User talk:Wimmel

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Wimmel, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Wimmel, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Self photographed = copyvio?

Ciao Wimmel,

How can a self made photograph be a violation of copyright? Who owns the copyright of a bumper sticker on a car?  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:Derivative works, in particular the example If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. It is also possible that Commons:2D copying applies, but also in that case the copyright of the original work applies. If you want to, we can continue this discussion at nl:Wikipedia:De Wandschildering where you started a topic about that logo. --Wimmel (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear m{r|rs|s|. Wimmel,

What is the added value to humanity of this project if people like you don't allow colleagues to publish self-made photographs of a bumperSticker. See the discussion on Whaledad's talk_page on Wikiquote in the Dutch language. I suppose you understand Nederlands``well enough to be able to read. If not there many translate-sites around and more than this paper dictionaries.
Kind regards from Tuscany,  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't attack me if you don't agree with the Commons:Policies and guidelines. Wimmel (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Where you see there it's not allowed to make a photograph of a printed sticker pasted on a car, a wall or wherever? You think the print shop has the copyright(s) and who you think violated them? Are you paranoid or what? Not an attack, just a question on which I humbly ask an answer from you or the people who wrote those bureaucratic guide lines. Patiently waiting, your's truly  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  11:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let me try again. We are talking about a sticker showing this logo. First of all, there is no problem at all to make that photograph. The problem was just uploading it to commons. But first read about the Precautionary principle. As we are talking about a derived work of a logo, trademarks and logos applies. In this case the design is clearly above the threshold of originality. So it is presumed to be copyrighted. There is no reason to believe it is not in this case. So if the logo is copyrighted, your derived work is copyrighted too. Partly by you, partly by the creator of the logo. In these cases, the template Template:Logo must be added to the image. Which I have done. Because there is no doubt about this being a copyright violation, speedy deletion can be used to delete the image without any discussion. So a moderator can delete it. Note that this means someone else also verified the request. I hope this explains what happened. If you don't agree, there is nothing I can do about it. I cannot undelete anything. But you can add a request on Commons:Undeletion requests explaining the situation and why you don't agree. --Wimmel (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to be an expert, I give you all the rights you claim, deleting other people's work. Happy paranoia?  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  09:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)