our Bot has recorded.[42] This license is not allowed on Commons. The license of this image seems to have been changed in between, as now it is CC-BY-SA, which is compatible with Commons' policy. Not allowed are: -NC, -ND, -NC-ND and "All rights reserved". --Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
could you please ask the author or rights holder to send a confirmation of authorship and license for this image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had already provided the source and license. Still you requested for it. Would request you to check the page again, and get on a talk with me prior to deleting any of my uploads. I have cited the details again and in a better way, but all of my uploads have the citations and reasons given properly. Request you to recheck with me. Danke. Vishal Bakhai
@Vishal Bakhai, when I had tagged your image for missing source, you had claimed it to be "own work", which I simply do not believe. This image clearly looks as a reproduction from a book or other kind of print. I hope you are aware that if you reproduce an existing image, you do not become its author and is does not become your own work, instead you violate the copyright of the original creator. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for speedy deletion of this. Can you please let me know how do you search images in the net, as in you cited the source for it, and, I had the image with me on a folder of images(WatsApp), but never knew that it was a copyright material. Let me know how you search these images. Danke. Vishal Bakhai
Hello Turelio, I have uploaded the file Franco Morone.jpg and it has been marked for deletion. I am the owner of the photo. What do I have to do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicbos (talk • contribs)
Hmm, what do you mean by "owner"? Do you have a print or copy of that image or did you originally shoot the photography? I have problem-tagged it due to the EXIF data entry "Dauner, Armin". --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have downloaded the images by mistake, because I thought they are PD-images, but may be the movies still pictures taken. See the images under the license, so you understand what I mean.
Hmm, I would recommend to request them for regular deletion, not speedy. I am not sure by myself whether they fulfil Finnish law requirements for PD status. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Visit the URL above and you can find the text: "[Homepage] - by: AngelSprite Software - Download AngelMorph", click the [Homepage] link to redirect to my website "www.angel-sprite.com/angelmorph.php", and then click the Support button on the top and you can find my official email is angel-sprite@hotmail.com. I'm the owner.
An email had also been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and i recived these messages:
Dear Angel Sprite,
I have made the necessary modifications to the file page.
Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.
Did you find any evidence that the image is taken from an external source? I cannot find any. And I think that in his case {{no permission since}} rather that {{no source since}} should apply. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had tagged it after I found all uploads (save 2) of this user to be copyvios. You are right that so far I didn't find a source for the remaining two, but have little doubt that they are also not own work. Do as you like. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Turelio. I noticed the message you left on my talk page, re: File:Gunpo_montage.jpg. I believe I've now added all of the proper copyright information (all of the pictures are ones I took myself) --- would you be able to confirm that for me? Thanks so much for the help! L4 Ferguson (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those images are public, which is itself (master image), he provided for online promotion. Ana Gauna (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And the other files I who did, years ago, he is wanting to delete? Ana Gauna (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
These rules should have been all translated into Portuguese language. Ana Gauna (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I had somehow understood your first posting, but not the second. I do not want to delete anything. However, as Commons can only host images which are legitimately under a free license, many of your not-own images need to be deleted, independent of when they were uploaded, to prevent our re-users from litigation for copyright infringement.
In wonder a bit about the many portrait-shots of yourself, did you really shoot them by yourself?
Want to delete yes, because from the moment that marked to delete, and already deleted some other users here will delete everything, as I did in another month. I like flowers. Ana Gauna (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete any of your uploads so far.
And because you like flowers, you feel entitled to claim a photo, created by somebody else, as your "own work". That's a strange behaviour for an IT professional. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help. You can put images, which are really your own work, per your declaration in the public domain. But claiming that images, which are not your own work, are in the public domain, needs solid evidence, which you as the uploader have to provide. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"my 2 photos" - really my? Then, why was one published earlier on Facebook and the other one on a Website copyrighted by Globo? Sadly, it seems you still don't see the problem with most of your uploads. Anyway, as I'm going to bed, our conversion will end now. Feel free to contact a pt-speaking admin Commons:Administrators.--Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you that he knows me, he exists within my Facebook many years ago. And if he posted a photo of himself, he wanted to be public image. Ana Gauna (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These images are not breaking any rules, since it was the owner himself who made them public image online. And some of these pictures are mine, which are stored for decades in my file. I do not agree with what they are doing. Ana Gauna (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not know anyone here. I'm talking to you is. I do not agree, pictures are mine, and I want to use them on Wikipedia. Ana Gauna (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used the automatic downloading of Commons and there appear questions about the image on the right picture, and I informed all right, and still want to delete the images. That's not logical. I answered the questions correctly.Ana Gauna (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you are currently asking for author's permissions on several files I have uploaded. They are all under CC-BY_SA 3.0 Unported, as you can see in the source section of the description part of the files (links to the pictures, that are stating (bottom right of the page) that they are on the right license. Do I need to add another category to state this ? Regards, --LeJC (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please check on the bottom right of the page, such as this one ; the licence section is located just under the "detail" and "stats" area. --LeJC (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed not very user friendly (the funny thing is that when it is "all right reserved", it is in this case located just under the picture). But thank you for taking the time to check. --LeJC (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne sais si c'est le bon espace pour vous répondre. Je crois ?
Le visuel " Jean-françois Miniac et la vache Pissenlit" est ma création et j'accorde à Wikipédia les droits sur cette dernière, sous réserve de la licence précédemment indiquée dans le fichier.
http://graphicminiac.blogspot.de/2011/08/1522.html, que vous citez, est en fait mon propre blog.
Bref, il n'y a aucun souci. Merci beaucoup d'en tenir compte.
O.k. I have removed the problem-tag from File:Jean-François Miniac et la vache Pissenlit.jpg and moved the blog-link into the description. However, it would be helpful if you could send an email from your official/business email account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org) just confirming that you are Jean-François Miniac. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I own all the rights to my picture and I am the one who drew it, its about my show that I'm working on and I was trying to make a wikipedia page, how did my picture look like I was infringing copyright laws....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by In6seconds (talk • contribs)
"Public" has no relevance for copyright. After scanning through the German translation of "legal advise" page, I am not totally sure whether their terms are really compliant to our terms (COM:L), but that might be discussed. However, I did not see any indication of a "cc-by-sa-3.0" license. --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both are personal images edited by me. I haven't copied them from any website. Can you give me a reason for possible copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohankandwal (talk • contribs)
Hi Rohankandwal, you may have shot the images of your phone showing the background image, true. However, you are obviously not the author of the background images; I have provided links of earlier publications of them. So, your photos are copyviolating derivatives of these images, as you don't have the permission of their authors. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you go to en:WP:BON and participate in the "Bot edit war" section? This is related to your deletion of File:Molvi yaqoob Alvi.jpg: it appears that the bots were kind-of editwarring over the image after you deleted it. I'm somewhat confused by the timeline, and it would help if there were participation there by someone with the ViewDeleted userright here. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I've never seen {{Fair use delete}} before, and I've never understood how the fair use upload bot works: I was afraid that it had made some sort of mistake by uploading the image in the first place. I'm glad to know that the bot was working fine, at least in this part of the situation. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sim, dans le téléfilm Le Brin de muguet (1984).jpg
On 15 May 2014, you speedy deleted File:Sim, dans le téléfilm Le Brin de muguet (1984).jpg, which that film's director, Jean-Claude Morin, had uploaded to Commons on 6 April 2013. Could you please undo that speedy deletion? (Perhaps you can replace it with an ordinary deletion request if you think it is really necessary.) On his website Écrire le cinéma, there is a page where Mr. Morin documents his collaborations to Wikipédia, so we know that his Wikipédia account is this and his Commons account is this. We can see that he included this file in the Wikipédia article on 6 April 2013. As all this is already publicly visible, I don't think an OTRS communication is even necessary in this case, but even if we were to request one for some reason, I think the file should not be speedy deleted anyway. If someone thinks that something about this file should be discussed, it could be done with the user first or if needed with an ordinary deletion request. It is not often enough that we have the chance that a professional film director offers a few images from his films, so we should keep them when we can. :) Thank you in advance for your time. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asclepias,
I've now undeleted the file and replaced the copyvio-tag by OTRS-pending. You should also notify Yann, who had placed the copyvio-tag, which suggests that he also wasn't aware of the identity of the uploader. While I can follow your rationale, I still would prefer if he did identify himself (as being Jean-Claude Morin) to OTRS. I assume that on :fr somebody "tutors" him; so, it might be best if this user would kindly ask him for an informal confirmation per email. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi! you deleted the images in my article, the Philippine Institute of Architects.
I am well aware of the metadata of the pictures for they are just copied form the official website of the said organization. However, the past president of the PIA, Arch. Joel V. Rico,fpia, talked to me personally and commissioned me to do the Wikipedia article. I have his permission to post the pictures that you have deleted.
I have a very busy schedule and if you could please undo the edit you have done.
Thanks and you immediate action is appreciated!
I did not delete any of the files, I just tagged them for missing permission.
Anyway, as you can see from my notifications on your talkpage on may 9th, you need to provide a written permission from the author or rightsholder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
danke dir für deinen Hinweis. Bei dem OMV Logo hat es irgendwie nur nicht mit dem bestehenden Logo bei mir geklappt. Und das aktuelle ist einfach schon 7-8 Jahre alt (glaube ich).
Aber danke dir für den Hinweis. Wo bekommt man im Regelfall Logos her?
--91.114.52.23407:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sofern das Logo ausreichend Schöpfungshöhe aufweist und damit urheberrechtlich geschützt ist (oder sein könnte), am ehesten den Logo-"Inhaber" fragen, weil der ja i.a. die Nutzungsrechte daran hat und sie ggf. unterlizenzieren kann, und i.a. auch ein Interesse daran haben kann, dass sein Logo im Wikipedia-Artikel erscheint. Bei Logos von in D-AT-CH ansässigen Firmen könnte man auch zu deren Niederlassung fahren und schauen, ob das Logo außen am Gebäude angebracht ist. Falls ja, könnte man ein Foto davon aufnehmen und dieses unter Beanspruchung der Panoramafreiheit, sofern man bei der Aufnahme auf öffentlichem Grund stand, hochladen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Доброго дня, можете пояснити як правильно розміщувати інформацію про ліцензування.
Постери, що я закинув знаходяться у вільному доступі в інтернеті, тому я не знаю де знайти ліцензію. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олексів (talk • contribs)
Hi Олексів,
the image of that movie poster File:Indexвфівфів.jpg is missing a valid source, a valid author-entry and consequently a valid license/permission. You need to provide all three data. The poster may already be in the public domain due to its age. --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Нічого не можу зрозуміти. Можете допомогти новачку. Один раз покажете, а далі я сам буду закидувати. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олексів (talk • contribs)
Олексів, файлы, взятые из Интернета, нельзя просто загружать сюда. Нужно, чтобы в описании файла было прямое указание на конкретную свободную лицензию, допустимую на Викискладе. Если указания нет - то файл несвободен rubin16 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to delete my files and article when all contents is all from my own files which im the owner of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyfrench100 (talk • contribs)
Ok but every image that was in my article came directly from my own computer files and those images belong to me personally so I cant understand why my article has been wiped off completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyfrench100 (talk • contribs)
I have no idea what "article" you are talking about. You are here at Wikimedia-Commons, which is media repository, not a place for articles. Did you eventually create an article on Wikipedia? If yes, you should complain over there, or take a look at why it has been deleted. You may have "constructed" (photoshopped) File:Corey French For Council 2014.jpg, but you obviously used an existing image for the background. This is not allowed if the not-own image hasn't been released under a free license. And even then, you have to credit the original photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eigentlich gibt es ja den Published-Baustein für externe Nutzungen von Bildern von Commons, siehe z.B. File talk:GuntherVonHagens Cologne2000.jpg. Oft, wenn ich auf externe Nutzungen stoße, habe ich aber nicht genug Zeit, den ganzen Baustein auszufüllen, weshalb ich dann nur das Link vermerke, so dass der Urheber, sofern er denn Interesse daran hat, es selbst ausfüllen kann - ist aber kein Muss. Der mögliche Nutzen ist die Erfassung der externen Nutzungen (ursprünglich wohl etwas zur Selbstrechtfertigung von Commons gedacht), aber auch der legitimen vs. illegitimen Nutzungen. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello the vandalisms of user:8======D~~wiki is Category:Sockpuppets of Ich Pilot can you block it and add it here?.--Thank you.--08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Túrelio but the thing he is keeping vandalism in Christianity maps evry single day here, he create new account just for insulting and for vandalism he even attack my page in Arabic and English wiki, you can also so he attacking different users for example he was attacking and insulting user:Elcobbola here, every day he writing stuff like this and he cross the hole line.
