User talk:Thuresson/Archive2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

< User talk:Thuresson

Jump to navigation Jump to search

French police

Dear Thuresson,

regarding the French Polce sign that seams to have gotten deleted. (I was in X-mas-hollidays and now noticed it.) Actually I got it from http://www.prefecture-police-paris.interieur.gouv.fr and have no idea wether or not it falls under any GNU-licence. What I do know is, that it is identical to one that I took as image of a French police car's door. Yet, the one at the door hat a white background (since the French police cars are off white basic color).

I'm writing you, since I'm the new guy here at WIKIPEDEA. And I had used that image in some articles even though it says not used in any articles (what I don't understand actually).

In addition to that, I do not want to have any trouble here, WIKIPEDEA is too great for that) by just up-loading the image again to again include it in the articles it was included. Thus I have to ask for help: what do you suggest, how to proceed?

Regards,—Janetzky 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hallgrimskirkja transposed.jpg

Hi, what is the intended use of this photo? Thuresson 10:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I transposed it for an article regarding transposition (mathematical concept) on the Icelandic Wikipedia. The only other transposed picture I found on Commons wasn't as "clear" regarding how transposition works, and I thought Icelandic readers might appreciate something they recognized. --Spm 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my user talk page - please respond there)

re: Template:Deletion requests#Polish scouting badges

Please do not discuss the request in Polish. Thuresson 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? ¦ Reisio 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because not all involved users and Admins are able to understand polish language? --Denniss 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? They can ignore it or take 30 seconds to find an online Polish translator. It's idiotic to have a Commons where only English is allowed - people may as well stick to the local Wikipedias for their images. Following Commons:Language policy (which follows common sense, IMO) I wish people would not discourage the use of languages other than English. Commons:Deletion requests affects all of us regardless of the languages we can articulate in. ¦ Reisio 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the polish-speaking administrators are active on Commons:Deletion requests. It is very difficult for administrators who don't understand Polish to decide what to do with a request if they can't understand the arguments for or against keeping the file. Thuresson 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving deletion requests

Hi, I appreciate that somebody wants to archive old request. May I suggest that you wait a little longer before archiving finished requests? I like to add "Deleted by Thuresson" + the blue background to requests dealt with by me. Thuresson 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll wait till you are finished doing those before archiving. Keep in mind that I will directly archive obvious copyvio/speedy deletes. Oh, you might be interested in helping me out on this by the way. -- WB 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

engraving or etching?

In fact, I'm not sure because I don't know exactly what is difference between these two terms in English. Original image is descibed in German as "Stich". Pko 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I uploaded more graphics and have to correct them also. Pko 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Italy

hi. can I put this template in the main namespace? --RED DEVIL 666 12:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probably now is better. Sorry we have had problems on the help page on it:wiki and the link was wrong. --RED DEVIL 666 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can I put in the main namespace, now? --RED DEVIL 666 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. And I'll put a link on Italian "Bar" (Italian Village Pump). --RED DEVIL 666 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

please, delete this photo because for the italian law isn't in the public domain. We, on it:wiki, had some problems with photos like this. --RED DEVIL 666 10:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Art in french

Hi,
I don't understand why did you delete the french translation. Have you created a french version to use instead ?
--Fabos 13:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there should be French in template, why not other languages? Why not German, Spanish, Polish, Italian and Klingon too? Why not Norwegian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Urdu och Farsi too? Why not Gaelic, Sami, Xhosa, Thai and Gujarati? Why not Chinese, Japanese, Maori and any other language you can think of? Thuresson 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Please translate in Spanish, polish, sami, maori and so on... It will be useful for all those that don't speak english. --Fabos 13:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Commons:Village_pump#Internationalization_of_templates. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges in the Catalan Countries

About this topic I had a conversation with the person who created the category. The point of disagreement about this category was due to the different interpretations we had of the word "country". I actually would not enjoy beginning an edit war with this topic. So, if someone consider this category necessary, I rather would leave it to stay, eventhough I still prefer "Bridges in Catalunya". Regards. --Javier Carro 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this category and set it for watch. The vote on December 21 was for deletion and circumstances have not changed. If necessary we will reopen debate. I don't know what's wrong with Category:Bridges in Catalonia. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

What do you think we should do with Template:Deletion_requests#Image:AgassiBackhand.gif? I realize Jimbo has the powers, but if the copyrights are correct... I need your opinion. -- WB 07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Ed g2s deleted the image a few hours ago. The image had a license but it remains unclear on what grounds en:User:Zaheen claimed ownership of the copyright. Thuresson 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Picture

Of course there is a web address www.rondo1.pl -- User:Shalom Alechem signature added by Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thuresson - please have a look at User_talk:Shalom_Alechem#Image:UNO-Rondo.jpg. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radera en bild?

Hej! Jag gjorde ett misstag och laddade ner bilden Image:Motorway Europe.PNG som jag sedan en tid hade sparat ner på min dator. Tyväär har jag glömt var jag hade hittat den. Därför vet jag inte om den verkligen är Public Domain eller överhuvudtaget tillåten att ha här. Bör den anmälas för radering? Jag har inte lärt mig Commons raderingsrutiner så jag undrar om du kunde hjälpa mig med att radera denna? /E70 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation:

"Erase a image? hi Self did one error and fraught down depiction ImageMotorway : Europe.PNG as self sedan a term had economize down on mine dator. Alas have I forgotten was I had find the. Therefore vet self nots if the really is Publish Magistrate ors överhuvudtaget admissible that had here. Should the report for erasement? I have nots learned me Commons raderingsrutiner so self am wondering if yous be able help me with that erase that? E70 0046:, 28 January UTC )" [1]

¦ Reisio 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo

Me, vote fraud? "sirley" you jest :) 0waldo 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Look Image SC internacional.gif. -- Fernando S. Aldado 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:source

thank you for notice. In effect I charged thoose images from itwiki images database. Three of images that you say me are in effect made in Italy (i'm going to write this) but I'm not sure about Image:ADRIANO PANATTA.jpg. If you give me some times I am going to find the source. --RED DEVIL 666 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the source. Thanks for the attension :-) --RED DEVIL 666 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was gone to speak with italian uploader that say me that the photo was made in Italy. If it can't be made thoose phot must be delected, but if we don't trust it the wikipedians, isn't good for the project. --RED DEVIL 666 07:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked more expications to uploadre of itwiki and give me other notice on the photos. If isn't ok, pleas recall me. :-) --RED DEVIL 666 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is writed in the category of image: Category:Prime ministers of France. But David Monniaux say me to expect to modified this image and leave template of Publication ufficielle because he send an e.mail to french gov. --RED DEVIL 666 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rollback my change and put your version. I saw this morning your notice, and I thought that was a my upload. But this image was charged by another user. I don't know the license, sorry. And sorry for my mistake. --RED DEVIL 666 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I know the law. I charged thoose image from itwiki and enwiki. All thoose images was tagged Publication officielle (but after david say me that this definition is probably a mistake) and the image that you say me was signed with Publication officielle. Probably this tag on enwiki was a mistake too and I was inducted in a mistake by enwiki image. Sorry --RED DEVIL 666 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President of Poland pics

Why did you mark Image:Presidents of Visegrad group.jpg for deletion? The source is given in the template - the website of the President of Poland. Ausir 17:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the copyright info is there in Polish, it's copyright free use. The president has changed and this is a photo of the previous president, so you'd probably have to dig harder to find it on the website now. Ausir 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, give me a link to the copyright info and I will take a look. Thuresson 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011893 Ausir 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics on commons

Most of them were made by me, and you can see the Creative commons Licensing in the Licensing section. (see the list of links on my talk page) - lyhana8 (Talk) 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion warning

Image:Winston Churchill 1941 photo by Yousuf Karsh.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

User:dbenbenn 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tysonmug1.jpg

Someone removed the summary from this page. I've reverted it. A source was once added to this page by an uploader. Adnghiem501 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-uploaded the image that you deleted. It had a source added to this page before, somehow some user had removed the source for no reason. It looks like s/he vandalised the page in that action. However, I suggest you should probably have remembered to check the history of this page before deletion. Otherwise, semi-protect this page to prevent from vandalism. Thanks. Adnghiem501 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use my talk page on the English Wikipedia instead, since I made a redirect of my talk page in the WikiCommons that could link there. I've transferred your comments (you placed on my redir talk page) there. Thanks. Adnghiem501 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evolution-tasks.png

Hi, could you restore the Evolution task image, rather than the Kate image? Lots of pages actually use this for the Evolution image; the Kate image can go elsewhere, I'm sure. Matt Crypto 07:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a version available with a proper license and a credible source who can verify the license? Thuresson 14:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Evolution, and is GPL. Matt Crypto 15:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. It's been a month. Matt Crypto 13:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, your kindness in replying (and your help) is much appreciated. I had read the link you suggested but not all the details are totally clear when you first join. I did upload a couple of copyright free images which have not been erased and I'm sure I will become increasingly less of a nuisance in the coming weeks and months. Thanks again. D Ambulans 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) D Ambulans 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PolishPresidentCopyright

I'm sorry I didn't reply until today, but I haven't been logged here for many weeks... The reasoning behind this template is now on discussion page of the template. Feel free to contact me further if you want. -- Kocio 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter H. Wust

Hello thuresson, I'm in contact with User:Arístides Herrera Cuntti about these images, I've explained him the problem and suggested him to request an authorization for a GFDL license. Regards. Anna 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer : Aigle franquiste and Tombe Franco

Hello, I confirm that I'm the author of the two photos (taken in september 2005). Regards. (French user Georgio) 212.23.162.39 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ralf_petersen.jpg

Hi, I don´t understand the problem about "Ralf_petersen.jpg" (Ralf Petersen = Horst Fliegel). Please, give me a little sample for a correct source-discription. Regards. Egon W. 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoRsE (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log •upload log)

Hi Thuresson. I think this user speaks Swedish, as all their images are being used in sv:. I want to ask if you can please ask this user to provide source information and categories for the images they've already uploaded, before uploading any more. Maybe their understanding of Commons policy isnot very good. Probably the sources should be checked as well, because I just deleted two copyvios they uploaded from en: (where they were clearly marked as copyrighted). Thanks for your help. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buscetta

sorry, My mistake when I was writing the description. The trial is of 1983. --RED DEVIL 666 19:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. There was another photo of him taken before 1986. Thuresson 19:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kungabilderna

Jag har inte hemtat bilderna från någon hemsida! Fotografierna, som bland annat använts av Forum för levande historia vid en utstälning om svensk nazism (varifrån jag har tagit bilderna) finns bevarade i Krigsarkivet och tillhör svenska folket.

Vattkoppa 20 feb 2006.

Upphovsrätten till fotografierna tillhör enligt svensk lag fotografen och dess dödsbo t.o.m. 70 år efter fotografens dödsdag. Den fjättrade ankan 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsta Tucuman

Hi Thuresson I received a message from you asking about the UNSTA logo. I took it from the www.unsta.edu.ar website, I'm not sure about the license. Can you help me with it?

Tagging Images

Hi Thuresson, thanks for your comments. I have answered on my discussion page: User talk:Jungpionier. - Jungpionier 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Mbini.PNG

Can you take a look at this? Lupo 11:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. They do claim copyright on [2], too—that's the link given in Template:UN map. Furthermore, Image:Mbini.PNG isn't a modified map, is it?? And it still makes refernce to the UN in the caption in the upper right corner. Lupo 11:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ChrisO's talk page: en:User:ChrisO also thinks that this is not what was intended. The tag should probably be modified to make clear that simply copying is not allowed. Lupo 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Upload

Hej! Jag upptäckte några smågrejer på den svenska varianten av Special:Upload, som jag undrar om du kan fixa:

"Wikimedia Commonss" -> "Wikimedia Commons"
"uppladdnings logg" -> "uppladdningslogg"
"Du måste även kryssa för rutan, för att du inte gör något..." -> "Du måste även kryssa för rutan, för att bekräfta att du inte gör något..."
"Upload" knappen" -> "Upload"-knappen
"och du bli spärrad" -> "och du kan bli spärrad"

Dessutom säger texten längst upp att man, innan man laddar upp något, ska läsa en sida som är en röd länk. Detta är väl något jag skulle kunna fixa själv, men tills vidare kanske den kan peka (eller redirecta?) till den engelska texten? Mvh, Skagedal 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag gjorde om MediaWiki:Uploadtext/sv från början, att kryssa för en ruta innan man laddar upp är väldigt 2003. Jag översatte den engelskspråkiga motsvarigheten som väl beskriver dagens situation betydligt bättre. Thuresson 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toppen! /Skagedal 14:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pictures

I have changed the information about sources of the pictures you wanted, which you recommended on my User talk page. Is it OK now?

