——————————————— Archive, March 2007 ———————————————
Are you the artist of these images? --Cat out 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I am not. Those images of poets include original artist's name.--Ibrahimjon 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, the licensing starts as "I, the author of this work" which means the uploaded claims authorship.
- Legally standing Immodinova C owns the copyrights to the images, not you. I really need some evidence that the images were released with a free license. The images would be PD if the creator died at least 70 years ago.
- --Cat out 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking trying to find out about Immodinova and will let you know soon. Hopefully I will succeed. If you have any questions please leave a message in my userpage. Thank you! --Ibrahimjon 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think the deletions are problematic. Would you mind if I undelete the images and go through the regular COM:DEL process? --Cat out 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum - I was wondering when that message was going to arrive. Firstly - of course you can undelete them - I'd give you a hand but I'm out of time for an hour or two.
- Actual licensing - after having re-read round the situation I think I understand your concern. My view in deleting them (FWIW) was that they were a form of copvio and while the license couldn't be revoked (?) it may not have been valid in the first place (I don't know where any external evidence of the license came from?).
- I am sorry if I have created any undue work - all I can say is I do hope I will learn from this. Hope this is ok --Herby talk thyme 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- +maybe - undelete one as a "test" case?? --Herby talk thyme 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have a real opinion on the actual case. But I feel it is complicated enough to disqualify as a speedy.
- As per your comment, I'll be undeleting them pending a com:del review
- I do not believe you have made a "mistake". The talk page post was to merely avoid a posible wheel war. :)
- --Cat out 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you you will not get that kind of behaviour from me - not my way of doing things at all. I'll watch and learn - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the images which were deleted? I mean the photos of Marian Iwańciów works. --Riva72 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see a reason for a speedy deletion. You are welcome to nominate them under COM:DEL. --Cat out 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person who owns the works whose pictures were taken by me holds the rights to decide if the pictures of these works can be distributed and if they can be released into the public domain. What is more, the painter died in 1971 so the works by him are not in the public domain yet. Uploading photographs or scans of works by this artist is, therefore, prohibited. I was granted permission by the owner to take the photos for my personal use only. I ask you to delete all the photos of Marian Iwańciów works available with the commons immediately. In my opinion, the 'speedydelete' template is justified. I am sorry for the corrections done by me to your message posted at 'Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention'. --Riva72 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool cat: I want to inform you that my 'punishment' ended at 6:16 pm. --Riva72 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I cannot comply to your request. Please use Commons:Deletion requests. The issue is too complicated to qualify under "speedy deletion".
- No one was punished to my knowledge. You were merely given a 2 hour cool-off period.
- --Cat out 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the answer. Can you tell me if this template is all right? Image:Mari1.JPG. --Riva72 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please start a case on commons:Deletion requests. Do NOT use speedy deletion of ANY kind. --Cat out 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me please: ..but if there is the speedy deletion category and the files apply to be deleted in at least one category (one of the cases) why I should start the case on commons:Deletion requests? --Riva72 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not apply. Please use the right process and make this easier for both of us. --Cat out 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the right process.. Besides your message cannot be treated as an explanation.--Riva72 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the reviewing administrator, I say no. If an administrator removes a speedy deletion template, you can't revert him/her. Warx and I both feel this isn't speedy deletable. Since I do not see an "obvious" reason for deletion, your only option is COM:DEL. --Cat out 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have just placed the template for a deletion request. Can you inform me, please if I did it correctly? This is the case of: Image:Mari1.JPG. Do I need to place the template at my discussion page? I hope that it is not necessary. Thank you. --Riva72 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can mass nominate a range of images. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Colombian money (2007-03-03) for an example.
- You can use something like: {{delete|<deleiton reason>|Deletion page}}
- -- Cat chi? 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the information. I have done separate requests.. Before I got your message, I had tried to do it the 'collective' way. Unfortunately, I could not manage to do it. --Riva72 01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You basically list them on the same page, this is preferable because then you need to argue your point once. -- Cat chi? 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, thank you! So I have to correct it with the method you described earlier? --Riva72 01:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't "have to". But doing so saves you and everybody else a lot of time. Otherwise people would have to vote on 30 things instead of 1 and you'd have to watch all 30 debates. -- Cat chi? 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the relocations.. but I've noticed some data 'problems' - I mean: March 3 and March 4. Cool Cat, am I to correct these? Can you look at the output of my relocations, please?.. :)--Riva72 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you come online today I'd appreciate your views on the recent edits and interchange on talk pages. I think you will see my views quite clearly - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- gone quiet now so don't worry - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cool Cat. Having just uploaded Image:Persepolis complex map spanish.jpg, I noticed that a word was still written in French. Having then reloaded a correct version Image:Plano de Persépolis.jpg, , I'd appreciate your help for a deletion of the first image (Persepolis complex map spanish). Thx. Pentocelo 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- Cat chi? 12:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Regards Pentocelo 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the information at [3] by adding that I am the nephew of the daughter of the artist. She is the person who owns all the works of art which I photographed and uploaded to the commons. She is married. These works (and their copyrights) belong, therefore, to her, her husband and their direct descendants. --Riva72 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I see what I can do in regards to your wish for archiving maps. I seem to remember a user doing this very thing a while back. Hoshie 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assistance will be very helpful. Please speak with this user. --EugeneZelenko 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
İyi günler. Commonsa yüklediğiniz resimler kendinizin değil ise, özgür bir lisansa sahip olup olmadığının kontrolü açısından kaynak gösterilmesi gerekmektedir. -- Cat chi? 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anladım sağol.--Bozkurttt 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Herhangi bir sorunuz olursa sormaktan çekinmeyiniz. -- Cat chi? 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya ben eklediğim resiölere sil şablonun neden konulduğunu anlamadım lisans belirtiyorum--Bozkurttt 13:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bu resimleri kendiniz mi yarattiniz? Resimler bir dergi yada kitaptan alinti gibi. -- Cat chi? 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- alıntı evette ben istediğim lisansı seçememmi onu soruyorum GNU yu seçiyorum ikisinide silmişler yüklediklerimin neye göre siliyorlar illa bu resim benim diye ilan mı vermem lazım.--Bozkurttt 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Silinen seyleri geri getirmek kolay, endiselenmenize gerek yok.