If you are relating to File:OpenD2K.png, I have deleted it, as it was tagged as {{Non-free media}}by yourself. I have now undeleted it. But you need to remove the non-free template and to add the correct license-tags, as it does not seem to be under a CC license[43]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the uploader of this image contacted OTRS and told us that he is the copyright holder of this image. I could not find any exact Google searchbyimage hits, so I see no obvious reason to doubt that. Greetings, FDMS 4 20:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das no-permission-tag war nötig, weil angegebener Urhebername und Uploadername nicht identisch sind. Hinzu kommt, dass die EXIF-Daten die Angabe "Derek Tearneall rights reserved" enthalten. Wenn von dem besagten "Derek Tearne" eine valide Genehmigung bei OTRS vorliegt, dann kannst du das no-permission-tag natürlich durch das OTRS-Ticket ersetzen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Öhm … Urhebername und Uploadername unterscheiden sich aber immer, wenn der Uploader professionell attributiert werden möchte … Es liegt eine Bestätigung der Identität (Unternehmens-eMail-Adresse) vor, kannst du das EXIF an die beim Hochladen angegebene Lizenz anpassen? FDMS 4 01:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) Anscheinend verstehen wir uns nicht. Ich habe dir lediglich erläutert, warum das no-permission-tag zum Zeitpunkt, als ich es gesetzt habe, korrekt war. Ich bin kein OTRSler. Woher soll ich (oder jeder andere beliebige recent-upload-patroler) wissen, dass bei OTRS etwas eingegangen ist? Soweit mir bekannt (und meistens auch so gehandhabt) ersetzt der bearbeitende OTRSler das Problem-Tag durch OTRS-pending bzw. durch OTRS-mit-Ticket-Nr. Warum ist das bisher nicht erfolgt? Ich habe jetzt im Vertrauen auf deine Angabe OTRS-pending hinzugefügt; das Ticket muss aber von OTRS kommen. b) EXIF-Daten von fremden Dateien kann ich technisch zwar ändern, möchte das aber eher nicht machen, zumal wenn es Copyright betrifft. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verstehe nur nicht ganz wo ursprünglich der Zweifel an der Urheberschaft hergekommen ist, an sich ist OTRS nicht dafür gedacht die Identität von jedem noch so unbekannten Commons-User zu verifizieren (das ist zudem unmöglich). FDMS 4 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn du mal für längere Zeit systematisch recent-uploads kontrollierst und bei entdeckten Copyvios auch die restlichen Dateien des betreffenden Uploads prüfst, dann erwirbst du die Commons-Alltagserfahrung, dass AGF nicht bzgl. Urheberrecht gilt. Wenn A ein Bild hochlädt und sagt es sei von B, dann verlange ich von A entweder die Vorlage einer Genehmigung von B oder eine ausdrückliche Bestätigung, dass er selbst B ist. Und dies hat, u.a. auch aus Gründen der Vertraulichkeit, gegenüber OTRS zu erfolgen. Man mag das copyright-paranoia nennen und das mag im Einzelfall auch als Unfreundlichkeit wahrgenommen werden, es lässt sich angesichts der Personalsituation auf Commons und dem realen Uploadverhalten ([44],[45]) m.E. aber nicht anders machen. Es wäre schön, wenn das unnötig wäre, weil alle Hochlader ehrlich wären oder sich mit Copyright ein wenig auskennen würden, ist aber nicht so. Es geht auch nicht um verifizieren im strikten Sinne, sondern um das Vermeiden von grober Fahrlässigkeit (einfach zu glauben, was ein anonymer Benutzer beim Upload angeklickt oder angegeben hat) und darum, eine kleine Hürde zu schaffen, die jemanden, der beim Upload falsche Angaben gemacht hat, dann vielleicht doch davon abhält, erneut falsche Angaben zu machen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich stimme deinem ersten Teil grundsätzlich völlig zu, das ist in meinen Augen keineswegs paranoid. Nur gab es in meinen Augen keinen Hinweis auf einen Unterschied zwischen Person A und Person B. Dies wäre z. B. der Fall wenn der Uploader angegeben hätte ein halbwegs berühmter Künstler oder Fotojournalist zu sein. In diesem Fall haben wir jedenfalls Glück, Dinobass konnte seine Identität mit einer vertrauenswürdigen eMail-Adresse bestätigen, was wohl für den Normalfall sehr ungewöhnlich ist. In meinen Augen führt die von dir angesprochene Hürde dazu, dass rücksichtslose Urheberrechtsverletzer weiter ungestört hochladen können (sie "bestätigen" halt mit hänschen2345@gmail.com o. ä.), während ehrliche User das Misstrauen gegenüber ihnen wohl kaum schätzen. FDMS 4 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That exif information must have come from a default somewhere in photoshop. Nowhere in the message stating that there was an issue with this image was EXIF mentioned. I can see that this would be an issue if the name I filled in as copyright holder/creator in the upload form/wizard was different to that in the Exif information. But that is not the case. Seeing as they are the same I am somewhat perplexed as to why this is a problem. My issue here is that, with so many other aspects of wikipedia, the generally bot related boilerplate messages refer one to all manner of documents, but none of which clearly state what the issue is. So, even if I did everything as stated in the message template, from your point of view the image would still be problematic. Some of the suggestions of solutions, such as pointing to a web page which has the copyright information on simply don't apply. The only website where this image appears is wikipedia commons - as it was created explicitly for a wikipedia article.
This whole process is extremely frustrating from the point of view of someone trying to create something specifically for wikipedia/wikimedia. I have recently become extremely frustrated with wikipedia in general in that, almost every time I try to do something, some bot or other will complain that I have done something wrong, and do so in such a way as to not explain what the issue really was. I feel this weakens the entire concept of wikipedia in that people who have interest or expertise are discouraged from contributing.
From the point of view of someone attempting to create content, a boilerplate page of links to information pages, none of which actually help with diagnosing the problem, is really not helpful. Moreover, the template here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS - when pasted into apple mail - breaks in an extremely disturbing way - flashing horribly when one attempts to edit any of the grey text. Dinobass (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh my God! returned to do. This is the original source: [46] is a former pupil. I am sorry. I will personally go to the Museum Reina Sofia and I myself will make the picture of the bear. And if they have removed it from the permanent exhibition will talk with the head of the Department of sculpture, Carmen Fernández Aparicio, or responsible for registration of works of Art Department: soledad.depablo@museoreinasofia.es.Efectivamente the photo is not my work. I regret much have caused this error. Sincerely.--Latemplanza (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use translator, forgive if the syntax is not good.
Not, I am not Ruizanglada, clearly that not, I am an inheritor of his rights and his legacy. This already was an agreement first in Wikipedia with Laura_Fiorucci [47], y en Wikimedia Commons I had to send an e-mail in two occasions from the official page of the artist www. Ruizanglada.es, to confirm the treated for these pages and that saw that I am I who treats his legacy. Certainly that are not photographies, are paintings.
In Wikimedia Commons traré for two times and I was between averages hoping that they were giving for the e-mail received. Between averages a photo resigned. And I wonder:
Whenever it improves the quality of an image of painting, or whenever it adds a work I am going to have to be giving the same explanations to another person?
Because if it is like that there is a problem of functioning and procedure. If already the checking was done, I sent the e-mail with the text for that mke asked, and forwarded it from the official web of the author, it should i will write in some site that this step already is realized.
Re: [Ticket#2014031310016258] Derechos de distribución de obra pictórica
Ok, thank you Túrelio, But with help or without her of Spanish-speaking someone it should consist in some site the steps that already I realized with this number of ticket => Ticket#2014031310016258 RuizAnglada (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked my colleague for help to make communciation easier (and faster) for you. If you had already send permission to OTRS, but none of your uploads carries the related ticket, then probably some of our processes didn't work correctly. --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The person who sent the e-mail asking to forward it from the official e-mail of the painter it calls "<name removed>", i have the e-mails guarded. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuizAnglada (talk • contribs)
Adding this template does not mean there is a problem with your photos. It's just a message at re-users that this portion of the photo is fully copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Turelio, bitte lösche sämtliche Metadaten, mein Name, Caption etc pp. Danke. habs versucht mit einem Programm namens Exif.data, aber ging offensichtlich nicht. Danke. Eilt.FraLiss (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Habe nochmals neuere Versionen geladen, weiss aber nicht ob die Meta-Daten noch drin stecken, wenn nicht lösche bitte die Version(en) wo mein Name und die Caption sichtbar ist. Danke. FraLiss (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FraLiss,
erledigt. Ich würde dir eher ExifTool[48] empfehlen, das sehr mächtig und Freeware ist.
Mal generell: falls du genau dieselben Fotos, die du hier hochlädst, auch normal vermarktest, solltest du überlegen, ob es klug ist, sie hier unter einem anderen Urhebernamen hochzuladen. Aber vielleicht hast du dir das ja bereits überlegt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, mein Programm heisst Exif.Pilot, hat mich aber schon ein paar mal veräppelt. Vielleicht hatte ich was falsch gemacht. Sonst ist alles ok. FraLiss (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., then I recommend that you contact the editor. As the book is said to be from 2010, this information should be available, even in case that the cover-drawing is already very old. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please do not delete Rudolf Heinisch at wikimedia commons. The copyright for all his paintings are with his surviving son Philip Heinisch who has given permission for all his fathers paintings to be published on wikimedia commons.
Aber wo ist diese Genehmigung? Du bist schon vor 1 Jahr auf der Wikipedia danach gefragt worden. Dann vor 2 Monaten hier auf Commons. Und bis heute gab es keine Reaktion von dir. --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Túrelio. We have a serious problem about this user, repeatedly upload book covers and a Google Map caption for an institute. He repeatedly upload and he doesn't response the warnings. Maybe he need a little block about the issuance of fair use. --Taichi (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the pictures i have uploaded. Unfortunately, i'm afraid that i don't know how to proceed to approve them.
I'm a member of Axel Springer staff, owner of the pictures copyright. So I can validate them if necessary.
What should i do? Thank you so much.
we couldn't know that you are from Springer. As I assume that you are authorized from your Springer boss to upload these logos under a free license, please send from your business/office email address at Springer a permission statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) in which you should list the logo-filenames and state your (Springer's) authorship in them and your will to release them under the choosen free license.
Thank you for your comments about downloading some files. Try to avoid this in the future.
At the photos on the article Kosarev Alexander (director) - these pictures provided by his family. I may have typed wrong license to use these files. If you need permission from the family of the Kosarev Alexander, what kind of permission required?
Is there sufficient written permission of his relatives? Do you have template?
I'm sorry, I found the template permissions
Добрый день!
Постараюсь избежать подобного в будущем.
По поводу загруженных файлов к статье Косарева Александра (режиссера), эти фотографии предоставлены его семьей.
Возможно, я неверно указала лиценцию на использование этих файлов. Если необходимо разрешение со стороны близких режиссера, то какого рода разрешение необходимо предоставить?
Достаточно ли письменного разрешения его близких?
whats the problem with the rights of the pictures of "Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung"? The organisation do have the rights for the pictures!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.64.173 (talk • contribs)
2) The post per se was legitimate and understandable for a re-user who wants to get it all right, even though this may be unnecessary for experienced users. A kind and more appropriate reply you can see here.
3) So, it was neither an advertisement nor was it mine, as you could have easily seen from the signature and the logs.