Flags french departments

A flag is never protected. See the template:

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

So would you please remove your templates?

--Westermarck 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not I but you who claim that the images are protected. Also, Template:Insignia is not a copyright license. Thuresson 13:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Förstörd bild

Hej! Någon har förstört en bild. Titta på Image:1 1 54.svg. Det ska vara ett vägmärke. Inte någon ful Wikipediasymbol. Som du vet använder vi gärna vägmärken i våra mallar på svenska Wikipedia. Hur som helst är bilden förstörd. Kan du återställa bilden till vad den var förut? Vi ska inte ha fula Wikipediasymboler bland svenska vägmärken. Det blir fel då artiklar som ska ha vägmärken nu har denna fula symbol istället. /E70 13:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

See Image:Renardperez.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:Barone1.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have asked the users to add more information about the photos. Thuresson 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg

You have asked for a source, but there is a link in the summary page.--Plaicy 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I missed the point, that the fbi maybe has not the copyright of that image. That answers may question.--Plaicy 17:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lech Wałęsa

Unfortunately my old laptop is still broken so little changed since the last time I explained the situation. Halibutt 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just remembered I asked about this photo on English Wikipedia in November-December. Thuresson 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barone1.jpg

Thuresson, I got your message, thank you. I uploaded the image taking it from the Portuguese WIkipedia, where it was licensed under a Gnu tag, I only copied the license from that page. However, I now understand that the Origin information was missing; I do not have means to provide that info, as it should be in the pt:wikipedia (but it's not, I just checked); so please delete the image as appropriate. Thanks and regards! --Sergio 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Thuresson 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evolution-tasks.png

Please don't ignore this issue. You're the one responsible for changing the image incorrectly, and therefore, given that it's protected, you are responsible for changing it back. Matt Crypto 11:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I adressed your concerns on the talk page on February 12. I am still waiting for a source to verify that any earlier version is GPL. Thuresson 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied above, pointing out that it's part of a (GPLd) software package; it's the same as for the Kate icon, no? I really don't see the difficulty here. Matt Crypto 12:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two users claimed that the icon is produced by the federal government of the United States and licensed as "public domain" so I would prefer a URL who can verify that it is GPL. Thuresson 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can download the source and read the "COPYING" file from here. Matt Crypto 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded the icon from version 1.4.6, apparently not used in later versions. Thuresson 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Matt Crypto 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PPS43.jpg

Please, look at this image. Nemo5576 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ConneryKilt.jpg

Thanks for your message, Thuresson. I took the photo from the English Wikipedia copying the licence and the info available at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ConneryKilt.jpg . I've already pasted the link to the graphic's page, too. Hope it can help you sort the matter out. Regards, Maire 05:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpg

Hi. No, I didn't write that. All I did was restore the previous licensing info. This is the license stated on the pages of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (cf. the link in the discussion). Given that someone else in the discussion mentions having seen this picture in, AFAIR, an Italian book as PD, I think the Polish ministry may have exaggerated -- after all, it's not even likely (well, it's impossible) that the picture was/is a property of Polish government. Hmm, thanks for your message -- now I see why the licensing information there is simply unwarranted. Will remove it and comment on that tonight. Regards, Bansp 12:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I now see that User:Dna-webmaster added that. I will ask him/her instead. Thuresson 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Libby.jpg

Some time have passed, so my memory may fail me - though I am pretty sure that the picture you've deleted was the one on display at en: As you can read from the picture caption at en:, the original has been removed from whitehouse.gov, from where I grabbed the picture. Eventhough it has been removed, it is still federal property and thus PD. I think the picture should be reinstated. Please respond to my discussion page.--Lipothymia 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked on October 30 to provide a source who could verify that the photo is public domain. Why do you believe the photo is federal property? Thuresson 02:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy images

Hi. Thanks for catching that there may be a problem with Image:M74 Gemini.jpg. I moved three images from en over here that came from the NASA site; that one, Image:Hoags Object.jpg and Image:Stephan's Quintet.jpg. Now that you've drawn my attention to it, I think that you are correct; NASA is only reusing Gemini Observatory's image and there is no claim that they were involved with its creation. The image is not PD-NASA and needs deleting. It looks like the other two really are PD-NASA. I'll see if I can find an actual PD image of M74. Jkelly 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Image:M74.jpg. I duplicated your notice for this duplicate image. Jkelly 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prairial image

Hello, Thuresson. Thanks for the warning in the Prairia image. I got it from the French Wikipedia. I have added the source, which is the French National Library, and deleted your warning. Author unknown. I hope that it will be enough. If it is not, I could ask the French wikipedian who uploaded the image. Please write me if there is any problem, and thanks again for your work. --Wastingmytime 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolazo

Hi, Mr. Sorry for the incident of the images of yesterday. I have a question. Can I use the images of the English version of Wikipedia, in the Spanish version? Sorry for my basic english, but I speak spanish. Saludos, señor Thuresson.

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm afraid that the Spanish Wikipedia have a very strict attitude regarding "fair use" images. If you find an image tagged with "fair use" at English Wikipedia, you can not upload it to Spanish Wikipedia (and not to WikiCommons). See es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo for an explanation.

Regards, Thuresson 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Pesos Argentinos

Hi, I scaned this bills from my own collection. Don't I have rights to license this pictures under public domain?? There is a lot of pictures of money in wikipedia from another countrys... Bancorio

Argentine bills are issued by Banco Central de la República Argentina. Since you are not the copyright owner you can not license the bills as public domain. Thuresson 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you speak spanish, but you can read the law 11.723 from this link: [[3]]

But, this law apply to all image, photograpic, printed, etc, works...

"To the effects of the present law, the scientific, literary, comercial and artistic works, include/understand writings of all nature and extension; the plays, musical compositions, dramatic-musical comedies; cinematographic and the pantomímicas ones; the works of drawings, painting, sculpture, architecture; models and works of art or science applied to the commerce or to the industry; the forms, planes and maps; the phonographic plastics, photographies, engravings and discs, in aim: all scientific, literary, artistic or didactic production whichever it is the reproduction procedure. ". Bancorio

False license

Hi. First of all, sorry for disturb you and for my poor english.

I write you to let you know that user Granadin (in spanish wiki Gabri-gr-es) falsified the license of the image: Albolote flag.jpg in an action I see as a vandalism, as well as this user has been adviced previously of Commons policy.

If you see his talk page, you can see he cleaned the advices, but you can see the previous talks made to him by other users.

Again, sorry my intrusion. Thanks anyway for listen me. Hispa 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Julio Popeer

Hi, I don't know the creator of this photo. But, this picture has easy more than 130 years. Julio Popper deaded in 1870 aprox... Grimpi

Image:Aberystwyth Wales.jpg

Heya. You reuploaded Image:Aberystwyth Wales.jpg as public domain from the english Wikipedia, but the image on the english wikipedia has a copyright-free-use tag. Could you explain that? Thanks! --Conti|✉ 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, I have no explanation except a monentary lapse of concentration. Thuresson 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone makes mistakes. :) --Conti|✉ 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Image:DeporCali.svg

Hi, in wich sense of the word are you the creator of this football logo? Thuresson 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE I'm not the creator owner. i just digitall skecth it and publish in scalable vector a public domain logo. In that sense i'm the creator of the Digital File. Greets.--Jyon 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pryku

Hi Thuresson,

I noticed your latest message on User talk:Pryku. There never seems to be a reply. Would you say we have enough evidence on maleficence for a pretty long block (I'm happy to apply it). There is a limit to 'assume good faith'. -- Solipsist 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Yes, I did go through Pryku's uploads and, to put it simply, Pryku tags all uploads with "GFDL-self", regardless of where he found the photo (mostly English Wikipedia). Image:Shenzhen map2005.jpg is a case in point.

Pryku is obviously ignorant of how to tag images properly. Regarding blocking him/her for a longer time, Pryku has not been active since August 2005 (although Pryku is maintaining a low-level activity on Polish wikipedia). I leave it to your judgment if Pryku should be blocked or not. Thuresson 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have checked their contribution history. If Pryku is no longer active, a block would be unnecessary. Well done on tidying up their uploads. -- Solipsist 07:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barone1.jpg

This image must be deleted. -- Fernando S. Aldado 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture without copyright

OK Thuresson. I didn`t realize the copyright sign. I'm very good friend of the foundation, and can talk with them to realese the picture. But I don`t think thats neccesary, because I have other pictures about the same theme. So Thuresson, sorry again and thanks for paying so much atention. --Roblespepe 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See:User_talk:Roblespepe#.5B.5B:Image:APRI-MNR_santiago-pampillon.jpg.5D.5D

Image:Anders Zorn - Les baigneuses.jpg

Redundant. Please, delet it. -- Fernando S. Aldado 22:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Jean Tirole.jpg

(in response to) Yes, I know that wasn't enough. I'll ask them about this. Siberiano 12:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thuresson. I added PD-USGov-Military-Air Force tag manually, but this picture is transfered from english Wiki (automatic GFDL tag from english Wiki). Please, check this picture, there is no author! Regards Voytek s 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euro2012polukr.jpg

Yes, you're right. It's copyrighted and not a symbol of the Polish government. Delete it. --KRATK 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Congo dem coa.png

Please review this image. You say the source is http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=4884 but this is a very different image. Bye, Sanbec ✉ 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Vector-Images.com must have changed their version. I downloaded the blue and yellow version from the web site myself, since WikiCommons accept coats of arms from them. Thuresson 21:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Image:Felipao Xavante.jpg and Image:Xavante 1950.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carequinha1.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. -- Fernando S. Aldado 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caixa economica federal.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Word.png. -- Fernando S. Aldado 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simbols

Well, I make this simbols of nationalist parties because I make the flags, but I don't like the results. But, if it's problem, I delete the images. You can comprove it. I'm sorry by the misunderstanding. I speak with Anne for to inform me of the legislation about simbols and logos (what are public domain and what no ?).Walden69 15:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SocEur

Here is the picture on Wikipedia. This is all I can do. --Wonderfool 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Insecula-logo.png

Dear Thuresson, I'm sorry cause my vagueness, I really don't know that. But I promise to read the instructions the next time. Regards :) --Ketamino 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French police

the permission i have for the claretiano logo it's oral so i don't have letter to prove it, i'm 16 years old, i study in the claretian school and i already asked the principal to upload information on the wiki and he agree

Janusz J.

Hi Thuresson. You blocked User:Janusz J.. I just thought you might want to know he appears to be back as User:Aga K.. See, for example, Image:NBP w Siedlcach.JPG. User:dbenbenn 19:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reichstag Flag

Hello. You deleted the image "Reichstag_flag.jpg" because, you said, it was a duplicate of "Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg". Well, IT WAS NOT A DUPLICATE.

"Reichstag_flag.jpg" was the original version, with the bottom soldier showing two (stolen) watches.

"Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg" is the censored version. Stalin said that the watches should be removed. They removed them, and they also darkened the smoke, all in the best Orwellian matrix of "rewriting the past".

Both pictures should be preserved.

Than you for you attention. —Randroide 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo "Reichstag flag" was cropped on the left and right, top and bottom, compared to the earlier version. Thuresson 13:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUNI.GIF

Hi. i've just read your message in my userbox. I've put the origin of the image you told me. As a matter of fact, i'm repeating the data. In the beginning i'd put that information but it was in spanish. If you can see i had put "imagen trabajada por Chalisimo5 on September 20th, 2005". But, to avoid any kind of problems, i have just write {{self|GFDL}} 'cause i think it's the right thing to do. Please let me know if there is any problem. Thanks. Chalisimo5 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you find any image that i have upload and you want me to do anything. Please, can you tell that to User:Anna?, she's my friend and she will know how to find me more quickly.

