File talk:Alejandro Maristany y Guasch 1915.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rights and source[edit]
The uploader is the owner of the original picture, so is the rights owner, isn't he? --DPC (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- And if he were the rights owner, should he write another source more than "scanned from a paper photo of my own"? I mean the picture is published when it pass from the negative (moment when it was created) to the paper, isn't it? --DPC (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The owner of an original does not own any rights to it except the physical ownership. The copyright requires a written transfer, it will expire 80 years (old spanish law) following the authors death. For the existence of copyright it does not matter if the physical owner knows the author or not (not knowing the author means however, that there was no copyright transfer). I can also make scans and claim them comming from my "own collection" - but I can also name the books where I scanned it from. Example: File:William S. Soule - Satanta.jpg, it is scanned from my own collection, but of course it is from a publication that I named as the source. A source is required here too. You wrote much in Wikipedia, are you allowed in Wikipedia to add some original research information to articles and make a reference "<ref>Because I know it, its from my own brain</ref>"? obviously not, same applies here. With the only difference that the requirement to provide sources has a more legal background, not so much an educational background. --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, you are saying that if it isn't from a booklike (or taken by oneself -primary source, forbbiden in Wikipedia-) you can´t upload a picture to Commons because it hasn't any source? Is it not a source a paper photo? I'm trying to understand and to learn more than trying to keep the picture here, so be patient with me, please. --DPC (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader not gave us the smallest information, so its hard to say if it is ok or not. He toke the image from his collection and uploaded it, well, thats information I can see myself without having it written as the source. The image has a physical form, this form is undescribed (paper print, negative, etc.), aditionally the image took some undescribed way into the uploaders collection, that way would be important to determine the copyright status. And for the uploader it would be important to describe this way, because the uploader (Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto#Evidencia / COM:PS#Evidence) must provide evidences that the image is of unknown authorship and that it is public domain and describing the publication way will be the only chance to provide this evidence. --Martin H. (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, you are saying that if it isn't from a booklike (or taken by oneself -primary source, forbbiden in Wikipedia-) you can´t upload a picture to Commons because it hasn't any source? Is it not a source a paper photo? I'm trying to understand and to learn more than trying to keep the picture here, so be patient with me, please. --DPC (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The owner of an original does not own any rights to it except the physical ownership. The copyright requires a written transfer, it will expire 80 years (old spanish law) following the authors death. For the existence of copyright it does not matter if the physical owner knows the author or not (not knowing the author means however, that there was no copyright transfer). I can also make scans and claim them comming from my "own collection" - but I can also name the books where I scanned it from. Example: File:William S. Soule - Satanta.jpg, it is scanned from my own collection, but of course it is from a publication that I named as the source. A source is required here too. You wrote much in Wikipedia, are you allowed in Wikipedia to add some original research information to articles and make a reference "<ref>Because I know it, its from my own brain</ref>"? obviously not, same applies here. With the only difference that the requirement to provide sources has a more legal background, not so much an educational background. --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, the uploader is a novel member of Wikimedia. I'm trying to learn and then explain him the matter, thaht's why I have been editing here and not him. So, if he give us evidences and descriptions, everything should be OK? Thanks a lot for your time. --DPC (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