4) Your second request is even less reasonable; this is your username, which appears everywhere when you make an edit. On COM:AN/B it was mentioned without any negative connotation towards you. Anyway, to finish this episode, I've censored it away. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, please let's not get personal and calming down - it was from my side nothing personal and should not be handled so, as it's not: please replace "imho your advertisements" (see also topic) by "imho advertisements", and remember i'm not fluent in English written correspondings. So i have to point something negative i had done it directly and not between the lines, as imho i always tried.
As mentionned by you, imho the post per se seems not be appreciated in general on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protectionsas of today and seems to be disputed from different sides, as i remarked after your notification and my first posting on your talk. So i was puzzled about your reaction and quite disappointed of its connotation reading your reaction. thx for respecting and please not to consider as censoring personality of another Wikimedian (imho there was no need to mention my user name, instead of p.e. on user talk), with kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Túrelio, some days ago you asked me about a photography that I've shared on Commons. Sorry, I don't use to enter at Commons and I just was practizing with the smartphone app. So, that photography was from [Mataró], near the train station. It forms a part of a monument to Miquel Biada, the train funder at XIX century. The sculptor's name is Joaquim Ros i Bofarull and was done in 1948. As you can see, it represents Hermes because the train was the first steep of industry in the city.
If you need more information, please ask me.
Vàngelis Villar
Apologies if I ask the most simple questions with regards this subject but I am by no means an expert on either Wikipedia or computers. Therefore, to have my page published on the artist - geoffrey key - was hard work but rewarding. I was disappointed but understand why you deleted the images from the page. However, I wonder if you would be kind enough to assist me in getting these images undeleted. I ask this because I have the consent of the artist himself to use the images & am not breaching copyright in using them and would therefore like to share these images with all Wikipedia users.
In terms of an official undeletion request I understand that I have to get the artist himself to give consent or alternatively authorize me to act on his behalf, as the copyright holder, using the format as described in: Commons:Email Template. This should be easy to do but can i ask you:
Is the required URL just the file name - ie: Office Workers 20x24.jpg - or is there some code I am not seeing? I understand the images are now deleted in Commons so I do not know how I may find a URL code for these images there now, if they are no longer available.
Also, do you consider that the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 be a suitable license to request?
as the image(s) had already been uploaded (though currently deleted) it is sufficient to use the filename as "the required URL". For your convenience, I have listed the filename of your 4 currently uploads:
File:Office Workers 20x24.jpg
File:Canal Railings 20x24.jpg
File:Pennine Canal 36x48.jpg
File:Geoffrey Key.jpg
The permission statement for a not-own photo needs to come from the author (i.e. photographer) or full rightsholder (if work-for-hire). For portrait shots, you may also include (but not necessary) a statement of consent of the depicted person that he/she consents to his/her photo being published for use by anybody. The latter is not identical to a full model release. So, such a photo can still not be used for product advertising. For portrait shots, the CC-BY-SA is IMO a good choice and clearly better than PD or CC-Zero. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio
Thank you for your reply 09/04/14 regards the deleted files & the use of particular licences - see below:
Hi Rob,as the image(s) had already been uploaded (though currently deleted) it is sufficient to use the filename as "the required URL". For your convenience, I have listed the filename of your 4 currently uploads:
File:Office Workers 20x24.jpg
File:Canal Railings 20x24.jpg
File:Pennine Canal 36x48.jpg
File:Geoffrey Key.jpg
The permission statement for a not-own photo needs to come from the author (i.e. photographer) or full rightsholder (if work-for-hire). For portrait shots, you may also include (but not necessary) a statement of consent of the depicted person that he/she consents to his/her photo being published for use by anybody. The latter is not identical to a full model release. So, such a photo can still not be used for product advertising. For portrait shots, the CC-BY-SA is IMO a good choice and clearly better than PD or CC-Zero. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Further to this, I spoke with the artist about whom the page is about & he is a little concerned about the use the licences give to utilise his copyrighted images. He asked if I could seek your opinion on the following. To protect his copyright can we write to commoms asking them to reistate the images on the basis that we wish to claim to us the images on the same basis of the following copy written images found also on Wikipedia:
- Non-free media information and use rationale for L. S. Lowry
Lowry,_Huddersfield.jpg (500 × 398 pixels, file size: 56 KB, MIME type: image)
Photograph of Huddersfield, 1965, Oil on canvas by L.S. Lowry public domain.
This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed atCategory:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
• To illustrate the subject in question
• Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
• On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. SeeWikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Non-free media information and use rationale for L. S. Lowry
Description Photograph of Huddersfield, 1965, Oil on canvas
Source Painting of the same name.
Article L. S. Lowry
Portion used
Because the image is a painting, the entire portion is needed to identify the artwork, properly convey the meaning intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image.
Low resolution?
The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original painting. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.
Purpose of use
The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work and the style of L. S. Lowry. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.
Replaceable?
The image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the style of L. S. Lowry's artwork would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.
The artist feels that this basis is justified given his need to protect his copy right and commercial interests. Do you think this is a reasonable request in your experience.
what you have cited above is a fair-use rationale according to U.S. copyright law, which means that the copyright is legitimately ignored. This might be possible to claim on english Wikipedia, which allows such material. However, at Commons we cannot (legally and per our policy) allow such material. To use an image under the fair-use rationale on :en Wikipedia, you need to upload it locally, i.e. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard and provide a fitting fair-use rationale; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PirelliBuildingAfterPlaneCrash.jpg for an example. Whether they accept it, is a bit hard to predict. It depends on whether it is really needed to illustrate an article/topic and is not easily replaceable by a freely-licensed image. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, ich bin gerade über die Heinz-Josef Lücking-Saga gestolpert. Dabei ist mir allerdings eine Sache aufgefallen, mit der er meiner Meinung nach Recht hat (und das ist auch die einzige...) Den Satz "please add this credit below or near the image" würde ich in der Tat als höfliche, aber verbindliche Aufforderung verstehen. Ich bilde mir auch ein, dass es dazu auch Gerichtsurteile in Deutschland gibt, die ein "Bitte" trotzdem als verbindliche Aufforderung verstehen. Referenzen kann ich dir aber leider nicht bieten. Ich würde vorschlage statt "please" vielleicht etwas wie "I would appreciate" zu schreiben, um die Nicht-Verbindlichkeit deutlicher zum Ausdruck zu bringen. --Sebari (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ich denke wir werden im Nachgang zur "HJL-Saga" in der Community diskutieren müssen, welche Attributionswunsch-Wordings o.k. sind und welche nicht. Ich bin dann gerne bereit, mein derzeitiges credit-line-Wording anzupassen, da ich es tatsächlich als Wunsch meine. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio, I think the ruling by the court, "attribution should be provided immediate context to the photograph" is somewhat similar to near. So there is no need of a please or beg. I updated my license tag too accordingly ("context to the licensed material, reasonable to medium you are using"). I sill believe this case is mishandled; the language difficulties made it worse. :( Please make some serous efforts to update our tags; so that people no longer depend on custom tags. I'm willing help if needed. See AN. Jee08:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that it makes zero sense to tag an image as missing permission when it doesn't have a license on it to begin with. Also, "I found the image on imdb and don't know who made it" is pretty much textbook speedy deletion copyvio; am I wrong? I'm not being critical just discussing with you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a no-permission-tag is actually a speedy-deletion tag, as the file will be deleted without further discussion after 1 week. Also, new upload tagged with no-perm can likely not be used on any mayor project. So, I wouldn't say "zero sense". Of course, in several typical scenarios there is discretionary power (if that's the correct english term for Ermessensspielraum) to use this or the other tag. For me, an uploader who makes it clear that it is not his own work, as in this case, is still better than those who lie to our face by claiming something as own work, when it evidently isn't. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary power absolutely exists in English, though I've only heard it in judicial contexts. Often the term is prosecutorial discretion. English Wikipedia uses a term I've never heard: w:Enforcement discretion, so it's probably ad hoc.
the problem is that all content we can offer per our policy has to be legitimately under a free license. For still copyrighted works, only the author/creator can put them under a free license. The image is question is rather recent (< 70 years) and thereby still copyrighted. That is the reason why we cannot host it. As you want to use it on :en-Wikipedia, you can upload it locally (on :en) and claim fair-use, which is a valid policy on :en, though not on Commons.
Regarding your issue of "to self-censor Wikipedia", I assume that you are refering to the removal of the additions by User:Snapperjack. Well, both of these claims were unsourced and thereby violating Wikipedia policy. I assume that was the reason why they were removed. However, I am not really active on :en-Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TWO NOTES images I've uploaded marked as a possible copyright violation
Two Notes images I've uploaded come from Orosys / Two Notes Audio Engineering FlickR with the appropriate licence so I can share it on Wikipedia : https://www.flickr.com/photos/125283961@N02/
I'm French. Tell me if you understood me and if I'm Right. If I'm wrong, tell me how I can upload pictures with the right content.
when uploading from Flickr, such as File:WallOfSoundIII.jpg, you need to write the URL of the image-page (not the deep-link) into the source-entry (instead of "Two Notes Flickr"), and you should add {{Flickreview}} the image page or description. This template activates our Flickr-license-review-bot which then checks the license on Flickr and creates a report, which is pasted onto the image-page on Commons. The latter is very important, as sometimes Flickr-users change the initially free license to a more restrictive one, which may be no longer Commons-compliant. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems you have deleted on request this category:[49], based on criteria (incorrectly named) duplicate. In fact, name of category was correct, only in Czech language, and was not duplicate (english category was created few days later). I would like to ask what is Commons policy on names of Topic categories (native, english)?
Thank you --RomanM82 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I am going to bed now, just in short: category-names on Commons should be in english, except for proper names for which no english equivalent exists or is usually known. --Túrelio (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Las imagenes fueron autorizadas por correo por sus autores, con el procedimiento establecido. Puede verificarlo, retire los mensajes en mi usuario. Un saludo y gracias. --Marinna (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look into source of image description it says image is licenseced under cc4.0 I will be thankful if you can restore the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal1811 (talk • contribs)
Hi Vishal1811, sorry, but the licensing information on Flickr was conflicting and the image has been found published earlier with a regular (C) note. --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ciao, scusa della foto, purtroppo non sapevo che era protetta da copiryght, comunque grazie per averla segnalata, io avevo provato a toglierla, ma non ci riuscio,, comunque sinceramente ne è valsa la pena la foto era bellissima xd :) grazie della segnalazione:)
--Manto28-08 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Turelio, no se si me entienda, ya que e visto que habla ingles, pero quisiera decirle que las imagines que subi a Wikicommons las e sacado de Wikipedia en Portugues, no se si en esa Wikipedia las licencias sean diferentes, pero alli no han sido borradas.
you may write down the exact links for the images in :pt, so that I can check them. However, in general the rights for album covers are either with the group or with the record company and therefore requires a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Google-translation[50]: Hola Sonuster, usted puede anotar los enlaces exactos para las imágenes en: pt, para que pueda revisarlos. Sin embargo, en general los derechos de portadas de discos son o bien con el grupo o con la compañía de discos y por lo tanto requiere de un permiso para OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abhinand1234, what do you mean by "free work"? You claimed to be the author; but this image had been published earlier on the mentioned website. You need a permission from the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) ja; wenngleich die unterschiedlichen Lizenzangaben auf der Website verwirrend sind.
b) es wurde vom Flickr-Review-Bot überprüft, aber nicht abgeschlossen, weil du nicht das Originalfoto, sondern einen Ausschnitt hochgeladen hast. Es muss daher manuell abgenickt werden, ist aber kein Problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the source page in Farsi (Persian) is written "و هر گونه کپی برداری از مطالب بدون ذکر منبع غیر مجاز و پیگرد قانونی دارد | 2011 - 2014" which represents this entry is that, if i not mentioning source page is illegal and if the source is mentioned so is legal!!!!!, so I've not committed a mistake and has introduced properly the source so I don't violate copyright.Famad ir (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the questions are 1) is the website-owner really the author/rights holder of that image? and even if he is, 2) does he also permit commercial re-use of this image? --Túrelio (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes this picture is watermarked with Source Site Logo ( http://www.musicepars.com/?p=14752) and picture is captured by the photographer of this site, and then in the bottom of page in farsi is written "هرگونه کپی برداری از مطالب بدون ذکر منبع غیر مجاز" in English (translated by google translator) "Any unauthorized copying of content is prohibited without citing the source", so this text say if i citing the source is legal ;) :)Famad ir (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply to 1). However, the statement about 2) is bit too generic. A lot of photographers have no problem with non-commercial use of their image, but do not allow commercial use. As you seem to read Farsi, could you send an email to the website owner and ask him about that? If yes, please then forward the reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and don't forget to mention the filename File:AmirYeganeh_Kish_Concert.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i'll send an email to website owner of source and i'll take a permission for this picture, very thanks for this solution ;) Famad ir (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I´m new on Wikipedia, therefore apologize my mistakes - I uploaded sphoto of Martin Jensen - which our publiching company represents on the Czech market - we can fully use this photo - could you please upload it again?
no need to apologize. The problem with your upload of File:Martin Jensen.jpg was that you had claimed it as own work. When we found it published already somewhere else, we had to assume that you copied it from there. What we need in such a case, is a written permission from the rights holder, to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS).