P.S. 2 Sorry for my english, i barely can make myself clear, so please dont missunderstood me. I am a very kind and friendly guy, believe me. Bye Chalisimo5 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User_talk:Mathiasrex

I noticed you asked him about the source of Polish coats of arms. I hope that answers your question: w:Template:Polish coats of arms by Tadeusz Gajl. This user rarely responds to talk and usually uploads images from en or pl wikis. The easiest way to verify them is to search for their names on those wikis (note: in cases of pl, replace 'Image' with 'Grafika'). You may also want to leave us a note at w:Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board, especially if a large batch of images is to be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe this user takes images either from en: or pl: but uploads them to WikiCommons with a different file name, which makes it very time consuming to find the originals. Thuresson 18:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have never seen him bothering with NowCommons tags or posting source of the original. Another way to trace the image is to see what en-wiki article it is linked from, than see the pl-wiki mirror article. But yes, it's time consuming. He also tends to take images created by others and 'relicense' them during the upload by stating that he is the creator. Sometimes he modifies them (like maps), but he never cites the original source (for example he often 'steals' maps of User:Halibutt) that way. I really don't know what we can do with him - he really doesn't bother much with using talk or discussion pages. PS. I'd appreciate if you'd reply on my talk page, I rarely monitor other users talk pages. PS2. Perhaps if you left a comlain on our Polish noticeboard about his behaviour we can figure out what to do toghether...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I have a problem with that guy. I've asked him about the situation a number of times and at various places (Polish wiki, English wiki, here...), yet to no avail. I wonder what could I do about him. On one hand he simply stole my work and violated my license, which is pretty clear when it comes to crediting me for my work. On the other hand, his modifications of my maps are badly needed in some of the articles and I simply don't have the time necessary to prepare such maps myself. So, the fair and legal way to deal with the problem would be to simply delete all the maps he claims to have made himself, yet... this would be exactly what we call "a child spilled out with the bath" in Poland. Any ideas how could we deal with the problem? Halibutt 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Portuguese As imagens tinham licença Creative Commons conforme eu indiquei.Elas foram encontradas no Google opção Creative Commons em um site com contéudo com licença Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0. indicada embaixo da página.

English The images had license Creative in agreement Commons I indiquei.Elas had been found in the Google option Creative Commons [5]in a site with conteudo with license Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 [6] indicated under of the page. User talk:Shion, 23:33, 10 de April 2006(UTC).

The same web site also offers Ice Age 2, Bob Marley and any TV show you can think of for download. Thuresson 04:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lohen

I think that it is not the most right way to warn me about I'm making a badly thing. Before sending a misatge so much hard, with threats how: If you continue cause problems you may tone blocked from using this service lamb, you should watch at the free and selfless contributions of the user to you will write. (http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Lohen11)

Why my administrator in Catalan recommends me to put my photos in commons and the photos of the other wiki do however not put them there. And why I can not take a photo of the English wiki in commons if I see that everybody makes it?.

I think it is better that you tell me exactly what I makes badly and how I have to make it for making it well. This I think that it has to be the true work of an administrator. And, kinder, than it costs anything.

I am sad for your message but I am sure that I will receive of your part the explanations of all that I have asked you for.

Thank you and sorry for my english. --Lohen11 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I didn't have any intention to make you feel uncomfortable. However, I notice that you were asked by pfctdayelise on February 16 to provide more information on your contributions.

WikiCommons is a repository for free images. When you uploaded "Image:1994 wolympics logo.jpg" yesterday, you must have realized that the 1994 Winter Olympics logo is not a free image, you took it from it:Immagine:1994 wolympics logo.jpg where it is clearly tagged as "fair use".

I know it may be difficult with all the copyright rules but I suggest you take a look at Commons:Criteris per a la inclusió to learn why WikiCommons do not accept fair use images. Thuresson 10:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPS

Jag citerar Rikspolisstyrelsens hemsida: "Behöver du bilder? Under rubriken Bilder finns bland annat bilder på resehandlingar, länspolismästare och Polisens nya fordon. Alla bilder är fria för publicering." [7]

"Rikspolisstyrelsen: Nedanstående bilder får laddas ner och publiceras. Bilderna får inte förvanskas eller förses med missvisande bildtexter. Vid publicering måste fotografens namn anges." [8]

Du får gärna ange din källa, men som jag tolkar det är bilderna fria att publicera (även om de inte får förvanskas). Citera gärna var på RPS hemsida du läst att bilderna inte får publiceras! --Oden 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Project scope: "That means media files available only under non-derivative, non-commercial licenses or that have restricted usage or fall under the fair use clause are generally not accepted on the Wikimedia Commons" Thuresson 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Använde mig av mallen {{speedydelete}}, men det borde fungera också. Hör av dig annars.

För övrigt vill jag gärna föreslå att du i framtiden nyanserar din kritik. Att helt enkelt skriva som du gör känns inte så konstruktivt för mig. Om Wikipedia skall kunna nå ut till en bred massa krävs det att reglerna åskådliggörs och användarna kan ta till sig dessa på ett så enkelt sätt som är möjligt.

I detta fall är licensreglerna för {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}} inte lätta att förstå, vilket jag försökt att ta reda på. Visst, den stod i konflikt med målsättningarna för commons, men om den licensen inte borde få användas på Commons, borde det inte framgå av licenstexten? Sidan Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution är inte heller den så informativ.

Får jag föreslå att du läser mitt svar på sv:Diskussion:Carl_XVI_Gustaf#Bild och sen försöker tänka på hur det var när du var ny en gång i början? Visst, du har säkert mycket att göra med att hålla ordningen här, men med lite mer substans i dina svar kanske man slipper undvika att folk gör samma misstag flera gånger samt att de lär sig något? Tack för att du tar dig tid att delta i Wikipedia! --Oden 05:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag menade alls inte att låta magistral. Anledningen till att jag alls reagerade var att jag höll på att själv ladda upp samma bilder igår eftermiddag och därför kände igen dem. Det är verkligen inte så lätt att hålla reda på alla regler, jag håller med om det. När jag började med Wikipedia var det mera Vilda västern över hela projektet. Jag har också läst vad du skrivit om Carl XVI Gustaf så du verkar ju vara en sansad person.

Mallen Template:PD-SwedGov-attribution borde kanske formuleras om så att man vet när den ska användas. Vad som menas med "Government of Sweden" bör nog också klarläggas. Rikspolisstyrelsen lyder inte under regeringen utan under justitiedepartementet t.ex. Thuresson 08:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Look this. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ficheiro.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sartre

Hi Thuresson. New media in Jean-Paul Sartre from Marxists.org. Is it ok to remove the tag? thank you. Paulo Juntas 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a Wikimedia server problem I can't see the image you uploaded at the moment. The articles from www.marxists.org are, AFAIK, not public domain but licensed under Creative Commons. The images are used without permission from the copyright owners. Many of them are indeed public domain, others are copyrighted but scanned from books, eg. photos of Che Guevara. Uploading them to WikiCommons might constitute a copyright violation. I would prefer if you had a second source who could verify that the photo is public domain. Thuresson 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are missing essential source information

Please recheck those files: Image:Cmrj.gif and Image:Imebyair.jpg. Please tell me the reason for the deleting of my other uploaded files. Thanks -Gdamasceno 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Enescu.jpg

You have tagged this picture but it is different. The name of the month isn't starting with a capital letter and so this picture will not be found again. Please check your tag. -- skINMATE 05:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Cynthia-Watros-mug-shot.jpg

The state of Hawaii has the same policy as every other state.[9] Documents posted on The Smoking Gun are not copyrighted.--Fallout boy 08:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a source who can verify that the copyright owner allows anybody to use the photo for any purpose. Quote:

"§92F-14 (b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest: Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;"

Thuresson 12:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message me on my talk page when responding, because I usually don't check others' for responses. The section you quoted is about disclosure, it's on The Smoking Gun already it's already been disclosed. As for your other inquiry, there is no copyright holder for mugshots, they are not protected under the scope of copyright in the US.--Fallout boy 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WUWA Photo House 36 Moritz Hadda South-West Façade Wrocław Poland 2006-04-15.JPG

Can you please delete this, was uploaded by mistake, should rather get un-accesible before I upload the right pic. Thanks, Shaqspeare 15:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Graf Spee.png

Hola, I don't remember neither where not the copyright, it's better to delete the image. --Tano4595 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamla vykort

Hej! Det finns ju en hel del foton av gamla vykort på nätet, exempelvis på Tradera. Kan dessa bilder användas med hänvisning till {{PD-Sweden}} eller finns det andra problem (t.ex. upphovsrätt till reproduktionen) som man bör tänka på? Se t.ex. Image:Proban Västerås c. 1910.jpg som jag laddade upp igår. Tupsharru 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag ställde frågan på sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen, där en diskussion redan har startat. Tupsharru 11:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Moyne

Thank you for your kind advise. In effect it was my fault to upload this image. You can erase it as soon as possible without any problem. Bye. --Cloj 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Antanas Presidente 2006-2010.jpg

Hi, the image will be in use for the article of Antanas Mockus, but, since the presidential elections of Colombia hasn't been held yet, I hadn't placed the image, in order to avoid the fact that it might be taken as publicity, once the elections had happened (they're held in May 20 +/-), I'll put the image in the Antana's site. Have a nice day.

OK, thank you. Thuresson 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise.jpg

The full sized version was already in the file history (which only contained other people's heads)--Fallout boy 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wri.jpg

You said: "Oddly nough, photograph looks quite recent." Why it looks so in a photograph? Picture is from 1930s, watch a article where picture is. It isn't copyright offence more than this: [10] -User 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spansk karavell 1500-tal.jpg

This a ritning, from 1500s: [11] -User 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. You wrote "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose" and my question is still: who is the copyright holder? Thuresson 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prinshitler210.jpg

Hej, skulle du vilja ta en titt på denna bild, har försökt att märka den med no source, men detta plockas bort av användaren. Behövs inte en originalkälla, namnet på en upphovsman, här på Commons, inte räcker det väl att bara ange "Aftonbladet" som källa? Dessutom undrar jag om man verkligen kan använda Template:PD-Sweden för bilder tagna i Berlin. Skriver till Fred Chess också, så kanske ni kan samråda om detta? / Elinnea 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, Hitler var ju aldrig i Sverige och om fotografen var svensk eller norsk eller någon annan nationalitet är okänt. Med "källa" menas en källa som kan bekräfta att licensen är korrekt, inte spridda länkar till webbplatser där bilden används. Jag följer ärendet för att se om "Vattkoppa" (=Bronks) tänker klargöra bildens ursprung. Thuresson 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:BBC.jpg. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herb Orla.jpg

Sorry, that I haven't replied earlier. Actually I've uploaded it from en-wiki en:Image:Herb Orla.jpg with the same information below. So I don't know what should be done. Shall we ask the user that have uploaded it on en-wiki (en:User:Emax), or maybe is it possible to change its size to 150x150 px. Wouldn't that solve the problem?? I hope you would be able to save this image from being deleted. I've uploaded few other coats of arms from en-wiki with the same licensing. I don't know their size. We should also check that. --slawojar 小山 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images in En WP

Hi Thuresson,

Can you help me ascertain whether I can use these pictures in the English Wikipedia, and how to acknowledge the author as required by the licence - Image:Batalla de Santiago.jpg and Image:Batalla de Santiago 2.jpg? Thank you. -Aabha (talk)

Thanks for your message. I am not an expert in Chilean copyright but I think you can use the photos. But I have one question: Battle of Santiago took place on June 2, 1962 and the photos were published May 3? Thuresson 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, now that you point it out, this is weird..the only explanation I can think of is that the uploader, or whoever put those details in, made a mistake in the date. The May is probably supposed to be June. Should I ask the uploader? Thanks for the response. Regards -Aabha 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofrivillig överskrivning?

Hej. Jag har en fråga. Kan man "råka" ladda upp en fil med samma namn utan att få en varning? Chrizz 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Det tror jag inte. Fast om man har kryssat i rutan för "Ignorera varningar", ja då får man väl ingen varning? Thuresson 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack, det var vad jag ville veta! Chrizz 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Kokerboom01.jpeg

That's...bizarre. It looks like I did indeed write that. Why didn't I delete it? :o I'm going crazy!

Maybe I got distracted in between writing that and removing it from use. I'll fix it up now... pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... ok, there is something weird. I just removed it from use. Then I tried to find it on that guy's website just to be sure. But I couldn't find it. So I did a Google search and it referenced en:Image:Kokerboom01.jpg (note no "e" in jpg). And that's the same image... uploaded by a User:Marco_w... so I think it is infact OK.

Gah... same with Fishrivercanyon. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:Mariñelarena.jpg

I made the image, don't know what is needed to specify on the license, please help me. I think is complete. Thank you.