If I understood you correctly, you (or your company) is not the author/photographer of this photo, but has some rights to use it, right? If that is correct, then you first have to ask yourself, whether the rights you have obtained from the primary rights holder, are sufficient to release this image under a cc-by-sa license. A cc-by-sa license allows anybody to use the image for any purpose, including commercial re-use. Somebody could take this image, print it on postcards and sell these postcards. He would just have to credit you as the author and mention the license. If that would be o.k. for the original rights holder, then please ask him to send a permission statement, mentioning the filename, his authorship and the intended free license, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images Marcel van Jole 1.jpg and Marcel van Jole 2.jpg
I just found this message of yours in my mailbox: "Hi Marc Haertjens, thanks for uploading these fine images. However, we need a permission from the stated photographer "Nicol'Andrea". Please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (for details see OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)". I didn't respond right away, because it landed in my spam-folder.
I contacted the author (and also copyright-holder) of these images, who will send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, using the e-mail template I found on the Commons-website.
Anyhow, I found a warning that without a permission, the images would be removed after seven days. When I checked half an hour ago, the images had already been removed! I edited the wikipedia-page and put the photo's back on. Could you please leave them there, you will receive the permission within the next couple of days. Kind regards, Marc Haertjens (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marc Haertjens, I have added OTRS-pending template to both images, which should prevent premature deletion. However, the "removal" which you had observed, like had happened on a Wikipedia and is in no way under our control. Howver, you may explain on the related article-talkpage that a permission is underway and that the image could remain. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the image from DisneyWiki. The main page says that its content is shared under CC-BY-SA, so I just proceed according to that. If it is copyrighted, then how come it can go onto DisneyWiki? I don't really know the mechanism. Could you please explain to me? Should I fill the non-free image's fair use instead? Forbidden User (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Forbidden User,
you are refering to File:Kristoff bjorgman in Frozen.png, right? 1) Disney is a bit known for suing illegitimate uses of their material. 2) I am sorry to say, but per our experience the licensing of not-own material on wikia is quite unreliable. Therefore, I would indeed recommend to try uploading it locally and claim fair-use. --Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have filled the form, though I forgot to choose "movie posters" (actually an excerpt from them) and had to make notes of it in the description x_x. Now it asks for review from admin, does it mean admin here or in the English Wikipedia?Forbidden User (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not have a fair-use provision, only :en has (and may be a few other Wikipedias); so, I assume it means an :en-admin. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio! Könntest Du Dir mal bitte obigen Löschantrag anschauen? Zwischen dem Uploader und Dir gab es zwei Interaktionen, die aber offenbar ungelöst blieben. Vielleicht gab es auch einen wie auch immer gearteten offwiki-Kontakt. Danke. Gunnex (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Puramyun31: , thanks for the hint. I had assumed good-faith in this case and therefore tagged only 1 of the uploads, but hadn't see this microscopic icon. I did see it now, though I don't understand the rest of the letters. Anyway, it seems to be correct. Can we safely assume that idol-story.com is indeed the rights holder or that the images were posted by the rights holder? --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the rest of the letters" (저작자표시 YES, 상업적이용 YES, 컨텐츠변경 YES) means Attributions needed, Commercial use OK, and Derivate works OK. So, that license seems to be CC-BY. Also, the source blog does not have a specific notice against free use of its content. --Puramyun31 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, according to Google Image Search, idol-story.com posted the image at 03:05 10 Feb 2014, and that is used by several other websites. However, I could not find the evidence that the image is posted/used by others before 03:05 10 Feb 2014. So, I think that idol-story.com is very likely a creator/first publisher of the image. --Puramyun31 (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am werner Schreyer myself and uploaded on the wiki page the pictures I am on and I want to show.
I do not want that some users post stupid pictures of me with no meaning.
I have the right of all companies I work for to publish them in my own name. Please unblock my pictures and publish to show on my wikipage which has been created some time ago.
Hi, o.k., we couldn't know this. Anyway, please send a confirmation from your official/business email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) in which you should mention your authorship and the filenames. --Túrelio (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a photograph licensed with Creative Commons
not every CC license is allowed on Commons. Per our policy COM:L, images have to be free also for commercial use and for creating derivatives. Therefore, works licensed only under a CC-..-NC (=no commercial use) or CC-..-ND (no derivatives) or CC-..-NC/ND license are not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
By mistake, possibly you have deleted few images and books uploaded by User:ఇందుశ్రీ ఉషశ్రీ, the declaration is available here and also a separate mail was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from Indu Gnana Vedika as well in this regard, Please let me know how to retrieve deleted images, or should I ask the user to upload images and books again? Thank you --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I've removed the no-perm-tag. However, per EXIF-data photographer and rights holder is Renee Cobb. Shouldn't he be credited as author? --Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe eben drei Bilder von einem Wiki transferiert (ich bin dort Adm. Benutzer dort ist mir persönlich bekannt, habe auch konkret die drei Bilder angesprochen). Das Commonshelper-Script funktioniert nicht ganz, hab' mich irgenwie beholfen. Gibt es noch was zu verbessern? --Atamari (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geht es um File:Landhaus Dreyer Brand1.jpg,2,3? Da sehe ich kein Problem. Will der Fotograf nur mit "Ex" attribuiert werden? Unabhängig davon, wahrscheinlich wäre es besser und auch im Fremd-Wiki-Interesse den Credit auf "Ex (wuppertal-wiki.org)" oder "Ex (via wuppertal-wiki.org)" umzustellen, damit er für Interessenten überhaupt auffindbar ist. Was meinst du? --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deswegen frage ich ja, ich habe vor dort die Bilder zu löschen, weil die auch von Commons eingebunden werden können /bzw. werden). --Atamari (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ach so. Wir bräuchten quasi so etwas wie den {{Flickreview}}, mit dem man dokumentieren kann, dass das Bild irgendwann mal dort unter der angegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stand. Da muss ich mich selbst erstmal schlau machen, was ich frühestens heute abend schaffen könnte. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Benutzer xy auf dem Wiki-xy, so ähnlich wie über den Commonshelper. p.s. da das ganze Wiki unter CC-3.0-by steht, setzte ich vorraus - das die Bilder dann auch unter CC stehen. --Atamari (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you deleted the image I uploaded. I have full permission for the image as I am the person that took it. I also made sure I used an image that hasn't been used online yet. What can I do to get it un-deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootboi Root (talk • contribs)
Hi Rootboi Root,
though I did tag your upload, I did not delete it. Anyway, if Federico Di Puma is really the photographer or full rightsholder, please ask him whether he is willing to release this image under a free license, which allows also creation of derivatives and commercial re-use. If he agrees, please prepare a permission text, using the template on Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, in which you need to enter the filename (File:R R-14.jpg) and the name of the choosen license, mail it to him and ask him to date and sign it and to return it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Okay I just saw that this was about the first image I uploaded. I at first uploaded an image that had been used online, since I thought it would help. It was actually a picture I took, but that Federico used for his article. It is okay though, i already uploaded a new image that I took that hasn't been used online. Thank you for the reply though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootboi Root (talk • contribs)
Hi, you changed file status to no evidence on permission. Official mail for granting permission was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org over 10 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drongolex (talk • contribs)
Hello Túrelio. I am a free lance photographer and although I no longer own the photo I am allowed to use the picture for "non profit generating activities" as stated in my contract with Start Rak. I do understand and appreciate what you are trying to do. If I saw one of my pictures used in an ad or a tab without my compensation I would flip my lid. However as someone who has been photographing for a living for along time my piers and I have very little concern of our work being posted on non or low profit websites. When it comes to Wikipedia I personally enjoy the exposure which is why, beyond the fact that the previous pictures was atrocious, I uploaded it. The site gets a professional looking photo and my work is displayed on a high profile website. I plan to post many more of my pictures in the future and want to give you the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBumphrey (talk • contribs)
Hi KBumphrey,
thanks for your explanation, which, however, has unearthed a common misunderstanding. Though Wikimedia-Commons has initially been created to have as central depository of media files for all Wikimedia projects, it serves anybody, including commercial re-users. Therefore, our licensing policy requires that media uploaded to Commons have to be free (in regard to copyright; not necessarily in regard to other rights) also for commercial re-uses und the creation of derivatives. You should therefore re-consider whether your work-contracts really allow for such a broad release/permission. If yes, I can easily un-delete the image. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt that you shot the photo of the book. However, who has shot the photos in the book? When you take a photo that includes the work of somebody else (photo, painting, sculpture, creative building), you need to be sure that you are allowed to do that. The content of books (except books from earlier than 1900) is usually copyrighted. For details see Commons:Derivative works. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, The book itself is 268 pages thick. I am merely quoting 2 pages as reference. I was under the impression that quotations with limited size is allowable. Please correct if I was wrong.--SiuMai (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that in several countries the copyright-law allows for small text citations. But that differs from country to country. Nevertheless, such citations can still not be put under a free license. Instead, you need to put such citation directly in the Wikipedia where you want to use it. It cannot be hosted on Commons. However, the use of "image-citations" it is far more complicated. If you want to use that image on :en Wikipedia, just upload it locally and provide a fair-use rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brand Now Asia is a marketing and pr company based in Bangkok Thailand. Veet and GrabTaxi are our clients and have allowed us to use their logo on our Wikipedia page as well as their testimonial. This is also the same for the other clients listed in our list. All our clients sign a confidentiality agreement as well as allow use to use their company's logo on our Wikipedia page.
the problem is that by uploading these logos to Commons under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license, you have allowed everybody to use these logos for any purpose (even printing them on postcards and selling these) and to create derivatives of them. That is hardly what the licensors will agree to. Uploads for "Wikipedia-only use" are not possible on Commons, as our licensing policy requires all uploads to be free for any kind of use (including commercial). If your clients really agree to that, then you should send a formal confirmation from your official/business address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your message. there is no copyright violation so please remove the sign. we took the photo and own copyright. thanks, alice from the liberatum brand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonjuice (talk • contribs)
sorry very confusing. can we send you the official image? thanks. we have used it before for media publications and now want to use it for pablo's page on wiki. this is becoming very complicated. appreciate your help. we own the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonjuice (talk • contribs)
Look, every day we are flooded with images for which the uploaders claim to be the photographer, even when they are clearly not (instead stolen from Getty and alike). Also, on-wiki we have no means to verify who is behind a user-account. Therefore, we have developed policies and processes which need to be followed, even if they look a bit like bureaucracy to honest uploaders.