RE: Image:ArcheKerguelen.jpg

I gave you the source on the picture's page... why don't you accept it? It's a French stamp and - OK, I'm not sure what the licence could be, Image:ArcheKerguelen.jpg has been used on a web page. Maybe you can help me: I used Image:PJDA.jpg from an eBay scan, I don't know what licence I can use... --Varp 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to translate the French Copyright text and I've read they don't forbid to photograph them or to use the pictures... but they want the webmaster to contact the creator of the images, but don't force anyone to do that! I've found numerous webpages depicting French stamps and I can't imagine they've contacted all the diverse creators of the images... don't you agree? What to do now and which copyright to use? Thanks --Varp 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License help w/ Image:Study proverb.PNG

I don't know if this image can qualify as fair use. User:Red devil 666 told me you might know. I'm not sure the font I used, or the background from Microsoft Office can be used for a fair use image.--ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello Thuresson, could you have a look at this? I don't know the language and the user who's just created it isn't very trusty. Thanks. Anna 09:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Dutch.--ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ficheiro.jpg

ON April, 24, 2006 I received a message from Rei-artur asking me to erase the image Image:ficheiro.jpg, image that he added to the page Commons:Deletion requests. There are two versions of fichero.jpg, a photo of Michael Jackon uploaded by Fábio H3000 and another one uploaded by FML. The request was filed in Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives09#Image:Ficheiro.jpg on the basis of the FML version. The image was, later, reverted to the initial version. As the resulting image is copyright, I have deleted it (FML agrees to delete his version too). I leave this warning message to you because you took part in the procedure. Best wishes.--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NL-gemeentewapen

I don't speak Dutch and I don't know translate it. George McFinnigan 12:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated it. I've also added and translated Template:PD-BE-gemeentewapen for Belgian municipal and provincial coats of arms. Siebrand 08:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kurdwanow-satelita.jpg recreated as Image:Kurdwanowsatelitaa.jpg/Rymar (talk • contribs)

You may want to consider temporarily blocking the same user repetively uploading google earth images... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message about User:Rymar. I quickly discovered several questionable uploads from this user and I hope I receive an acceptable explanation for them. The Google Earth image was instantly deleted. Thuresson 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Imebyair.jpg

Hi Thuresson. In pt.wiki they have a copyright tag {{EB}} to insert in image description page. The permission is in the template talk page, but it is unclear, say: "as imagens podem ser utilizadas, desde que citada a fonte" (the images can be used, requires attribution), don´t say anything about derivations and commercial use. In Brasilian army website there is not Terms of use. In portuguese Esplanada/Village pump this thread talk about other similar images publish in the commons, tag here with the Template:Attribution. Best wishes. --Prevert^(talk) 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in pt.wiki and they answered that is allowed the commercial use. But they do not have absolute certainty, because sometimes they have received contradictory answers from brazilian army. --Prevert^(talk) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaulRobesonByYousufKarsh.jpg

The [Image:PaulRobesonByYousufKarsh.jpg] source Library and Archives Canada PA-209022 without restraint of use

--Chico 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battisti

Actually I don't know where those images came from, since I got them directly from itwiki where they had been previously uploaded. But I don't think that the pictures I uploaded need other details because the tag is very clear, if a non-artistic photo has been taken before 1985 now it is in public domain. Bye --Felyx 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the tag itself is clear, I helped RedDragon to create it. The question is: why do you think these photos are from Italy? Thuresson 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see them one by one ^_^:

Image:Copertina Battisti.jpg -> Cover of a magazine published in 1982

Image:Battisti-Goggi.jpg -> Screenshot taken from an italian tv program in 1970s

Image:Battisti mina mogol.jpg -> no doubt, Mina never moved from Italy together with them

Image:Battisti mina.jpg -> Screenshot taken from an italian tv program in 1970s

Image:Battisti poggio bustone.jpg -> Photo taken in Poggio Bustone

Image:Battisti mogol.jpg -> They never moved before 1974 and they-re too young to be in 1975

Image:Battisti 1982.jpg -> Rome in the background

Image:Lucio Battisti chitarra.jpg -> 1973, never moved before 1974

Image:Battisti acq.png -> 1969, never moved before 1974

Image:Raimondo di Sangro.jpg -> Come on, it is in the 18th century!

Bye --Felyx 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you are not interested in providing sources. Several of these images are clearly artistic, and TV-programs are obviously artistic creations. Thuresson 17:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polisfoton

Hej Thuresson. Jag skickade en förfrågan till Rikspolisstyrelsen angående vilka villkor som gäller för svenska polisfoton (på personer som häktats misstänkta för brott och liknande). Jag fick följande svar, men vet inte riktigt hur jag ska tolka det:

Fråga om upphovsrätt till fotografier som tagits på personer misstänkta för brott
Rikspolisstyrelsen har uppfattat att frågan avser fotografier som tagits med stöd av 1 § förordningen (1992:824) om fingeravtryck m.m. Dessa slag av fotografier får anses omfattas av den till upphovsrätten närstående rättigheten som gäller för fotografisk bild. Grundläggande bestämmelser om fotografisk bild finns i 5 kap. 49 a § lagen (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk (URL). Av bestämmelsen framgår bl.a. att den som har framställt en fotografisk bild har uteslutande rätt att framställa exemplar av bilden och göra den tillgänglig för allmänheten.
Om fotografen är anställd hos en polismyndighet får själva anställningsavtalet anses innebära en överlåtelse av förfoganderätten över upphovsrätten till arbetsgivaren, dvs. polismyndigheten. Upphovsrätt i anställningsförhållande regleras i rättspraxis, se bl.a. Arbetsdomstolens dom i mål 2002 nr 87. Om fotografen inte är anställd utan arbetar på uppdrag av en polismyndighet får upphovsrätten regleras i uppdragsavtalet.
I 2 kap. 26 b § första stycket URL föreskrivs att allmänna handlingar skall oavsett upphovsrätten tillhandhållas enligt 2 kap. tryckfrihetsförordningen.
Fotografier som tagits med stöd av 1 § förordningen om fingeravtryck m.m. får anses utgöra allmänna handlingar enligt 2 kap. tryckfrihetsförordningen.
Sådana fotografier omfattas i regel av sekretess enligt bl.a. 9 kap. 17 § första stycket 1 eller 4 sekretesslagen (1980:100). Om någon begär att få ta del av ett sådant fotografi skall den myndighet som förvarar fotografiet pröva om det kan lämnas ut.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Aimée Jillger

Tror du dessa bilder kan användas på Commons? Mvh Slarre 14:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, det svaret gjorde ju inte saken särskilt klarare. Först vill jag nog hävda att ett vanligt porträttfoto taget rakt framifrån inte är ett fotografiskt verk i upphovsrättslagens mening utan endast en fotografisk bild. En fotografisk bild skyddas i 50 år efter skapandet. Jag har skrivit om allmänna handlingars upphovsrätt i w:sv:Upphovsrätt. Om ett foto på en misstänkt är allmän handling ska den på begäran lämnas ut till allmänheten (om inte fotot är hemligstämplat, som sagt).

Det finns dock gränser för vad man får göra med en allmän handling. Det är möjligt att ett foto av den typ vi talar om inte får spridas hur som helst eller ändras hur som helst. Om bilden inte får ändras hur som helst är den inte kompatibel med GFDL eller någon annan fri licens. Om ett porträttfoto är mer än 50 år vill jag dock hävda att fotot saknar skydd i upphovsrättslagen. Jag föreslår att du besöker något bibliotek och lånar en bok om upphovsrätt, förslagsvis Henry Olssons "Upphovsrätt", där författaren bland annat tar upp vilket skydd allmänna handlingar har. Thuresson 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wappen deutscher Gemeinden und Städte

Hallo, bevor du Wappen deutscher Gemeinden und Städte auf commons löschst, solltest du dich vorher mal mit deutschem Urheberrecht befassen oder die Finger von Dingen lassen, von denen du nichts verstehst. (14:35, 22. Mai 2006 Thuresson hat „Image:Wappen-allendorf-eder.gif“ gelöscht (No source/license for 7 days)) --Steschke 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wrong. I don't have to know one bit about German copyright law to delete any image without a license. Every user who uploads images to Wikicommons MUST provide a copyright license and source information. User:Toolmaker did not provide any of this nor any claim that this this was a German coat of arms. Thuresson 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dann bleibe einfach auf deinem Niveau. --Steschke 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uncle bush.jpg

This file is my site I have hope, that this different enemy bush will use.

see you later!

Coat of arms

I renewed the license for this pic: Image:Concord.gif now it is insignia. If you still disagree, please let me know. All the crests/coat of arms I checked were Public Domain... -- Boereck 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering, you are not confusing Concord, California for the aircraft Concorde, are you? I checked out some more seals and most of them are provided under the license of Public Domain due to being work of the US Fed. Govnmt. So I changed the license back. Thanks for your help anyways. -- Boereck 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hazard symbols

Hello Thuresson.

Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason? I've uploaded them from the Sodipodi gallery, and I didn't change them.

There were many (about 25 IIRC) different images for the same six meanings, so I cleaned it up a bit and made it uniformly. Of course we can talk about the borders and the margins. I'd propose to remove the margin, but not the border. (Maybe we can make two versions of each image, on with the border and one without.

--MarianSigler {bla} 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Nice work of you to replace various version of the hazard symbols. I don't think it's important if the SVG version have a bit of a margin and unless somebody protests at Commons:Deletion requests I will delete the redundant versions myself. Thuresson 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the de.wikipedia some people had also complained about the margins (here). I will remove the margins but leave the black border. (I will go on vacation on Saturday but I think I will make until there) I also think that they are too large. --MarianSigler {bla} 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SocEur

Hei Thuresson.

Jeg ser at du betviler denne templaten. Jeg har nå skrevet noen ord om den på Commons_talk:Licensing#Template:SocEur, kanskje du har noe du vil si der? Hilsen Kjetil _r 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trojan Horse fragment.jpg

Hello,

This image is an old upload I apparently did from WP en. See the original on WP en, still present: there is no source too, just a PD-art licence. I can't help more. Bibi Saint-Pol 21:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images with missing source

Hi, the images loaded by User:AleR comes from the Italian Army website. We are now checking if all the images come from there and if the GFDL is the right licence. When I will have more info I'll ask to User:Red devil 666 to remove the images from commons, if it's neccesary,or to AleR to include the source on the images --piero tasso 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jan johansson.jpg

Hejsan, på Heptagons sida HEPTAGON / Artists kan man läsa: "Biographies and pictures of some artists are available as MS-WORD 6 format documents and jpegs, suitable for publication" - jag tolkade det så, at bilden var fri och kunde andvändas - för det står inget om, att den skulle vara belagd med copyright. Apw 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matti Bergstrom.jpg

Hejsan, på psykologibasen.dk's sida 1.shtml kan man läsa: "Det er tilladt at downloade alt det materiale, man vil, hvis det er til privat- eller undervisningsbrug. Det er tilladt at anvende materialet i opgaver, artikler etc., hvis man henviser til kilden." - det gäller väll också för bilden på Matti Bergström Apw 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Forsberg stamp.jpg

Jag hittade bilden på Peter Forsberg på Peter Forsberg men kunde inte länka till den. I stället flyttade jeg över en kopia på Common så jag kunde andvända den på min bit om Tre Kronor - det finns en kopia till på den på sidan: Immagine:Forsbergbollo.jpg - där kan jag urskilja orden pubblico dominio på italienska - hoppas det räcker Apw 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag har tagit bort bilden från min sida om Tre Kronor - fan oxo :-)

Det var ett av mina bästa ishockeyminnen - jag får hitta på något annat - Apw 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sources

I've read your messages. I didn't find any good reason to keep :

Image:Pelloutier.jpeg, Image:Suffragettes.jpg and Image:RTT CFDT.jpg.

I think we should not delete: Image:Ps-pour-paix.png : PD old
Image:Lutte continue.jpg : street anonymous work
Image:Krasucki.jpg : state image, with state that no longer exists.
Image:Vallès.JPG : PD old.

I apologize for these "old" images, recorded when I didn't really understand the Commons rules. Chris93 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MM2.jpg

Feel free to delete it or place it at deletion request. I only uploaded it from the en wikipedia to here without noticing if the image is PD or not, the person who originally uploaded the image in en was a admin so I trusted that user. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against DRM license?

I saw a debate on Commons:Deletion requests that took place awhile ago and wanted to resurrect it, because I don't think the result was correct. The question is whether or not {{ADRM}} is a compatible license with Commons copyright policy. The conclusion people came to is that it is not, since it has some restrictions on distribution ability (you can't distribute anything with any form of Digital Rights Management -- that is, you can't distribute anything that makes it impossible for others to re-distribute it). This is not at all incompatible with the GFDL, which has its own equivalent anti-DRM clause: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." (Section 2) Other than that, I see nothing in the license which is not compatible with our other Commons copyright policies -- it is a free license, with the only restriction being one which the GFDL already has. All of the Creative Commons licenses we accept have the same sort of clause: "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."[12] (Section 4b).

I see absolutely no reason to think this license is not compatible with the GFDL in the same way that our CC licenses are. Are there any real arguments to the contrary? --Fastfission 14:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsTicker

Hi Thuresson, sv.wp doesn't appear to have a request for a CommonsTicker yet... are you interested in helping set one up there? Is the community there interested? I think it's pretty easy, and very useful. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Image:South korea coa.png

I've reverted your contribution. "대한민국" is poorly written in the verctor version. -- ChongDae 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded images

Could you please explain to me what you are doing? What is your reason to delete some of my uploaded images? They are mostly taken from en-wiki, where is the problem? I upload them on the commons in order to use them on de-wiki, too, nothing more. Please explain it to me. ASM 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:UNFORGIVEN#WWE_photos

Thanks a lot. some people just won't listen...! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Irisch-Sprecher.jpg

I uploaded that map before I was fully aware of all the licensing requirements such as commercial use. We should probably delete the file but it would be good to find some replacement for it. --Chlämens 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FaustynaSiostra.jpg

Agreement has been given by phone. How Can I show you phone call? If you don't trust me - call them yourself. Phone number can be found oh their website. Link do the website is given in the description of the image. Polimerek 10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have the photo copied from en:Image:CBnam.jpg. I'm not sure what has to be done - see the history there. --Nk 14:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1birnbaum.jpg

Hi, I noticed the image was deleted. Asking out of ignorance, if the person had died in 1937, meaning the picture was taken ~70 years ago, does it not become PD? How much time needs to pass for a photograph be PD? tnx, Odedee 23:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on where the photo was first published. In many countries, a photo is PD 70 years after the death of the photographer. Thuresson 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Odedee 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Stamp Fifa World Cup.jpg

Is Image:Ukrainian Stamp Fifa World Cup.jpg ([13]) the same as Ukrainian_Stamp_Fifa_Wold_Cup.jpg? If so, are this stamps PD or not?

Platonides 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i commented this to you as you deleted the previous version. Set to User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Ukrainian_Stamp_Fifa_World_Cup.jpg Platonides 10:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new tool to help with deletions: FYI

it's called "Bad Old Ones". See e.g. [14]. I created a template, {{Delete assist}} which should be put on subcats of 'Unknown'. I just put it on the month-level ones, if you want to put it on day-level ones you're welcome to. It will just automatically create the link to Bad Old Ones for that category.

It's good if you want to delete "easy" cases that aren't being used anywhere. :) There's also a 'safe delete' option which creates a backup copy on the toolserver. However Brion is working on undeletion of images at the moment and it might be fixed permanently very soon!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quieneselsrlopez.jpg

Hello Thuresson! Thanks very much for bringing to my attention a licencing problem with many of the images I uploaded. In fact many of them are dubious and I apologize for that. However the image Quieneselsrlopez.jpg is copyleft. You said right that is not the same that GFDL, but what the author of the work (Luis Mandoki) means by copyleft is the permisson for freely copying and distributing the material. How can I provide a proof for that? What is for sure is that it is not a copyright violation and then the image should not be removed. There are some sparce notes in the newspapers mentioning that copying and distribution of this material is not ilegal (in Spanish, I am affarid) [15]. The author of this material has said that "it is true that I am against piracy but I see with good eyes that this work be freely and unlimited copied because it is not for profit and I invite the people to copying it, to present it" [16]. Would I convince you? Cheers! Boninho 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! me again. I changed the image licence to

This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Luis Mandoki. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
Luis Mandoki grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

, is that OK? or did something wrong? Cheers Boninho 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Cheers Boninho 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ArmaviaPlane.jpg

Hi, this photo at WikiCommons was downloaded from French Wikipedia. However, since it has no information about the author it may be deleted. Do you have opportunity to check who uploaded Image:ArmaviaPlane.jpg to fr: and how it was licensed, source etc? Thuresson, June 16, 2006

Hello ^^

the image was updloaded march 12th 2006 by fr:User:Hagavaf which unfortunatly hasn't be seen for nearly a month. The fr image had the same problem, { {GFDL}} was put on it but without any information related to who took the picture or when.

Darkoneko 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help. Thuresson 12:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi, you have posted a deletion request for an image which I have uploaded (Baumgartner-Gabitzer.jpg). How can I safe it from deletion? THX for your help in advance. A. Benkovits

You need to show that the copyright owner allows anybody to use the photo for any purpose. Thank you. Thuresson 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine volcanoes

Hi, See for my answer: User talk:Magalhães, Magalhães 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Why I can't upload the FC Barcelona and CJB flags? It's only for create 2 templates of my favourite teams and there aren't on commons.--MarkCat 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calstatelastudios1.jpg

Hi Thuresson,

You uploaded a cross over the top of this image, but did you know we have a tag {{Duplicate}} now? Also, since you found it the same day they uploaded it, I think you could have deleted it pretty safely. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi there.

I wanted to ask you why you deleted File:Equipo 1908 1.JPG as "No source/license for 7 days", while it was proprely tagged as {{PD-AR-Photo}}, and was obviously way pass the Argentine 20 years and international 25 years of copyright. I would also like to ask you to inform me or administrator Barcex on deleting images tagged with this Argentine template, so we don't loose valuable images. Thanks and good wiking, Mariano 11:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On March 30, User:Dodo tagged this image as lacking a source who could verify the copyright license. On April 28, you removed the "No source"-tag with the comment "source already stated", although there was no source. On May 15, the image was tagged for having no source by User:ALE!. On June 9 I deleted the image.

All photos must have a source, as prescribed by Commons:Licensing, so that other users are able to verify that the copyright tag is correct. Template:PD-AR-Photo is also quite clear: "Nevertheless, its author and source must be acknowledged.". A copyright tag only is not enough, there must a specific source so that other users will know where to find copyright information. Thuresson 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I don't recall right now why I thought it had a source reference, I don't have acces to the deleted version. Anyhow, I believe I know the source (El Gráfico Magazine) and probably failed to include it. I've heard we have undeletion of Images only since Friday, too bad. Thanks again, Mariano 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malmofestivalen

Det star klart och tydlig pa hemsidan att de far anvandas till artiklar:

Bilderna som handlar om Malmöfestivalen får endast användas i samband med artiklar, i tryckta medier eller på webben. De får inte, utan tillåtelse, publiceras i annonser. Den som är intresserad av andra bilder från festivalen hänvisas att ta kontakt med fotografen. Besok annars: http://www.malmofestivalen.se/aciro/websidor/visasida.asp?idnr=kjjoX7BGfchIUMzWaDi4VLnRYhPhokjSdTT2OaqrMCILJPnLeULeIHbJJWm5

Twowells 13:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo, men finns det nagon licens till att man far anvanda det till allt forutom annonsering da? Twowells 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nej, tyvärr. Wikipedia kallar sig själv "Den fria encyklopedin" för att man ska ha så stor frihet som möjligt att använda innehållet. Thuresson 21:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Läs lite längre upp, där har du mitt tillstånd. Gå annars tillbaka till hemsidan och läs vad som står om bilderna. Lite löjligt faktiskt. Låt bara bilderna vara där, för det ger ju en mer inlevelse till artikel med bilder, eller? Twowells 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js

Hi Thuresson, just letting you know (since you may not be aware) that this script exists. Installing it (see talk page) allows you to do "one click" NSD/NLD tagging and automatically notify the uploader. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. With the time save I can sleep an extra hour in the mornings. Thuresson 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) I hope you do, then! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading again

Hi. I've been away from wikipedia for a while due to connection problems. That's the reason why i didn't replay to your messages. I would like to upload again some images and to do it in a proper way. Would you mind to check if the mentions are precise enough and to make me your comments. This one for instance : [Zetkin_luxemburg1910.jpg].

Thanks a lot. Mogador 16:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I think you are safe if you try to include as much information as possible; if you know the author and they year, please include that information. A web link is also useful. If you are uncertain you can use Google to try to find more information. Regards, Thuresson 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Hello!

Every images which I uploaded to commons, previously were in english, german or polish wikipedia. There are my only source. If there images were over there, polish and english administrators propably not notice when other users uploaded.

File:Uncle bush.jpg This is absoluty my work!!!

Starscream 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template:PD-Pe

Hello thuresson, that template was created to include the maps taken from the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú (the publications and content of this site are in public domain) and some other images with a clear official procedence. But User:Enrrique25 has included a lot of coats or arms without a source, so they cannot be included in that category and some portraits whose origin isn't very clear. This matter is being discussed [here and in es:Plantilla Discusión:PD-Pe, for now, I'm going to take out the coats from the category. Regards. Anna 01:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.jpg

Thuresson deleted Image:Gloria_Macapagal-Arroyo.jpg: Non-commercial use only; Used in: Breakthrough in talks between Philippine government, Muslim rebels (local image page)

This crop was from the public domain image http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/images/20031018-11_d1018-515h.html - Amgine 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, could you please e-mail a copy of the deleted image and any description which it may have had? My e-mail address is amgine@saewyc.net. - Amgine 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A version of the deleted image is available at en:Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg. The description was: "President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines, public domain official government image taken from http://www.pangulo.ph/prexy_gma.php. It has been clarified at EN that this is an official state portrait, even though that is not noted on the site from which it is taken. The site itself is subject to copyright." Thuresson 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gloria_Arroyo_2003.jpg is PD cropped from the one quoted above. -- Arcimboldo 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej

Jag nominerade mig själv som sysop här, men det ska väl inte ha någon betydelse? Eller funkar det inte så här? Vill bara ha lite råd... Christer Johansson 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nej, jag gjorde själv likadant och Grön också, och det gick ju bra. Thuresson 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honecker

Hello,

I didn't know that images from others wikipedias can't go to the commos. Excuse me, please

Vilallonga 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. Gajl

Any reason for revert ? --WarX 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was moved from en: Please use the talk page to discuss significant changes. Thuresson 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I'm making requests

Could you please e-mail to me the following deleted image and description pages:

Image:Huygens probe descending.png

- Amgine 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is [email removed]. - Amgine 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File sent. Thuresson 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thundertale pictures

Actually, I've got the photo from band members themselves with permission to use it in wikipedia. Please, don't delete the picture. Saulyte, 13:50, 30 June 2006, (EEST)

www.davidbatra.com

www.davidbatra.com: "Bilderna är skyddade och får inte användas utan tillstånd". Thuresson 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag har David Batras tillstånd att publicera bilden på Wikipedia!

About images & licences

Thank you for the warning. Actually I did a mistake.Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FDJ logo

I'm sorry man! I'm still a rookie in the Wikimedia Commons and I have several problems to manage the correct way to upload images. Can you make me the favour to check if I did it well with the images: Alernativaestel.jpg, Cartell precampanya diguem no.jpeg and Octaveta argumentari diguem no.jpeg. All of them are images from 2 organisations that nowadays not exist, and I personally know that can be used for any use. Thank you for your help!

Jove 17:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing licenses

Thanks for listing those images needing a license. I have added it to all of them except for Arms of South Georgia.jpg, as I don't think I could add a license that is missing in the English Wikipedia from where the image has been taken in the first place. However, I noted that there exists another version of the same image, Image:South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands coa.gif, which seems adequately licensed in the Wikipedia Commons, so I have replaced the latter version for the former everywhere (except for its original use in two English Wikipedia articles). Therefore, Arms of South Georgia.jpg could now be safely deleted from the Commons. Best, Apcbg 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foto av en plansch

Hej, jag undrar om ett foto av en plansch inte klassas som copyvio? Jag antar att fotografen inte är skaparen av planschen. /Lokal Profil 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det är ju alltid svåra bedömningar i sådana fall. Bilden består ju inte bara av planschen med Jim Morrison. Å andra sidan, alla bilder här ska vara användbara i något Wikimedia-projekt och vem är intresserad av en artikel om hur "Juntas" pojkrum ser ut? Dessutom finns ju Image:Jim Morrison mugshot.jpg som man kan använda istället. Om du vill kan du anmäla bilden till Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson 22:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilden Image:Jim Morrison.png är Juntas bild fast nedskuren så att den bara visar planschen. Gör processen att beskära det förra fotot att bilden blir copyvio? /Lokal Profil 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Montoya.jpg

This image is here, i used it on it.wiki, here. --Velázquezz 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice but why do you claim that this is a work by the FBI? Thuresson 15:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so which is the tag? --Velázquezz 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can use the image description page to explain why you think this photo is a work by an employee of the FBI, then it's probably easy to find a tag. Thuresson 22:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-l subscription

Hello Thuresson,

as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.