For your situation, please read Commons:Permission. We need from you a statement that you are either the original creator or have full rights so that you can legally release this photo under a free license which allows any kind of use (including commercial). (I am offline now and cannot reply for the rest of the day.) --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
already emailed from our official address. please check your email. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonjuice (talk • contribs)
Danke. Hab leider nur eines auf externer Website gefunden. Vermutlich ist der Uploader selbst von der Firma. Hab ihn wegen Permission angeschrieben. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Findest du das sinnvoll, das User:Parabolooidal überall die zeitliche Kategorisierung (Jahresbezug) heraus nimmt? Ich finde nicht, ich finde der zeitliche Bezug einer Aufnahme eine wichtige Eigenschaft der 21 Millionen Bilder hier. --Atamari (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist eine Diskussion, die immer wieder mal aufkommt. Hier gibt es m.E. kein einfaches Schwarz/Weiß. Grundsätzlich ist die zeitliche Kategoris. sinnvoll, sofern das Bildmotiv es hergibt. Manchmal ist dafür entweder Ortswissen oder eine Recherche nötig. Bei File:Alte Pinakothek.JPG wurden die Zeit-Kat. konsekutiv von 2 verschiedenen Benutzern entfernt. Sofern ein Blick auf die Pinakothek heute noch dasselbe Bild bietet, ist das im Prinzip o.k. Wenn aber z.B. die Skulptur im Vordergrund verschwunden oder versetzt worden ist, ist die Zeit-Kategorie sogar notwendig. Man kann es also mit einem klaren es-kommt-drauf-an beantworten ;-). Wenn du den Eindruck hast, dass ein Ent-Kategorisierer systematisch unstrittig sinnvolle Zeit-Kat. entfernt, solltest du ihn direkt ansprechen oder halt auf der COM:VP (wenn nicht deutsch) oder COM:FORUM (wenn deutsch) zur Diskussion stellen. --Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this picture not allowed to be uploaded? You realise how difficult it is to upload an image in wikipedia? As it seems, every site can use pictures as they wnat, only wikipedia makes everything tedious. Actually old users make it difficult for new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deomaniak755 (talk • contribs)
No idea why you refer to Wikipedia. Here is Wikimedia-Commons and per international laws and per our policy COM:L you can only upload images which have been put under a free license by its creator or legitimate rights holder. Material on Facebook is not free per se. Therefore, File:Emilia 2.jpg has be tagged as missing permission. --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abortionists has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Der User Toilet hat wieder zugeschlagen. Das neue Bild ist die bessere Version alten Bild. Scaled down oder ähnlich ist die Begründung. Außerdem ist das Aufnahmedatum falsch, es kann nicht vom Juli 2014 sein. --Atamari (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe ein zweites Konto beste Turelio instant Rute unter dem Benutzernamen, dass mehr auf Ihr erklärt habe ich erstellt. Ich bin so Peter van der Sluijs. ich nur die Grundausbildung Fotograf. also abgeschlossen haben ich verbessert Dateien hochgeladen haben. Ich habe viele besondere Fotos mit Wikipedia von dort teilen möchtest. Verständnis für Menschen zustimmen, die Licht und Autist wie ich sind.Wikipedia ist manchmal sehr schwierig für mich.Große Dateien hochladen möchte bleiben. Großen Einsatz von Übersetzungs-Tools durch den Computer damit zu machen
Ich bin schon Gambia heuer, 22. November 2014 zu diesem Foto Bericht. Datum 7 November. die alten Bilder sind von 1998 drin, ich habe, einige Dateien verbessert, so dass Menschen können sie auch für Bettwäsche etc. Fragen sie mindestens 1 mb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishengel (talk • contribs)
I am rather busy these days in real-life and only rarely online. In addition, I have no idea why you are contacting me, as I didn't delete any of the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by EM Che. True, you did not engage in the deletion-discussion, though it was open for 8 days. Anyway, if you think you have a solid rationale for keeping these files on Commons, go to Commons:Undeletion requests and file an undeletion-request. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to bother you again, just others have been really bad people. Can you take one minute and send these images via email to ed.che@riseup.net?
We are back from holiday in the French Aps (Queyras and Oisans). In the meantime I visited again the beautiful Jardin Botanique Alpin du Lautaret. I have taken about 800 pictures of alpine plants, of which I have uploaded the best ones on Commons, including the first pictures of among others Brassica repanda, Valeriana saliunca and Oxytropis halleri. I have also found a new location of the rare Colchicum alpinum.
Dear Reginald, I am rather busy these days and could reply only today to your comments on :de. Everything should be o.k. now with your update of Alpen-Herbstzeitlose. I am sorry that your contribution was met by such unfriendly behaviour on :de. About "new location" better keep it secret. --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights warning on "File:Olivia Vieweg 2.JPG"
This picture was taken on an event with knowledge of the subject. (Like it is easy to see.) She is a person of public interest. (A comic book artist with an Article on German WP, who had been subject to newspaper articles and TV features as well.) And I told her, that I am planning to publish the picture on WP, before taking it. She was at first surprised, that she actually is subject to a WP article (I wrote it only a few weeks before), but did not disagree about that plan. Is this information enough to remove the tag, or should I go for an other proof? And what kind of proof would that be, if so?--Susumu (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Susumu, this seems to result from a misunderstanding of the personality-rights-tag. The latter is not a problem-tag addressed to the uploader, but it's addressed to re-users in order to protect the depicted person from abuse of their image. So, there is plainly no reason to remove this tag. To the contrary, every image showing a recognizable living person should carry this tag. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought, that the tag was a kind of warning before the deletion of the file.--Susumu (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)__P.S.: Ich sehe gerade, dass ich die Anfrage auch auf Deutsch hätte stellen können. ;)[reply]
Ups, Danke für den Hinweis. Leider habe ich die Nachricht eben erst gesehen und fröhlich weiter gemacht.
Werde mich in Zukunft daran halten
Danke nochmals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuguito (talk • contribs)
How would you deal with these 4 WWII images that have been placed on a private flickr account? Would you simply pass the images as they appear to be World War two photos.
Hi Leoboudv, sorry for my later reply, currently I refrain from copyvio-work on Commons in protest against the recent behaviour of the WMF, especially the introduction of superprotect (for links see User:Túrelio). Anyway, to answer your question: considering the overall impression, i.e. the Flickr-account[53] and the identical appearance of the photos, it seems credible that these are official WWII photos and likely PD (or alike). --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your call here, can you please add the following code on my userpage? (I added the previous code, just to you know where insert the new code)
The bot copied several paragraphs of text, without attributing it to anyone. Either that text was:
drafted by a commons contributor, whose right to attribution is not being honored;
material in the public domain because its copyright has expired;
a copyright violation of material drafted elsewhere.
Yes, administrators can look at the deleted revisions, and inform themselves as to who contributed that material. But, um, doesn't your deletion mean the rest of us can't?
Since the bot didn't move the file, so the original revision history was preserved, that revision history was preserved in the old file -- the file you deleted. Was there a reason you felt the contributors who drafted those several paragraphs should have their attribution obfuscated?
For the record, did the bot turn the old file into a redirection before you deleted it? If so, why would you have deleted it? If the old file hadn't been turned into a redirect, wouldn't it have been essentially an identical amount of work for you to turn it into a redirect, as for you to delete it?
It is my impression that most administrators recognize that files and categories, that have existed for some meaningful amount of time, can have had outsiders include their URL on third party web-sites. It is my impression that most administrators don't delete long-standing files and categories, when an old name has been superceded because breaking all those incoming third party links, turning them into red-links, makes the commons look unreliable to those third parties.
I am going to suggest that of the two choices to remedy these problems, the best choice would be grafting the previous revision history to the new file, rather than restoring the old file, and turning it into a redirection. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm busy in RL today, I can't deeply look into this at this moment. However, you are aware that this deletion happened exactly 5 (five) years ago? --Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am aware the deletion happened a long time ago.
If you are busy, in real life, why not simply: either graft the full history of the deleted file to the beginning of the history of the newer file -- or restore the full history of the original file, and turn it into a redirect to the newer file?
I have been participating on the WMF commons since late October 2005 -- almost nine years. I'd like to think that was long enough to merit the trust to look at the revision history -- when there is almost certainly no reason for it to be secret in the first place.
Restore the history, and if I think I see something that requires the attention of an administrator, can you trust me to let you know? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
für den Hinweis auf das heutige Jubiläum - auch wenn mich Äußerungen wie "but in general Commons is always looking for freely-licensed images that are not yet part of its collection, especially high quality images for Wikipedia articles" ganz unabhängig von Superprotect und seinen Folgen einmal mehr nachdenklich machen, an der Sinnhaftigkeit (meiner) Mitarbeit zweifeln lassen. Sei herzlich gegrüßt, --4028mdk09 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referent your mail to Beaudroit photo RI-51-0003815 . Casa Batllo... please tell me by which way I can insert and modifie the information .. ?
thanks
Beaudroit
Referent my Wikimedia page Beaudroit.. I inserted also photos from argentina.. in the same as Spain.. will be valid also for them ? due I couldn´t done one for Argentina alone...
Thanks
Beaudroit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaudroit (talk • contribs)
Bei den ersten beiden steht "Bestimmte Rechte vorbehalten" und CC-BY. Die können wir übernehmen. Die 4 anderen sind leider "Alle Rechte vorbehalten". Wenn du eines davon unbedingt haben willst, könntest du versuchen, den Urheber/Hochlader via Flickr-Mail zu fragen, ob er/sie bereit ist, das Bild unter CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA zur Verfügung zu stellen. Manchmal klappt das. --Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Uploader behauptet die Dr. h.c. Erich Nelson Stiftung zu vertreten. Kann ja sein. Trotzdem brauchen wir schriftliche Genehmigungen. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Still new to this, I will be more careful next time.
As for File:Mike Massy Washington.jpg, Mike Massy gave me the authorization to use this image as I wanted to create his potential new page which is still being reviewed - how can we keep it on the server?
now in regard to authorization for File:Mike Massy Washington.jpg, we need a release of the image under a free license, which allows anybody to use the image, including commercial use. A permission "for Wikipedia use" is not sufficient. If you think, Mike Massy has the full copyright needed to issue such a permission, you will find a permission template on Commons:Email templates. You need to enter the filename of the image (it doesn't matter that it has been deleted) and the name of the choosen license and mail it to the copyright holder and ask him to date/sign it and send it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the pictures are pictures from the collages i made are from Wikimedia commons, i know the conditions with the author rights,i write in wikipedia 6 six ago/ Todas las fotos que utilice en los collages pertenecen a la wikimedia commons, algunas de ellas realizadas de mi mismo y subidas en wikimedia. Conozco las condiciones de wikimedia commons sobre los derechos de autor,porque llevo seis anos siendo usuario de wikipedia y de commons.--Bogdan Muraru (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bogdan Muraru,
if the images, used in your collages, are not your own work, but taken from Commons, at a minimum you need to list all the source images in the entry Source= of the description. You may use the following template {{Derived from|Example1.jpg|Example2.jpg|Example3.jpg}}. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to tag obvious copyvios (pictures copied from Google/Facebook/various web sites) as copyvios, instead as missing permission or license (here: User talk:Nastya.maks99). It gives a better message to the uploader, and it helps admins when evaluating the situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mir ist unklar, was du mit "hinweise zu meiner arbeit" konkret meinst. Ich habe kürzlich u.a. auch einige deiner Uploads mit {{Personality rights}} versehen. Dieser Baustein, den alle Bilder von lebenden Personen tragen sollten, richtet sich nicht an den Uploader, sondern die Nachnutzer. Wenn ein Upload von dir z.B. die Persönlichkeitsrechte verletzten würde, dann würde er schnellgelöscht oder ein LA gestellt, je nach Problemschwere. Ich bin Admin und sichte auch häufig auch die neuesten Uploads. Aber vielleicht beziehst du dich ja auf etwas anderes. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh, verstehe. und ich danke dir für deine arbeit. leider muss man sich jeden schritt in der wp mühsam erarbeiten. es gibt ja keine einführungskurse und es wird erwartet, dass man alles weiss und kennt. naja... jedenfalls habe ich gerade etwas neues gelernt. aber ich frage mich trotzdem, wo die "lebenden Personen" ein problem mit ihren bildern haben sollen. sie gucken - zumindest bei mir - mit wenigen ausnahmen direkt in die kameralinse und haben sich vorab bereit erklärt, auf wp zu erscheinen. also - wie kann man den baustein vermeiden wenn alles ok ist? --StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erstmal generell: {{Personality rights}} bezieht sich vor allem auf de:Recht am eigenen Bild und soll externe Nachnutzer 1) auf mögliche Risiken hinweisen, da das o.g. Recht von Land zu Land unterschiedlich stark ausgeprägt ist, und 2) die abgebildete Person vor einer mißbräuchlichen Nutzung oder Entstellung des Fotos schützen. Auf Wikimedia-Projekten dürfen nur Fotos hochgeladen werden, die auch zur kommerziellen Nutzung freigegeben sind, weshalb CC-BY und CC-BY-SA erlaubt, CC-BY-NC aber verboten ist. Bei Portraits lebender Person ist die kommerzielle Nutzungbarkeit, unabhängig von der Lizenz, jedoch durch das Persönlichkeitsrecht eingeschränkt. Solche Fotos dürfen z.B. nicht einfach so für Werbezwecke verwendet werden. Siehe auch Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
Konkret: 1) dein "den baustein vermeiden" zeigt mir, dass du ihn irrtümlich als eine Art Makel betrachtet, was eben falsch ist. Ohne weiteres weglassen könntest du den Baustein nur bei einem Portrait von dir selbst. Ratsam wäre das trotzdem nicht.