If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kona LogoBIG.jpg

Hi,

I can only believe that, being an advertising logo, it can be used for free exibition, but I am deleting the image until I can get a formal permission from Kona then. People here can be so complicated....

User block Mattes

I had many reasons for removing the tags: The pictures are PD-old, PD-BritishGov, PD-USGov or PD-USGov-NARA tagged. In detail:

PD-old (more than 70 years old)
- Image:Nuremberg 1934 - photo 01.jpg
PD-USGov
- Image:Adolf Hitler reviews a unit of workers.jpg
PD-USGov-NARA
PD-BritishGov

I have removed the del tags to prevent redundant deletion discussions. This block is unjust. I kindly ask for unblocking me. In return, I will do thousands of edits and uploads in return. Also, I will not delete any more del tags. Thanks, User:Mattes

Chagall images

All imgs I've updated are PD-URSS... --Nick1915 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sysop Q

Se fråga. Christer Johansson 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Belloso Central.jpg

Strange, I had put the link, but it now, the image doesn't apeear... it's in this page: http://lanus.com.ar/fr_seccion.php?pagina=18 --> http://lanus.com.ar/fr_foto.php?seccion=Torneos&descripcion=&pagina=18&nombre_grande=vscentral_c02.jpg&alt=Vs+Central&comentario=Belloso+frente+a+Central%2C+club+del+cual+es+hincha.

Sorry :) --Equi 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oslo t-bane.png

Hello, What is the problem with this image ? I have carefully checked when i take the image from thee german wiki. The licence was Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike Licence Version 2.5 (cc-by-sa-2.5). If it's a problem with the attribution field, (saint etienne, sans culotte ?) you may correct it, I'm sometimes/often lost with all this --Gébé 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City seals

They are self drawn, by CorelDraw, but almost exact copies of the original ones. Cannot be GFDL-self, and this was the nearest of it (in my point of view). So what's the good for them if they aren't the properties of the US government? --VinceB 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Different states have different rules as far as the copyright of government work is concerned. You need to contact each of these cities and ask. Thuresson 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look for them in other wikis instead, maybe one of them has a "free" one. --VinceB 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gave them a free source. --VinceB 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baccio Vicenza.jpg

I've uploaded this file from English Wikipedia and also was missing source information. Roman 92 ^talk 05:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:LogoPiS.jpg

The evidence that the copyright owner allows anybody to use this logo for any purpose is in the link: http://www.pis.org.pl/download.php?g=mmedia&f=identyfikacja.pdf There is written how and where to use logos. Pietro697 07:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erdenkind und Drachentod Roman Cover.jpg

Hi the picture is from the german OGame wiki project OWiki. They published all under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. It's also written there. But it's oin german. U can't come directly to the picture cause many had used that as an free upload service. So if u want to get any information look at the original article or look here for the licence of the project. --Japan01 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zübeyde Hanım.jpg license issue

Hi, I got a warning that, this immage has not a source information. Thats true however because this images are so old, it is imposible to find info about the real author of it. And this one was a test upload and I am planning to upload more. I can choose "PD-old" too since they are more than 70 years old and it is PD according to Turkish laws after 70 years. But again I can't enter an author. What do you suggest? --Dbl2010 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an example case, similar to this. Image:Einstein-with-habicht-and-solovine.jpg No source info, and licensed as pd-old. --Dbl2010 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! --Dbl2010 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm sure there must be a source, after all, you must have found this photo somewhere or somehow? A web site perhaps? PD-old is for images where the author has been dead for 70 years, not images that are 70 years old. Thuresson 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images can be scanned. The original source of old images are often unknown. Fair-use images on en.wikipedia require sources. PD images on commons (or en.wikipedia) do not.

Zübeyde Hanım is the mother of Ataturk the founder of Turkey. Her images are considered a national heritage and can be mass produced alter and published at will as it is done so.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wall Photograph

Derek has asked me to update his wikipedia page and is fully for open-source software and the free sharing of images, books, information etc (he supports libraries and uses the phrase in his book, I believe, 'Wiki-pedia is great... we need wiki-everything!')... so I'm sure he would give me permission if that is required! FISHERAD 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You should get a written permission, not from Derek Wall, but from the photographer. Please attach it to Image:DerekWall.jpg. Thuresson 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this but first I have to find out who the photographer is. As it is bound to be a member of the Green Party, I should be allowed to distribute it as a member of the party (it is also probably someone I know). I know, for instance, that this photo was used by the Guardian newspaper when Derek Wall ran for Male Principal Speaker of the party. In the meantime, I hope the photograph isn't deleted. FISHERAD 17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map sassanid empire.jpg

Hello Thuresson, deletion log says you have deleted that map. Could you tell me who created it and what it looked like? -- Carbidfischer 13:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map came to WikiCommons from English Wikipedia, where it also has been deleted. The map is still available at answers.com. Thuresson 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for damaging Wikinews articles.

Please do not substitute images on Wikinews; you are damaging their historical usefulness and the Wikinews mission. If you truly would like to be helpful to the project, please upload the image to Wikinews before deleting it on commons. - Amgine 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unfair; I spent 30 minutes trying to find the source for that photo, which had very little to do with the article in the first place. And I replaced the photo with a more relevant substitute.

Personally, I have no interest in the Wikinews project. Next time I will not remove deleted photos from WikiCommons but leave it to the trained monkees. Thuresson 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been made more than clear the Commons neither understands nor supports the Wikinews project, which is why we now have our own file uploads. I understand and accept that Commons admins are not appreciative of the Wikinews project; but having discussed this with many of them previously it seems to me best if Commons would simply agree to do no harm. If an image must be deleted on Commons, please consider uploading it to Wikinews. This would save time and effort on your part, and preserve the historic record on Wikinews (as well as saving time and frustration on the part of Wikinews.)

You are welcome, of course, to continue in the pattern you have previously established. - Amgine 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in uploading material to Wikinews; uploading material to various projects before deleting is simply too time consuming, considering I have to do it in my spare time. Thuresson 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. It's so much easier to simply break what others attempt to create. This is a clear support of the projects, which is the mission of Commons. - Amgine 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may recall, I changed to a more relevant photo in the Wikinews article. If this is unacceptable, I will make no further edits in Wikinews. Thuresson 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hello

The source is

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowtohim.png and the autor is a uncyclopedia user

Have a good day --Jorgechp 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Pics

For Image:Guderian.jpg, please check: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Guderian_1.jpg (By the way, the Photo was taken for public purpose in the 1940s Third Reich, which stopped existing in 1945 anyway. There are hundreds of WWII picture around here, so please tell me if there is any better solution for such portraits.)

For Image:Polenfeldzug 1939.jpg, please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poland1939_GermanPlanMap.jpg where all the copyright stuff is mentioned.

For Image:Reorganisation.jpg, please check: http://koenigin-luise.com/Reformen/Heeresreform/heeresreform.html (It is a painting of Carl Röchling from the 19th century.)

For Image:Marievonclausewitz.jpg, please check: http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Mariec5.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/MarievC.htm&h=184&w=133&sz=8&hl=de&start=4&tbnid=03gIBYaFiY_XdM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=74&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMarie%2Bclausewitz%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (The Lithography was done by a author, unknown to us today. When the picture was published in the 19th century, he was also unknown.)

For: Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg, as far as I know the photo was published in Poland before 1952, so there should be no problems.

For Image:Regiment of Horse at Ramillies.jpg, I just took it from the English Wikipedia, but have not used it yet. Maybe to delete it wood be a good way.

I checked the mention site from the maps (SpanischerErbfolgekrieg1.jpg etc.) myself (got them from a friend) and relised the copyright problems. I already deleted them from the relevant article.

So far, that is all. When these information are sufficant enough I can add them to the relevant files. --Memnon335bc 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hank III.jpg & SEarle1 5x7.jpg

Hello Thureson. I have uploaded tese two images. I take them from English version of Wikipedia (Hank Williams III and Steve Earle]). In the image pages there is not especified the information that you demand me. Would I demand this information to the authors who had uploaded the images to wikipedia?--Juanfran 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Scarth-Johnson image

Hi Thuresson! Glad to see someone is keeping track of copyright issues! I am a long-standing member and past President of the Vera Scarth-Johnson Gallery Association Inc., here in Cooktown, Australia, who own the painting from which the scan was made. I have discussed the matter of using low- resolution images in the Wikipedia at a couple of General Meetings of the Association and the current President, Mrs. Narelle Morris. All were in agreement. I cannot see any problem with having it on Wikimedia Commons - but if you do - please let me know - I am a bit of a novice in these copyright issues.

Just in case, I have just uploaded an even lower resolution version of the file to help limit commercial exploitation of the image. If you are a "sysop", perhaps you could remove the earlier two saved versions for me which are of higher resolution? If you have any further questions for me - please do not hesitate to ask.

Cheers,

John Hill 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Krenz / Willi Stoph

Hi, please add a source who can verify that the two photos are public domain (gemeinfrei) according to the German copyright law (§ 64, § 66, § 72 or § 5 UrhG). If you can't within 7 days, the photos may have to be deleted. Thuresson 12:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please accept my apologies in the delay in getting back to you. After further research, I can now confirm the ownership and copyright status of the above pictures; accordingly, I have changed the image tag to a copyright tag (with permission given, as long as the images are not re-distributed). The current owner (and copyright owner) of the pictures in question is the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin; details of this, and the relevant catalog numbers were supplied as part of the caption for the picture, at the time of upload.

- However, it must be pointed out that the original owner (and copyright owner) of the pictures were part of the former East German state, and thus no longer exist.

- The purpose of uploading the images was to illustrate the subjects of the photos. So, a 'Fair Use' tag may be more appropriate in this case. Please contact me again, if you have any more questions about this. (RM21 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  - Thank you for your message on my talk page. You wrote that: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the image is not re-distributed without prior permission of the owner,"

   According to Commons:Licensing all material on WikiCommons must be made available on the condition 
of republication by anybody ("Republication and distribution must be allowed").

Hence, I have had the photo deleted. Any conditions which limit free use by anybody for any purpose is not allowed. Files uploaded under that condition is quickly deleted. Thuresson 13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

- - - I don't understand this. There is permission for the item to be published on Wikipedia, just not off of Wikipedia; that would require permission. Even if this was allowed, it would be in breach of copyright... Also, the images are featured on other Wikipedia projects, in Dutch, for example. Is that allowed?? (RM21 13:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

All photos must be made available to anybody for any purpose, including use by websites other than Wikipedia, newspapers, magazines or selling the photos for money. Thuresson 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

Thx for reminding about the copyright of screen...^^ ,but by the way,may I link some picture to my user page? --MM21 13:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military Insignia

Hi, you claim that "International law requires for combatant identification and copyrighting rank insignias violates international law.". Which law is this "international law"? Thuresson 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, but a notable ones are the en:Geneva Conventions. The issue is covered under "combatant identification". Anything restricting combatant/non-combatant identification (such as copyrighting them) is prohibited. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are also covered in a similar manner.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a quick answer. I'm afraid I can't find any information about this anywhere, including www.genevaconventions.org. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction, eg. which of the Geneva conventions or perhaps a different convention? Thuresson 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I am not precisely certain exaclty where and what document it is. I'd have to look for it. Why do you want to know? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having patience with me. Since the template claims that "international law" requires something, the template itself or the talk page should clarify which law this is. If this is not possible, the template should not be used any more. Thuresson 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I do not think there is anything spesific about copyrights of rank insignias mentioned on international treaties as it is something very trivial. Countries are required to make this info freely avalible. NATO countries for instance are actualy expected to inform the central body of any change to the rank insinias.