2) Wenn du den Fotografierten nur sagst, dass ihr Foto "auf wp erscheinen wird", dann verschweigst du ihnen einen sehr wichtigen Unterschied zu einem typischen Foto eines Zeitungsjournalisten. Letzteres steht nämlich i.a. nicht unter einer freien Lizenz und kann daher nur von ihm bzw. seinem Auftraggeber verwendet werden. Unter CC-Lizenz stehende Fotos können dagegen urheberrechtlich von jedermann und für beliebige Zwecke verwendet werden. D.h., dass z.B. ein Gegner des Abgebildeten versucht sein könnte, ein CC-lizenziertes Foto zu manipulieren oder in einen falschen Zusammenhang zu stellen. Rein urheberrechtlich spielt das keine Rolle, es verletzt aber trotzdem die Persönlichkeitsrechte.
3) Es gibt den zusätzlichen Baustein {{Consent}}, der m.E. aber eher an die US-amerikanische Jurisdiktion angelehnt ist.
Das ist wirklich sehr umfassend und nicht unkompliziert. Eben ganz Wikipedia. :-) Danke für die zahlreichen Verweise.
Ich finde, dass der Baustein nicht nur "eine Art Makel", sondern irreführend bzw. irritierend ist. Die obenstehenden Verweise sind für Nicht-Juristen ebenfalls nicht hilfreich. Doch wenigstens sie sollten in den Baustein integriert werden, damit mit einem Blick ihr Zweck erkennbar wird. Der gegenwärtige Zustand ist suboptimal und kontraproduktiv.
Starke Behauptungen deinerseits, denen ich nicht folgen kann. Was bitte ist an "Obwohl dieses Werk unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurde oder gemeinfrei ist, können durch die Persönlichkeitsrechte der abgebildeten Person(en) bestimmte Nachnutzungen eingeschränkt oder von deren Zustimmung abhängig sein. Ein Modelvertrag oder ein anderer Nachweis einer solchen Zustimmung kann dich vor rechtlichen Schwierigkeiten schützen. Auch wenn er dazu nicht verpflichtet ist, kann der Uploader dir eventuell dabei helfen, solche Nachweise einzuholen." irreführend bzw. irritierend? Der derzeitige Text weist genau auf das entscheidende Problem hin: die freie Lizenz, der die hiesigen Inhalte unterliegen, kann Nachnutzer zur falschen Annahme verleiten, dass sie auch mit Fotos von lebenden Personen machen können was sie wollen. Die Schlußfolgerungen im konkreten Fall muss der Nachnutzer schon selbst ziehen, das liegt in seiner Verantwortung. Wir sind hier keine Anwaltskanzlei o.ä.
Außerdem widersprichst du dir selbst. Du sagst die o.g. Verweise seien "nicht hilfreich", willst sie aber trotzdem in den Baustein integriert haben. Wenn du dir den Baustein, jedenfalls die de-Fassung, mal richtig ansehen würdest, hättest du eigentlich bemerken müssen, dass alle Verweise/Themen, auf die ich dich hingewiesen hatte, auch dort als Links integriert sind. Ich habe nun lediglich das Link unter Persönlichkeitsrechte vom allgemeinen Artikel Persönlichkeitsrechte auf den speziellen Artikel Recht am eigenen Bild umgeändert. Weiteren Änderungsbedarf sehe ich nicht. Du kannst aber gerne auf der Disku Template:Personality rights/de Änderungswünsche zur Diskussion stellen. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Schaust du dir bitte mal das Bild an. Gibt es gute Vorlagen, die aussagen, dass ein Teil des Bildes eines gemeinfreien Bildes (Camille Pissarro † 1903) ist? Der Rest ist ohne Schöpfungshöhe - da nur Text. --Atamari (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Danke. In Grunde genommen haben wir hier drei "Lizenzen". Das gemeinfreie Bild (eher Ausschnitt), den Text - den meiner Meinung keine Schöpfungshöhe (auch nach den Regeln von Commons) zusteht und meine (Ab-)Fotografie. Ist besser als vorher, vielleicht liest noch jemand mit. Vielleicht kann jemand anderes die perspektivische Korrektur noch besser? Deswegen habe ich von Anfang an die Absicht gehabt das ursprüngliche Bild mit hochgeladen. Beim Fotografieren habe ich auch gar nicht ein Upload im Sinn gehabt, die Idee kam mir erst später. --Atamari (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. Da wusste ich garnichts davon. Ich habe zwar am Freitag und Samstag auf der WikiCon am Tagesprogramm teilgenommen, wollte aber am Abend wieder zu Hause sein und habe deshalb das Abendprogramm verpasst, wo die Eulen verliehen wurden. Oh, Mann. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may either try shoot one by yourself or you could look if there is an appropriately licensed (CC-BY or CC.-BY-SA or CC-Zero) image on Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working for the company producing the french humorist Vincent Dedienne.
I would like to tell you that my company bought this picture to Fabienne RAPPENEAU in order to use it to promote our artist. My company shared this picture to the french newspaper Le Monde.
Hello! What's the matter with image of Yalom. It was made by my friend in Moscow, during the visit of Irvin Yalom. It is fully free image. Carpodacus (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare the page content of File:Yalom.jpg to that of for example File:AachenElsassstrJapankirsche 9322.jpg. Your upload has no license template, no description, etc. This should all have been included during a proper upload. However, you may add it now. In addition, if this photo was not originally shot by you, then you need to forward a written permission from the photographer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Túrelio (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my photo, it is my friend's (User:Masangina) photo. I persuade her to share her photography. The image has description (in Russian): "Ирвин Ялом. Москва 2014.", I can add translate of the description in English (Irvin Yalom. Moscow 2014"). May I add the license myself? Carpodacus (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't to add other information, has she? I won't to disturb my friend once more, editing of pages in Wikimedia projects is difficult for her. Carpodacus (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have now added the information-template, that was completely missing from the Yalom file. As you know from your own uploads, such as File:Tamditov.JPG, it is necessary that the uploader provides information about the source ({{Own}} if own shot), the author (username if own shot) and adds the license which is his/her own choice. If she wants the unported CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, then should should add {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. With "own picture" you mean you have shot it by yourself, right?
You might either send from an email address, that is recognizably associated with keirashepherd.com, a simple confirmation to our support-team (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) that you are the photographer and confirm the licensing choosen at upload of File:Keira Shepherd.png. Alternatively you may send a formal permission (using the template in Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries) to the above mentioned address. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte das nächste Mal so einen Nutzer gleich wegpusten, da gibt es keinen Grund so einen aktiv zu lassen. Hätte uns zwar die aktuelle Vandalismusrunde nicht erspart aber warum soll man es denen leichtmachen? --Denniss (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nun ja. Nach 1 Upload war das nicht abzusehen, zumal mir das damals hochgeladene Foto nichts gesagt hat (falls das auch ein geleaktes sein sollte). Aber da das infolge der "Leaks" jetzt eventuell häufiger vorkommt, müssen wir vielleicht wirklich gleich härter reagieren. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are you aware that in none of these uploads I had added the initial copyvio-tag? The only thing I did was to add fair-use-delete to those copyvio-tagged files which were in use on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. I don't see the point to add a second copyvio warning, and not even informing the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you aren't aware of the purpose of {{Fair use delete}}. When an image on Commons, which is currently in use on :en, is 1) requested for deletion for being non-free and 2) is likely to be deleted and 3) is eventually eligible for U.S. fair-use, it should/can be tagged with {{Fair use delete}}, which results in a bot (which was developed by Dcoetzee) transfering a copy of this image to :en local into their fair-use queue. This gives them at :en the possibility to check whether it does indeed fulfil their local fair-use terms and then keep it locally. Otherwise their copy is also deleted. So, tagging with {{Fair use delete}} is NOT a copyvio-tag and is not equal to {{Fair use}}. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! I just received your message on my talk page, about the Ikara picture. I'm sorry but it's a bit difficult for me to understand... Some times I don't really know what to do... Could you explain me ? Thx--Friday83260 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete any of your uploads. Seems you are one who "didn`t check properly". Besides, you should check your own talkpage a bit more often. You had been notified about impending deletions in February 2013. Now we have October 2014. --Túrelio (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
prejudice. I have noticed that has taken countless photographs,, thank you for the 'warning, and I will try to recharge them, paying attention to copyright and royalties' author, thank you, and for his reporting I say this: LA VACA TA' FA'T, MA SBORAT ti e commons , MA VADA VIA IL CUL, at par ca mi an ghi frega dal CUPRYGHT:):) :)) --Black wolws63 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what is going on with my UPLOADED PICTURE QUOTES ?? I already noted myself as the Author. Why am I receiving all these emails stressing copyright issues. Please fix. Thank you! A E P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apaneris (talk • contribs)
Hello im very brad new in the wikipedia world i hope this is the rigth chanel to answer you. The painter´s name is a sign Iguarnieri , there are two brother that works togheter so each one of the pictures are made them by them Roberto and Rodolfo Iguarnieri, im very fan of their work and i created this user to write about them cause i never saw a work like this in fresco and made it by four hands, they are in Florence, Italy... so i tryed to create the article but wikipedia told me it wasnt interesting enough and deleted what i wrote.. i uploaded the images i dont know where jaja so im so sorry if i´ve donne a mistake.. if you may tell me some advice could be really helpful.
p.s. I took the images cause im photographer.. they are mine but free to use it..
thank you , bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinagaleriaiguarnieri (talk • contribs)
Hi Sabrinagaleriaiguarnieri,
o.k. Are Roberto and Rodolfo Iguarnieri still alive? Could you please write the name of the painter into the description of each of these images. --Túrelio (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you wrote to me about my pictures. I make them myself, only one is from the internet and is not in use (you can delete it). Where is the problem with the others? The upload rules said, that pictures by myself are ok....--Vicbrother (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not primarily doubt that you took the pictures. However, what you have captured is a copyrighted game. It is similar if you just take a photo of a painting which has been painted by someone else. Though the photo is by yourself, you violate the copyright of painter. --Túrelio (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Äh, Ziel ist also eigentlich Category:Mondain (trademark) ? Category:Mondaine (trademark ) habe ich jetzt mal gelöscht. Mir ist aber nicht klar, welche Kategorien du am Ende haben willst. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ziel von Category:Mondaine (trademark) ist Category:Mondaine (wie zu Beginn meiner missglückten Aktion). Die Tauben habe sich wiedersprochen die Amerikaner schreiben "French Mondain" und "Swiss Mondaine". Letzteres glaube ich, ist aber ein typo in der Quelle. Muss da noch Nachforschungen betreiben. (die Franzosen schreiben "Mondain" und in Deutschland sind es auch "Mondain". Beide kennen aber die "Swiss"-Variante so nicht)
Hallo Túrelio, ich habe (mal wider) ein technisches Problem. Beim Hochladen all dieser Bilder User:PicTrans/gallery in einer aufgehellten Version sind die Quelldaten beim Überschreiben der Dateien nicht übernommen worden. Kann man das reparieren? Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also dieses PicTrans-Skript/Programm hat im 2. Schritt jeweils die bisherige Beschreibungsseite einfach überschrieben und sagt das auch so in der edit summary. Um das zu reparieren, muss man einfach diesen Schritt rückgängig machen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Túrelio, I saw that Studio95 has uploaded several copyrighted pictures for the second time despite your warning in May. Yesterday I put some of his files for an immediate cancellation (see 1, 2, 3, 4) that he uploaded on italian wikipedia on November, 5th.
Now there are a few more pictures uploaded by him which I think are copyviol even though it's difficult to find them with Google Images (maybe because downloaded from Flickr or Facebook).
I think it would be better to block his account, also because he still operates on italian wikipedia by uploading pictures and editing pages with those pictures and new ones. Thank you! --кıngsт☁n!15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, last time you decided not to reply to me and, as I thought, Studio95 continued uploading files which I believe are not own works. He started by uploading images from the net and Flickr which were easy for me to find thanks to Google, but now that he understood how it works, and strengthened by the fact that no one is willing to stop him, he began upoading pictures which seem to be taken from magazines and then scanned (in fact all of them are very low resolution). For example, here, you can see the typical shade which creates on the band when you try scanning a page and you can't press the book very well; or here where you can clearly see part of a frame on the top. These are only few examples of what I was telling you, I can't check for each of his pictures that are growing day by day and, till now, have always been copyviols.
Please, I'm asking you if you can block him to avoid these things happening again and again (it's the third time that he uploads pictures without license and he doesn't even care of the warnings people gave him).
sorry that I didn't reply to your earlier posting. I can do this work only in my spare-time and there are too many urgent things to do here, so that sometimes message slip through. The problem with Studio95's uploads is that though many of them may be copyvios, my usual 1st line of research (using pattern recognition by Google-Images) didn't yield any result for his uploads. I have checked them all! That means, other mechanism of search (requiring far more time) are needed to provide reasonable evidence for a copyvio. It's very unlikely that I will have time for this in the rest of 2014. So, you should either bring up this case on COM:VP or COM:AN, or try by yourself to find reasonable evidence for at least 1 of his images that it is not his own work. I have opened a DR for File:Arco_della_pace_milano_2014.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Türelio,
ich hoffe diese Nachricht kommt richtg an und auch an die richtige Stelle. Ich habe vor einigen Tagen eine neue Seite bei Wickipedia eingestellt unter dem Namen "Harry Schultz" und werde da betreut von "EHaseler". Ich bin ganz neu und freue mich auf eine gute Betreuung! Ich bin Sammler und ein Landsmann von dem Marinemaler Harry Schultz und habe über Ihn 2 Bücher geschrieben. Alle Texte stammen aus meiner eigenen Literatur und alle Bilder, Gemälde und Fotos stammen aus meinem Besitz, und können bei mir hier in München jederzeit besichtigt werden. Ich habe meinen Mentor EHaseler gebeten meine Bilder in Meine Galerie zu setzen aber er wird auch anders beschäftigt sein. Vieleicht könnten Sie sich mit ihm kurzschließen und mir gemeinsam helfen? Für weitere Fragen stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung.
Harry Schultz ist 1958 kinderlos verstorben und seine Ehefrau 2 Jahre später. Er hatte keine direkten Nachfahren und sein Besitz wurde versteigert. Alle in meinem Besitz befindlichen Gewgenstände habe ich weltweit auf Auktionen zusammen gesteigert und gekauft. Das Foto von dem Grab bekam ich vor Jahren von der ehemaligen Nachbarin Frau Nikutta geschenkt sowie einige weitere Fotos. Frau Nikutta lebt nicht mehr wie alle Zeitgenossen von Harry Schultz.
Mit freundlichen Grüße
Hallo Türello,
auch ich habe mich umgehört, wenn ich einen Schrank von einem Handwerker fertigenlasse und diesen käuflich erwerbe oder ein Bild bei einem Händler oder Straßenkünstler käuflich erwerbe, so habe ich auch das Recht diesen, meinen Gegenstand öffentlich vorzustellen, in diesem Fall liegt das Urhebrecht beim Käufer / Besitzer. Ich habe meine ganze Wohnung voller Harry Schultz hängen, dann dürfte ich ja in meiner Wohnung nicht mehr fotografieren und diese Fotos öffentlich zeigen. Der Besitz eines Gegenstandes ist anders als wenn ich ein Lied höre und kopiere oder ein Gemälde bei einem Händler im Schaufenster fotografiere und diese Bilder veröffentlichen will. Das sind wohl zwei ganz gravierende Unterschiede. Ich bin gespannt wie Eure Experten das auslegen. Aus meiner Sicht kann ich die mir gehörenden Gemälde veröffentlichen, zerschneiden oder aber auch verbrennen, selbst wenn der Künstler noch leben sollte kann er nur daneben stehen aber nichts verhindern. Er hat den Gegenstand ohne Beschränkungen verkauft.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Hans- Joachim Pfau--Hans- Joachim Pfau (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Da muss ich dir leider widersprechen. Mit dem materiellen Bild als solchem kannst du selbstverständlich machen was du willst. Du hast durch den Kauf aber nicht das Recht am eigentlichen Werk, also dem Gemälde, erworben. Das Urheberrecht an seinem Werk fällt dem Urheber automatisch zu. Er kann das Nutzungsrecht teilweise oder vollständig übertragen. Dies erfordert aber einen vom Kauf der materiellen Fixierung (also z.B. des Gemäldes im Rahmen) getrennten Rechtsakt (Vertrag o.ä.). Das gilt auch für die Werke eines Straßenmalers. Dass sich viele Menschen dessen nicht bewußt sind, ist ein anderes Problem, was aber nichts an der Rechtslage ändert. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Türelio,
so ist es nun einmal, man meint es Gut, möchte den Künstler mit seinen Werken den Interessenten näher bringen, aber unsere Gesetze sind scheinbar dagegen, kann man nichts machen, was sein muß - muß sein. Ich wüßte nicht wo ich um Genehmigung nachfragen könnte, alle sind tot.
Einen schönen guten Abend trotzdem
Hans- Joachim Pfau--Hans- Joachim Pfau (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Benutzer zweifelt an, dass die Bilder in Gambia aufgenommen worden sind. Womöglich ist geht er von falschen Voraussetzungen aus, dass die Bilder auf Commons nach dem Verbreitungsgebiet kategorisiert werden. Das ist aber nicht so, seine Begründung (there exist no species of this family in africa is a cultivar) ist nicht korrekt. Die Planze wird als Kultur- bzw. Zierpflanze in Gambia angepflanzt und gehört zur Flora Gambias und somit wie der weit verbreitete Mangobaum eine Kulturplanze (ebenfalls nicht heimisch in Westafrika).
User:AnRo0002, der viele viele tausende Biologie-Artikel nachkategorisiert, hatte die Änderung auch schon mal zurück gesetzt und ist von mir informiert (ist aber als Admin involviert im Editwar). --Atamari (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., ich habe auf den Anfangszustand revertiert und für 1 Tag vollgesperrt. Diskutiert das bitte aus, ihr seid ja alle 3 de-Sprecher. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M because it was empty.
There is a newbie who keeps manually moving images from the categories based on their exif info to other categories for cameras that he or she thinks are identical. I am not aware of any policy, guideline, or convention that recommends such mergers. I've written to this newbie. He or she won't stop.
I am going to continue to put images into the category named after the brand of camera embedded in their exif data.
Today I have uploaded File:Bruckner's Pange lingua (1891).jpg, a facsimile of an autograph manuscript of a Bruckner's Page lingua WAB 31 (work revision of 1891). The composer died five year later (1896). I have thus put the license {{PD-old}} . Apparently this is not sufficient for the US. What should I change or add? Could you please advise?
Hi Reginald, I have added -100 to the license template. How did you create the reproduction, via scanner or camera? Is this page part of a book? --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Túrelio,
This reproduction is coming from p. 184 of Max Auer, Anton Bruckner als Kirchenmusikerwhich, 1927, a scan of which is available as pdf on John Berky's website (Max Auer, Anton Bruckner als Kirchenmusiker).
Hallo Túrelio, ich habe derzeit 3 Bilder des Freskenmalers Francesco Bernardini hochgeladen. Könntest du bitte eine Kategorie Francesco Bernardini anlegen, da weitere Bilder folgen werden. Die bisherigen habe ich unter Füssen und St. Mang Basilica Füssen angelegt. Hier in Kettenis ist noch ein Altarbild von ihm. Ausserdem habe ich die Fühler ausgestreckt, um noch einige andere Bilder zu erhalten. Im Artikel siehst du den Bezug zu AC. liebe Grüße Frinck, hier als --Frinck51 (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Relly Komaruzaman, you have overwritten a number if files by other users, such as File:Klaudia Cieśla 5439.jpg. Please take note that per our policy Commons:Overwriting existing files overwriting existing files is allowed only in a few cases. In addition, you did not provide any meaningful information in the edit-summary why you had done this. When you have overwritten File:Olga sukhareva.jpg 3 times, you wrote "Olga Sukhareva", "Woman" and "Blonde" into the edit-summary, which is completely meaningless, as it provides no rationale for overwriting this file. --Túrelio (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, I changed them for unpredictable purpose of course. I did some overwritings to update the display on here. It's a relief for me if this amazing picture on there. Wierd if I say so to my self, but it's fun. Thanks for the questions and comments. Enjoy what you want to get joy.
The sentence means "Of course, these actions are unpredictable for rationale thoughts." Túrelio, do you mind undelete Bengkulu Ekspress.png? I got the file from here. I will change the information about it.
I have a right to show the page on Wikipedia. The newspaper reported a news about me without any interview with me for the title Oknum Guru Diduga Setubuhi Honorer, the victim is me. This scandal is a journalistic crime in the law of jurisdiction in my state. I don't care about the copyright-violation, I will responsible for it.
I am sorry, but it doesn't work like that. If the project on which you want to use this image, has a excemption-policy such as fair-use :en Wikipedia, you may upload the image locally to your project. But our policy does not allow such uploads. I (or anybody else on Commons) cannot change that. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's okay. I'll upload it locally to Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia. Thank you.