I do not want to bug a "millitary lawyer" unless it is absolutely necesary. I'll however inquire it through other channels.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Image Tagging Image:DP logo.svg==

Hello, this image represents logo of Prague public transport concern. I made SVG version by _myself_ in accordance to cs:Soubor:DP_logo.jpg image which was on Czech wikipedia with licence "fair use". Please tell me, which licece tag is correct one. --Petr Dlouhý 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the original image was a photo of this logo on tram.--Petr Dlouhý 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Lostaff

Hello Thuresson, could you have a word with user:Lostaff? He keeps uploading loads of copies of two images with dogdy phantasy licences, supposedly for promotion (see gallery). He's not impressed by deletion tags but removes them and doesn't react to notes on his talk page. Cheers, --Wikipeder 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amalia of Habsburg Lorraine1

Hello Thuresson, That portrait was painted in the 18th century, but I have forgotten the name of the artist. That painting was painted in the style of the 18th century and not of the 19th oder 20th. --caro1409 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Curtiss falcon O1E.jpg.

Hello. Sorry, Thuresson, for my bad english..

I see you mensagge about de delete of File:Curtiss falcon O1E.jpg. Sorry if I make somethink wrong.

My point.. this image is in public domain because is a stamp of de Republic of Chile, without copyright, but protected of the ilegal use, and false use. Adios. --Carrilano 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible upload?

I wish to use the image Full-tail-rottweiler.jpg on the Swedish Wikipedia page about rottweilers, but the image currently resides locally on the English Wikipedia website. I am uncertain of whether this image is allowed to be uploaded to Commons. Verdict? --Tord Strømdal 11 augusti 2006 kl. 13.12 (CEST)

Thanks for your message. I am afraid that WikiCommons no longer accepts photos from sxc.hu (see Commons:Stock.xchng images for an explanation). You need to contact the photographer and ask him or her to explicitly license the photo under a free license (PD, Creative Commons or GFDL). But WikiCommons already have plenty of photos of rottweilers you can use instead, see the article Rottweiler. Thuresson 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. True, there are quite a few rottweiler images available at WikiCommons, but none as esthetically pleasing as Full-tail-rottweiler.jpg. I have contacted the photographer and hopefully he/she will upload the picture to WikiCommons. --Tord Strømdal 11 augusti 2006 kl. 17.12 (CEST)

Altering and re-uploading images.

I would like to make changes to this image and upload it to WikiCommons again. Specifically, I wish to flip the image and enhance the colours. How do I go about (regarding uploading the image, not regarding Photoshopping...? What should the meta data for the image be? --Tord Strømdal 11 augusti 2006 kl. 17.59 (CEST)

When you go about uploading an image on the page Special:Upload, click "Browse" to choose a photo stored on your own computer. Below the browse button is a large empty field where you can add data about the photo. You can copy and paste the template below into that field.

{{Information |Description= |Source=[[:Image:Rottweiler.jpg]] |Date= |Author= |Permission=GFDL |other_versions= }}

Please fill in as much information that you know. When you are done you can click on the "Upload" button and you can use the image in any article. Thuresson 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still somewhat confused about the metadata for the file. Am I the author or should that be the author of the original image? Should I use today's date or the date for the original upload? Should "other_versions" contain any data? Why is "GDFL" the Permission type? Because the original image was GDFL? I'm sorry if these are n00b questions, but I'm new here at Wiki. --Tord Strømdal 14 August 2006, 13:55 (CEST)

Thanks for your message. The author is the name of the person who took the photograph. The date should be the day or year when the photograph was taken. Obviously this is more important for older photos. If you don't know, just leave the field blank. Since Image:Rottweiler.jpg is licensed under GFDL, your version of the photo must also be licensed under GFDL. "Other versions" is only useful if there are several versions of the same photo. Thuresson 12:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quck answer, Thuresson! Cheers! --Tord Strømdal 14 August 2006, 14:52 (CEST)

I uploaded the new image here: Image:Rottweiler_standing_facing_left.jpg. Please let me know if I made any mistakes. --Tord Strømdal 14 August 2006, 15:38 (CEST)

Template:Money

I see that you deleted Template:Money. I'm new to commons, and a regular at en. I created the template to be used like en:Template:Money. Can you explain to me why it was deleted? Are images of money (which are often not public domain, but are fair use, but IANAL) not allowed on commons? There are many images which are tagged incorrectly as PD or GFDL (by the person who made the scan), and I'm trying to help sort it out, although I haven't uploaded any images myself. Thanks, Mom2jandk 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Money is used at English Wikipedia for providing a reason why fair use images of currency are used. Since WikiCommons do not allow fair use images in the first place, there is no use for this template. It is enough to use one of the copyright tags and a source who can verify that the copyright tag is correct.

There is a procedure for deleting templates at Commons:Deletion requests. This template was nominated for deletion on March 6, 2005 and on October 29, 2005. Thuresson 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I assumed it was correctly deleted, I just didn't understand why since I'm not used to commons. I think this means that there are a lot of images on commons which shouldn't be here. They're probably mostly tagged PD or GFDL by someone who misunderstood the copyright situation. Until I started looking into it, I thought I'd own the copyright on a coin or bill that I scanned/photographed. I think other people have the same misconception. Mom2jandk 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry, i thought all of them had the same licence from one example.i will find the correct licenced photos from now. Sunrise1 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Naval Battle of Navarino by Carneray.jpg

Hi. I provided a possible source for this image (see its talk page, though I might have been a bit harsh in tone...). Please verify that they are indeed the same pictures. I understand that I can't know where the original is from, this is only a possible source, but if its true that 2D representations of works of art don't enjoy copyright, that the painter is long dead (I just assume), and thus any such representation of it is copyright free the source should be irrelevant. The provided source I think should be enough to verify the date and author of the original painting. --Bdamokos 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Levi-strauss-claude.jpg

Not sure why I got the notice, but all content of the source page is is cc-by-sa. I have removed the notice, please let me know in more detail if there are problems. -- Chris 73 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Steve Osborn.jpg

Hi, may I see your permission to publish this photo, please? Thuresson 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of us are members of the Indiana Libertarian Party, and I personally asked him if I could post his picture from his website on here. He said it was ok. I am not sure if there is a better tag for it. I included a link to his email address on the image page. It is Osborn@Steve4USsenate.com from http://www.steve4ussenate.com If there is a better way to tag this let me know.

--Kalmia 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg

Hi, I notice that this flag does not have a copyright tag. Would it be possible for you to tag this flag with {{PD-because|whatever reason it is public domain}}? Thuresson 08:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it after I tagged it. I've reverted that. ¦ Reisio 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NobuyoshiAraki73.jpg

Hi, I upload this image because I find it on the Italian wiki and under a creative commons licence with the quote that the image was abble for his utilisation on all wikipedias. So that's why I thought it wouldn't have any problem. If that's not right I hope you will appologize me and delete the file. Thanks --Kasiber 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pharmacist.jpg

I didn't get the image from the PHIL library. It is located at the CDC website at www.cdc.gov. I have also seen this image on the HHS website. Since there isn't any attribution of the image to an author other than the CDC or HHS, I assumed this is one of their works. Is this incorrect? Thanks, 71.113.47.21 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Simplesse 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the image at [17] on a OMB HHS budget document again without attribution to a copyrighted source. Would the US Federal Government use a copyrighted image on all these official sites without the proper attribution if they didn't own the image? Simplesse 08:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinez de Hoz's Picture

Hello!. I don't know the source of the picture, but I know the date, because is the photo of an important spech in the Argentina history. This photo was taken in 1976, so, this image has 30 years old. I think I can use it. User:Bancorio

Flyttade PD-Sweden

Jag flyttade PD-Sweden till PD-Sweden-photo.

Fred Chess 21:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karakaya dam-GAP.jpg Image:Karkamis dam-GAP.jpg Image:Keban dam-GAP.jpg

[18] [19] [20] ... --Cat out 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links you provided show that the photographs have been taken by an employee of the federal government. Please provide some explanation why you think so or the images may be deleted. Thuresson 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is the USDA site. All images from US federal sites unless stated otherwise stated is in the PD. I do not need to provide any other explanation infact I didnt even need to provide that explanation. --Cat out 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted duplicate

Hi, you marked some images as deleted duplicate. Since this was reverted i put the images on Commons:Deletion requests. So, maybe you would like to vote for deletion now? --jed 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piusxiib.jpg

I just copied Image:Piusxiib.jpg from english wikipedia and now a see a zillion warnings all over the page. Please, check this, I see that you deletd this image last time. --Ante Perkovic 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin news

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)[reply]

Some problems concerning some photos. Hope to solve!

Image:DavidSuchet6.jpg and your post "No source - the web page says All rights reserved, but I can't find the photo there anyway"... I have just added the link to the page where the photo has been published (http://www.broomeman.com/mt/archives/2002_11.html)
Image:FedericoeFrancesco.jpg and your post "No source - I can't find this photo and a relevant copyright license at the website"... I have added the link to the page where the photo has been published ((http://www.federicoefrancesco.com/files/index.php?dir=foto%20di%20Giovanni%20Cavallini/set/), and the copiryght license is a .txt document you can find here: http://www.federicoefrancesco.com/files/Copyright.txt

Image:AgathaChristiesPoirot.jpg and your post "No source - who is Brian Farnham and how can his permission to use this photo be verified?"... Brian Farnham is the director of the movie and the photo is a screenshot from the final scene of the movie. If you search "Hercule Poirot" on Google.it (the same way I have found this image) you can see it is also available on www.chez.com/herculepoirot/index.htm, where I also found the copiright notes, herculepoirot.free.fr, www.dvdreview.com and www.freewebs.com... I have chosen to indicate herculepoirot.free.fr as source when I noticed the following message on chez.com: "Désolé, mpossible de trouver cette page"

I don't know what to do with Image:Onceinalifetime.jpg, because the press releases I requested to the National Theatre Press Office via e-mail (they are all .pdf documents, with photo, while from the official site you can download only .doc documents) have not any specific author but the press office of the National Theatre, and I can't find anywhere the author of the threatical poster, which was also published in a lot of theatrical rewiews online newspapers, such as arts.guardian.co.uk, stagetext.co.uk or whatsonstage.co.uk...

Please tell me if there is something else I have to do!

Look, you need a permission from the photographer or the copyright owner to publish these photos under a free license (GFDL, Creative Commons or similar). Apparently, Donny Broome is not the photographer so the link to his web log is not good enough. You need a permission from the photographer/copyrigt owner, preferrably in writing so that others can check if this is correct. Thuresson 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will send an e-mail to Donny Broome to ask some information... Thanks for your help! 17:36, November 17th

Avoiding more problems

Hello. To avoid more problems, this is the list of brazilians flags that I uploaded:

Image:Brazil-flag-10.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-9.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-8.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-7.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-6.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-5.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-2.jpg Image:Brazil-flag-1.jpg

All of them were taken from brasilian army official site e problably are under public domais. Although we have another versions (betters and under public domains) of the same flags in commons. So the images above should be deleted.

I uploaded (a long time ago) some images from wikipedias (such as italian and germanay) but I realise that this don't assure their free use. That's why these images dosn't specify who created the content and so the copyright status is unclear. Here are the list of these images:

From English wikipedia

Image:Fsm moore model door control.jpg Image:Hardy-Weinberg.gif Image:Ravennamagi.jpg

From Italian wikipedia

Image:Umbria-Bandiera.png Image:Puglia-Bandiera.png Image:Molise-Bandiera.png Image:Lazio-Bandiera.png Image:Emilia-Romagna-Bandiera.png Image:Campania-Bandiera.png Image:Calabria-Bandiera.png Image:Toscana-Bandiera.png

From Flag of World

Image:Flag fr-Limousin.gif Image:Flag fr-Champagne-Ardenne.gif

I believe that thede images may/should be deleted.

Sorry for all. --Giro720 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NobuyoshiAraki73.jpg.

I found this image on the italian wikipedia under a creative commons license, it was not on wikimedia commons so I thought it would be better here, and I changed it too on italian wikipedia. If the image was here I think that I shall have no problem, but I'm not an expert, so tell me. Saludos --Kasiber 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. This photo was uploaded to Italian Wikipedia by User:Pirru. Do you have any reason to believe that Pirru is identical to Nobuyoshi Araki? Secondly, it:Immagine:NobuyoshiAraki73.jpg is tagged as "public domain" but on WikiCommons you claim that you are the creator and that you license the photo under GFDL and Creative Commons. Why? Do you have any evidence that Nobuyoshi Araki allows anybody to use the photo under GFDL/Creative Commons? Thuresson 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-->Sorry for all, I think I haven't understood correctly everything. I just saw that the copyright was for public domain in all the world, and I thought that being in italian wiki was the same that being on commons wiki, but the problem was yet on italian. So it shall be deleted I think too. I wish my english is not too bad :P. Saludos--Kasiber 15:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Paintings

You say on your user page that photos of paintings may be public domain depending on the painter. Can you be more specific? My work on the Commons almost exclusively deals with images of fine art, which are amazingly scarce here, and I would like to understand the guidelines better. Thanks. LordAmeth 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that the description of the image "Traktor Volvo BM, augusti 2005.jpg" that you uploaded to Commomns, was described as "Volvo BM-traktor, troligen en 783:a från 1970-talet". It is in fact a "Volvo BM 700", produced from 1976 to 1982 (there never was a Volvo BM tractor called "783"). Sigmundg, 7/10 2006.