Hola que tal Túrelio? - Sobre la imagen de subía a commons y que fue borrada, ya me di cuenta del error de licencia que debia tener Ver aquí. Estoy empezando a usar el Flickr y veo que no es nada sencillo. Por ahora quisiera saber si puedo volver a subir la imagen con la licencia correspondiente (en este caso BY (CC-BY)); para que no haya más errores de mi parte. Gracias y disculpe las molestias. ¡¡¡Cordiales saludos!!!--Adriel ricardo morales (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adriel, problem is that yesterday, when the image was checked, it was "All rights reserved". That is the reason why it was deleted. https://www.flickr.com/photos/129333824@N04/ is your Flickr-account, right? The photo of Suéter has rather low resolution. Is it a capture from a YouTube-video or what did you use to take this photo? --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Und was jetzt? Da habe ich schon lange darauf gewartet, das ist der sonst bei WLM Italy übliche disclaimer, dort ist die Info nur in italienisch, nützt Dir der link? Gruß --Oursana (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nix. Nutzer außerhalb von Italien können diese Einschränkung, jedenfalls nach hier herrschender Meinung, getrost ignorieren, weil es 1) keine urheberrechtliche Einschränkung ist und 2) außerhalb von Italien kaum durchsetzbar sein dürfte. --Túrelio (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Es wird aber kein Admin ein Bild deswegen löschen. Für ital. Nachnutzer ist die Warnung durchaus angebracht. Aber ich gebe zu, dass der Baustein etwas zu dramatisch wirkt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio, auf dieser Webseite des Dortmunder Hafens sind Links zu guten Bildern, die auf die Commons übertragen werden könnten. Die Nutzungsbedingungen "Die Fotos dürfen frei genutzt werden, die Quelle (Dortmunder Hafen AG, wenn nicht anders vermerkt) muss genannt werden. Sofern eine Bildunterschrift vorgegeben ist, bitten wir um Berücksichtigung." sind mit den hier üblichen Lizenzen verträglich. Da ich keine Erfahrung mit den Umständen beim Hochladen von Bildern anderer Leute habe, bin ich allerdings etwas ratlos, was nun zu tun ist. Kannst Du bitte helfen oder kennst Du jemand, der helfen kann? Gruß, -- Ies (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ies, ich würde dir empfehlen zunächst einmal den auf der Website genannten Kontakt direkt anzusprechen, denn die scheinbar so unmißverständlichen Worte "frei genutzt werden" können bekanntlich recht unterschiedlich verstanden werden (möglicherweise hat die Hafen AG nur die einfachen Nutzungsrechte). Vielleicht ist es klug, das primäre Motiv der Anfrage (Bebilderung der WP-Artikels über den Hafen) an Entree zu benutzen. Danach sollte aber Klartext bzgl. der Nutzungsrechte folgen; also nicht nur Wikipedia, sondern von jedermann für beliebige Zwecke nutzbar (Beispiel: auf Ansichtkarten drucken und verkaufen). Am besten schlägst du gleich eine konkrete Lizenz vor, z.B. CC-BY-SA 3.0-Deutschland[65] oder CC-BY-SA 4.0-international[66]. Das sollte dem PR-Kontakt die Klärung erleichtern, ob sie tatsächlich diese Rechte haben. Birgt natürlich das Risiko, dass sie feststellen, is nich. Bzgl. des Uploadprozesses habe ich auch keine Erfahrung, würde ich zunächst mal auf dem Forum ansprechen. Wenn das nicht weiterführt, auf Commons:Upload tools schauen oder jemand fragen, der mal mass uploads gemacht hat. (ich bin heute größtenteils offline)--Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ein wichtiger Punkt ist, dass wir hier nur "auch für die kommerzielle Nutzung" akzeptieren. Lizenen mit "nc" gehen nicht, ich glaube nicht, dass die Erlaubnis so umfangreich ist. So ist sie missverständlich, da ja der Dortmunder Hafen bei vielen gar nicht der Urheber ist. Vielleicht kann @Martin Kraft and Ireas: was dazu sagen? --Atamari (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich seh das eigentlich genauso wie Túrelio: Diese Frage sollte man im direkten Kontakt mit der HAfen AG klären. Und wenn die dann AG in Kenntniss aller Anforderungen schriftlich bestätigt, alle die für eine freie Lizensierung nötigen Rechte zu haben, kann man die Daten hier auch hochladen. // Martin K. (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unauthorized picture. Now with permission.
I have tried to upload a picture on Wikimedia. Initially, I did not understand how the permission concept worked so the picture was deleted, which was understandable. I then contacted the photographer, got her approval and entered it into the Wikimedia system for permission. This worked and I got the
This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.
The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2014100910006245.
.I then tried to upload the picture again, now with permission. I however got the message that there was already a file with that content that has been deleted. How should I proceed when I finally have the permission? Is there a way for you, who I believe deleted the initial file, to reverse the deletion?
Sut64 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That file was created by me in August of 2006 and I uploaded it in the English Wikipedia. I released it under a public domain license. Since then, the image has been used by other sites without crediting the original source Wikipedia. It was just deleted from English Wikipedia a few months ago because I was inactive. I don't know how I can prove what I am saying is correct because I've never encountered this situation before. It is the truth. The original name of the file in the English Wikipedia was BrentTheEmoKid Boxer Shorts Sagging Fad.png I prefixed it with the word user this time to make it easier to categorize. Can you help me undelete it? Please let me know if you need more information. I'm willing to cooperate in any way I can. I see from your talk page that you are busy in real life.
Here are some links hoping this will help show what I am saying is the truth.
Link showing original upload to English Wikipedia: [67]
Link showing recent deletion of user page image due to my inactivity in years: [68]
Wayback Machine link of my English Wikipedia user page: [69]
Wayback Machine link of the image's file details: [70]
I truly appreciate your time in this matter. Thank you for any help you can provide in undeleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentTheEmoKid (talk • contribs)
O.k., restored. You could had saved us a lot of time, if you had provided the evidence of the former upload to :en in the description at upload. --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wenngleich ich deine Intention natürlich verstehe, ist ein solcher Hinweis infolge der Affirmation (does not und only applies) problematisch, weil er sowohl dich als auch mögliche Nachnutzer einem Restrisiko aussetzt. Die Einschätzung in deinem "Disclaimer" entspricht zwar der auf Commons herrschenden Meinung. Das ist aber keine absolute Garantie, dass das immer und überall zutreffend ist. Wenn dir an der Sache viel liegt, solltest du das Thema mal auf Commons:Village pump/Copyright posten oder dich vielleicht an wmf-legal (z.B. User:LuisV (WMF)) wenden und dort um eine Einschätzung bitten, wie man den Baustein etwas weniger abschreckend formulieren könnte, ohne sich auf rechtliches Glatteis zu begeben. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
ich habe die BMW-Mail weitergeleitet und erst dann gesehen, dass da nichts von Linzenzen oder Freigaben drin steht.
Deshalb habe ich bei BMW eine neue Mail angefordert, die eine Freie Lizenz für die Bildverwendung enthält.
Sobald die Mail da ist leite ich sie an "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" weiter.
Ist es richtig, wenn ich so einer Mail z.B. folgenden Titel gebe: — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterHoch (talk • contribs)
Dear Turélio,
sorry to bother you. I saw that you have deleted one picture that we wanted to publish on our page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_End_Watch_Co. as illustration.
Actually, the picture was taken by a professional photographer on our demand, so we can freely use it. It is our product (watch) and we have the copy right even if we are not the author of the picture. In that case, are we allowed to publish this picture and/or others having the same status? If yes, could you please inform me how to do? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards. ---- CINDY1983, Dec. 16, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CINDY1983 (talk • contribs)
Hi CINDY1983, actually I tagged the image only, it was deleted by a colleague (four-eyes-rule). The reason I tagged it was that I found it on several websites, which is an indicator (though not a proof) of copyvio. Anyway, if you are (or represent) the legitimate copyright holder, please send a confirmation (covering ownership of full copyright and intent to release this image under a free license of your choice, needs to be specified) from your business email-address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (for details see Commons:Permission and Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries). --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images I upload are mine - I am the photographer - I got some help from a Wikipedian at a recent conference who restored photos I had uploaded.
Here's the note he left me (pasted from my talk page)
Nice to meet you at Wikiconference USA 2014 I'm also pinging User:EugeneZelenko
I restored the images, but I was a bit casual in my explanations, because I was trying to do it while engaging in the conversation. If someone doesn't find that my explanations were adequate and challenges any of the images, please ask them to contact me, and we can talk.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPDuffy527 (talk • contribs)
Hi SPDuffy527, o.k. but we still an explanation why
Ooops, though files have been deleted in between, they can easily be undeleted if you provide an convincing explanation to the issue above. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted pictures of Jordan Roberts. I am uploading them so I can add him to his Wikipedia Page Jordan Roberts. The images are all used from Flickr under Michael.Martin1. He gave me the options to use the work. How do I go about getting them uploaded on Wikipedia Commons and then adding them to Jordan Roberts's page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiOrgininalAuthor1 (talk • contribs)
Hi WikiOrgininalAuthor1,
eventually read what had been replied here: File talk:Jordan Roberts All-American Runningback in 2012. (15879669797).jpg. The uploads to the Flickr-account of Michael Martin are very likely not his own work, whereby he violates Flickr's terms. You cannot taken an image, which had been shot by somebody else, and declare it as own work and put it under a free license. Only the original author/photographer can do this. You have likely been misled by the Flickr-user. Regrettably, he is not the only one, who shows such behaviour: Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The file that you deleted mateos aurora corresponds to Aurora Mateos, erasing is wrong, I am responsible for updating all your tickets on the internet, I am also the webmaster of their websites. Please return to restore your file and your page has no photo.
Hi Futura ok, I am not sure I understand you correctly (updating all your tickets on the internet?). Anyway, the same image as you had uploaded and claimed as own work, has been found in higher resolution on http://auroramateos.com. There is no indication that the content of auroramateos.com is not copyrighted. So, if you are authorized by Aurora Mateos or by the author of this photo to release it under a free license, you need to ask them to send a statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . For details see Commons:Permission. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the link to "Göztepe" red? Can you correct it in my previous talk so that I may learn how to write it correctly the next time? Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Túrelio,
ich möchte Dir ein frohes und friedvolles Weihnachtsfest wünschen und hoffe, dass das neue Jahr 2015 viel Freude, viel Gutes und wenig Stress für Dich bereithält.
Dank nochmals für stete Hilfe und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I did not think about his English wiki account. Thanks for taking action on the second image as there ere 2 replacement photos. As for this image in human flickr review, I see no one wants to mark it. All I know is that the flickr account owner does claim in Cyrillic to have taken this 2009 photograph on the flickr source...as I copied the name into google translate and got the same flickr name here as the flickr account. (Егор Васильев is 'Egor Vasilyev') The uploader has few images though here. Best Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
.JPG)
Thank you. for the prompt action. --Muzammil (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Túrelio. --Arjuncm3 (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
--LeJC (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
![4 1. File:Ronmueck boy closeup.jpg, File:Ronmueck boy.jpg, 2. File:Riccardo Sollecito aka Valerio Morigi in "Halina" (2013)..jpg and all other files from this uploader](#1._File:Ronmueck_boy_closeup.jpg,_File:Ronmueck_boy.jpg,_2._File:Riccardo_Sollecito_aka_Valerio_Morigi_in_"Halina"_(2013)..jpg_and_all_other_files_from_this_uploader){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_bei_Freiland.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Max_Liebermann.jpg){kind=link}
![237 Personality rights warning on "File:Olivia Vieweg 2.JPG"](#Personality_rights_warning_on_"File:Olivia_Vieweg_2.JPG"){kind=link}
![301 "File:Aurora Mateos.jpg".](#"File:Aurora_Mateos.jpg".){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Milvus_milvus_(portret).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=114962482){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Laura_Carrera_Lugo.jpg&diff=96698932&oldid=96690043){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Judgefloro#File:FvfSablanBenguet0362_06.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8.JPG&diff=119599697&oldid=119599119){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Diamond_Jubilee_Balcony_at_Buckingham_Palace_-_Camilla_%28cropped%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Diamond_Jubilee_Balcony_at_Buckingham_Palace_-_Camilla_and_Charles.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Diamond_Jubilee_Balcony_at_Buckingham_Palace_-_Camilla_and_Charles.jpg&diff=next&oldid=120732383){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:S%C3%B8lystgade_2.jpg&diff=120998182&oldid=120994884){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Royal_Casino_4.JPG&diff=120999521&oldid=120999304){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_bei_Freiland.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_bei_Freiland.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ATomas+Gorny.jpg×tamp=20140503155043&diff=prev){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Max_Liebermann.jpg){kind=link}
_Max_Liebermann.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio/Archive9#c-Susumu-2014-07-31T16:20:00.000Z-Personality_rights_warning_on_"File:Olivia_Vieweg_2.JPG"){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Casa_Mila_-_RI-51-0003814-.JPG&action=edit§ion=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrentTheEmoKid_Boxer_Shorts_Sagging_Fad.PNG){kind=link}
![[70]](https://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BrentTheEmoKid_Boxer_Shorts_Sagging_Fad.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio/Archive9#c-Túrelio-2014-12-22T19:54:00.000Z-"File:Aurora_Mateos.jpg".){kind=link}