If you zoom in on it you will see that it says 700. Here is a link to a another picture of the 700: http://www.bmsidan.se/varabm/060128t700.htm. --Sigmundg 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

This images are not Filipe Mesquita de Oliveira's works:

Image:Pan rio2007.gif -> the oficial logo
Image:Rio2007 mascot.jpg

Image:Pjlf2007-bleu-villelogement.jpg

This is only the cover page of a publicly available document. Of course there is no GFDL/CC license on the document content. If this cover cannot be scanned and included on Commons, then I'm sorry for uploading it. Feel free to delete it. Nadiah 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why you claim to be the author? Why should I credit you if I wanted to use the image? Thuresson 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imágenes de Bienes de Interés Cultural (BIC)

Estimado Thuresson, siento no poder expresarme en ingles. La información que contiene la imagen es correcta. Pertenece a la Administración Pública y forma parte del expediente de declaración de “Bien de Interés Cultural”. En España, toda la información contenida en dichos expedientes es pública y puede ser usada libremente. Ruego elimines la advertencia que has puesto en las imágenes o pases esta información a un administrador español, quien corroborará la información que te estoy dando. Un saludo Gafotas 11:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En cuanto al comentario No source - Law 38/1995 has no mention of GPL or any other copyright license. The law provides a right for people to access information., que has añadido en una imágen, PLEASE consulta con alguien que entienda de Derecho (LAW). Thankyou. Un saludo de nuevo Gafotas 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comprueba la información que he cambiado en Image:Convento de San Francisco de Benicarló.jpg a ver si así te parece correcto. Gafotas 11:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I still do not understand why the people of Spain should credit you when using publicly available information. Do you understand what the GPL license means? How can I verify that this material is licensed under GPL? Thuresson 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just found this by chance and have been looking for some information on the internet. I am spaniard , and though I am no advocate or something alike and I cannot go into complicated legal arguments, I can read.

The image Image:Convento de San Francisco de Benicarló.jpg says La imagen forma parte del expediente de un Bien de Interés Cultura (BIC) de España, incluida en el Inventario General del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano, de carácter público según Art. 17.1 de la Ley 4/1988 de la Generalitat Valenciana. El contenido del Inventario es público y carente de copyright. I cannot find the Law 4/1988 from the Generalitat Valenciana, but I found http://www.gva.es/cjccv/castellano/Dic118-06.pdf, where you can read:

En ejercicio de su específica competencia y en el marco del ámbito territorial de la Comunidad Valenciana, se promulgó la Ley del Juego 4/1988, de 3 de junio, de la Generalitat Valenciana, que constituye la norma de referencia en la materia, regulando la actividad del juego y de las apuestas en sus distintas modalidades, y entre éstas, la del Juego del Bingo, que conforme lo dispuesto en el artículo 3º, en relación al artículo 2º, de la citada Ley, figura incluido en el Catálogo de Juegos de la Comunidad Valenciana, quedando sujeto a autorización administrativa previa para el ejercicio y el funcionamiento en sus locales específicos.

So it looks like the Law 4/1988 is a law that regulates bets and lotteries.

The law Law 38/1995 Gafotas mentions doesn't say anything about the copyright of the information. It just says that there is a right to get certain information but doesn't mention a thing about the copyright of the information you get. As far as I know, documents etc. generated by the spanish state are copyrighted.

Cheers, --Ecelan 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ecelan. I also asked User:Anna about this, and I am waiting for an answer. Many countries have similar laws about giving the public access to certain documents, laws that do not affect the copyright status. Thuresson 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Lo siento, escribi mal la ley: es la Ley 4/1998 del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano, que en su artículo 17 dice textualmente: Artículo 17. Publicidad: 1. El Inventario General del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano tendrá carácter público, sin perjuicio de las restricciones que esta misma Ley establece respecto del patrimonio arqueológico y paleontológico.

Hello Thuresson, I've asked a lawyer in es:wiki, I'll let you know as soon as I get his answer. Regards. Anna 00:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I got the confirmation. That material is public only to guarantee that the spanish administration does not act undercover and let know citizens the content of those files, but it doesn't mean they're free to copy or reproduce and least of all use them with the freedom Commons requires. I warned the user and I'll delete the images tomorrow. Regards. Anna 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures Upload Problem

Thanks for noticing something about 101 Run Up Pictures. Those pictures I've uploaded is photographed by me (Rico Shen), if not proper, how to use the proper copyright information with my uploaded pictures? Currently I don't see the CC Template about NO COMMERCIAL sign. MUFC Studio 13:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Noticing

Thanks for noticing and replying, but in the Information Table, I got a problem, What is about "Permission"?

Currently those pictures I've upload is for Wikinews Chinese & Wikipedia New Column "Taipei 101 Run Up" (English & Chinese Tradicional.), Maybe you can give some suggestion for Modifying Copyright & Information Bar.

Also, When I save a information page, it still be old information, not new or modified, can it be solved? Rico Shen 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Light photo

Thanks, I didn't realise there were two. Cheers Arniep 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alberione.jpg

Hi, MK writes, that this image is published with permission under GFDL form [21]. It's all. I think you should write to MK for more informations. Regards. Yarl.pl ^talk 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:hypothalamus.jpg

Hello,
Some time ago you left me a message saying hypothalamus.jpg had no copyright status. What i did is i took Image:MRI brain.jpg and put a red arrow in it. But with all the templates and things on the image's page I don't know what to do now... Methoxyroxy 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gap images: Image:Keban dam-GAP.jpg Image:Karkamis dam-GAP.jpg Image:Karakaya dam-GAP.jpg

Hi, I just restored deleted images about 3 gap themes since they were sourced at the time of delete. Hope you don't mind :) --Cat out 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

flickrreview

Hi Thuresson, I see that you reviewed some images uploaded by me via flickr and added a tag to these files. To remind you about which images we are talking about, Image:FeyenoordFans 1.jpg is one of them. You are saying that CC-BY-ND-2.0 is not compatible with commons, but when I read the policies about it, it is said that anyone is able to use the images, even for commercial goals unless the name of the included, which is the case by naming the photographer in the image page. Does this have to do with the fact that we are unable to alter the picture? I don't see why this would be a problem which results in the image not being commons compatible. If you'd like to clarify this to me, please do. Can you do me a favour and answer this on my en.wiki talk page? Thanks in advance, SportsAddicted 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cc-by-sa-2.5

Hallo Thuresson, sorry but my english is not the best. Please watch again my Userpage "Animated Pic´s". The Licensing are now renewed but I mean there are whensoever wrong (cc-by-sa-2.5), or? --Magellan ^@_/" 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem about Flickr. Please delete this two Images: Image:Ice1.gif and Image:Ice2.gif and because of 1-2 another pictures I ask their Author. Perhaps I became the accreditation {GFDL}. --Magellan ^@_/" 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I have read today the licensing specifications of commons. Please delete Image:Ice1.gif and Image:Ice2.gif or he who can do this (admins, ..), thank you. --Magellan ^@_/" 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Katie Melua music

Hi Thuresson,

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any reason not to delete these straight off the bat and block this user indefinitely? They appear to show no signs of interest in learning our requirements, and they must have uploaded over 50 copyvios already, it is wasting our time... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking. No, I see no reason at all to keep these files. I nominated them for deletion since I have never heard of an artist called Katie Melua before. Thuresson 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tveksam upphovsrätt

Du som är mer hemma här får väldigt gärna kasta ett öga på Image:Naustasmällen bild.jpg. // habj 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source

My Dear Thuresson, I'm so sorry, I didn't know that we couldn't use the google images like a source, thanks for your advice. I changed the source of the photos right now. Meanwhile that photos lost its copyrights since approximately 1994.Ralph Joseph

Thank you for your message. If you claim that a photo is out of copyright because the author has been dead for 70 years, you should write something about the identity of the author. Thuresson 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanni

Hi, you stated that it was a waste of time to obtain Yanni images, and they were deleted. But I clealy stated in the summary that permissions were pending. Did that not warrant at least a few days to wait? I actually already had verbal permission from Yanni management but waiting for their written reply via email of which will be forwarded to Permissions.org., again, clearly stated in Summary. I uploaded them and provided links to them in my formal permission request to Yanni management so that could see exactly what images I wanted permission to use. So what -- now they are not there for them to see. Cricket02 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. You can not publish photos and then ask for permission from the copyright owner, you should get a written permission first. The permission from the Yanni managment must allow anybody to use the photos for any purpose, eg. selling t-shirts with Yanni on it. Thuresson 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I understand now. Can you please delete these as well for the same reason. I copyvio'd them and are my own uploads. Sorry for the trouble. Next time I will be more informed.
Bradley Joseph
Image:Bjoseph6.jpg
Image:Bjoseph2.jpg
Image:BjosephBW.jpg
Image:Bjoseph.jpg

Cricket02 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Arms

Firstly, thank you for your contribution to the discussions about various Swedish Coats of Arms (Image:Sweden greater arms.svg etc). I was wondering what the procedure would be if the consensus was not to delete them. The problem is that it appears they were all orphaned before being listed for deletion and they were included in quite a large number of templates etc. Is there a simple way of reverting those changes? Indeed, should such changes be reverted? I had hoped, as with the other complex arms I uploaded (Image:Coat of arms of the Netherlands.svg) to work with someone to tidy up the details but that doesn't seem possible at the moment... Arcjgh 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. If the images are kept it is up to the users of the various Wikipedias if they want to use the images. If the images were removed from templates etc., it is quite easy to put them back in again. It is also my belief that a freely licensed COA (such as yours) have a very strong chance against fair use coats of arms. Thuresson 02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Sweden greater arms.png and Sweden lesser arms.png

Hi Thuresson, You've postred warnbings to me about lack on copyright tags for these pictures. However, if you had checked the history you would have noticed that someone had removed the existing tags recently, apparently in an effort to push for those terrible, home-made svg versions instead. I have now reverted the status to what it was before. Regards Thomas Blomberg 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two images still have no copyright tag. Without a copyright tag, these images may be deleted. Thuresson 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the tag template:insignia-Sweden, which is the only available copyright tag for Swedish coat of arms. The tag should, however, be re-written, because although the text by virtue of its context states that the image can be used freely as long as you don't use it to imply endorsement from the authority in question, the statement should be clearer and a green copyright emblem should be added. Thomas Blomberg 14:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money scans

Yo wrote: Hi, I notice that none of these photos of money have a source who can verify that the copyright owner has licensed the images under GFDL (which is very unlikely). Scanning an image do not transfer the copyright to you. Please add sources to all these images, thank you. Thuresson 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that commons is not a media store but a competition to see who is most stupid. Perhaps I can't scan my own money?. I'm violating copyright if I take a photo of me?. This is ridiculous. Money is public and mine, and If I want to scan it, i can do it. I don't scaned a image of coins and banknotes, but the real coins and banknotes (I changed euros for this coins and banknotes of course). I'm tired of fight against so great collection of more popist that the Pope. I will don't post more, I go out

Today I was bloked because suposately I was violated copyright for load images of flags that I draw and that I have vector files to probe it. The bloker (Yann) has no other motive that a wrong suposition (and "a posteriori", after bloking). Then I asked for delete all my contributions but i dont receive any answer. You are violating now really my copyright with thousands of images, and you fear for a scan of coins; really, this is funny... Delete all that you want; I dont take more job in the future for to be deleted later. But if this images are deleted, please also delete all my contributions because then, the agreement before granted is now reversed. --jolle 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA 2.5, 2.0, 1.0 Template need to add language template

Please refer Here, I've added {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0/lang}} Template and also translate Traditional Chinese version, and currently Turkish Version exists, maybe the international language template need to be put on. Rico Shen ^contact... 13:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thuresson/Archive2&oldid=31975929"

Hidden category:

User pages with broken file links