- Baskasinin yaratigi birseyin telif hakki o kisiye aittir. Ornegin gazetelerdeki fotograflar ve yazilari tarayip commonsa koymak telif haklarini ihlal eder.
- Istediginiz lisansi secebilmek icin telif haklarinin size ait olmasi gerekiyor. Eger alinti yapacaksaniz alinti yaptiginiz kaynagin ozgur lisansa uyumlu bir kaynak olmasi lazim. Yani baska bir degisle aliti kaynaginiz orgur lisansa uyumlu bir kaynak olmadikca kendi yaratiginiz birsey olmasi gerekiyor.
- Bu resimleri fair-use (adil kullanim) kabul eden bir wikiye (tr.wikipedia.org bunlardan biri) yukleyebilirsiniz.
- Commonsdaki bu ugulamanin sebebi butun ulkelerde fair-use'un esdegeri bir yasanin olmayisi. Commons butun ulkelerde kullanilabilmek istiyor.
- -- Cat chi? 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evet alıntı yaptığım kaynağın telif hakkı serbest ve buraya rahatça yükleyebilirim.Telif hakkı saklı diye birisi çıkıp resmimi silebiliyor burada silen kişinin alıntı yaptığımı kanıtlaması telif hakkının saklı olduğunuda ispatlaması lazım kafasına göre telifli diyememeli.--Bozkurttt 13:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alinti yaptiginiz kaynagin telif hakkinin serbest oldugunu "kanitlamaniz" gerekmekte. Kaynagini bilinmedigi zaman "en kotusunu" dusunmemizi istiyor sistem. -- Cat chi? 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- peki ben bu resimleri GROLİER INTERNATİONAL AMERİCANA adlı ansiklopediden yükledim bunu kaynak olrak gösterebilirmiyim yani telif hakkı serbest hem ben niye kanıtlamak zorundayım telifli diyen kanıtlasın.--Bozkurttt 14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commonsa resim yuklediginiz zamam kirmiziyla asagidaki ifade yer alir:
- "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice. Thanks for your understanding."
- Cevirisi: "Eger uygun lisans ve kaynak gozteremezseniz, dosyaniz baska bir uyari verilmeksizin silinicektir. Anlayisiniz icin tessekur ederiz"
- Bu uygulamanin sebebi uluslararasi telif yasalarina dayanir. Baskasinin yaratigi bir eseri izinsiz yayimlamak, telif haklarini ihlal etmek demektir.
- Eger "Grolier International America" icindeki materyal GFDL veya Creative Commons ile lisansliysa, veya kaynak 70 ila 100 yildan eskiyse telif yonunden sorun olmaz. Aksi taktirde materyal buyuk ihtimalle teliflidir.
- -- Cat chi? 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cool Cat, I noticed that you deleted [4] twice, which may be the same image as is currently being discussed at this deletion request. Any insight you offer would be helpful. --Iamunknown 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) It's not the exact same image. 2) It's a derivative image. Any images of just the World Cup are not free to publish on Commons. The Flickr user could not release the rights to the image, because he did not own the rights to the world cup. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try telling the people voting "keep" that. --Iamunknown 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the flickr user can release the rights to the photo because its his but just the photo not the trophy which is the problem, right?--Thugchildz 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know how we can't have photo of copyrighted trophies, well i was wondering, what if i drew a picture of the trophy? Would that be ok?--Thugchildz 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Legally that would start venturing into a grey area. It really depends how similar it looks to the trophy. I am not too sure if it would be ok or not. -- Cat chi? 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well its art, so doesn't it mean that i would have copyrights to my own art? Artist paint a lot of stuff that's copyright but still its not a photo its art so shouldn't it be my copyright option? Well as admin, could you find out and let me know because I don't want to put time in and make it look good then just for it to get deleted in the end.--Thugchildz 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So long as the throphy isn't the focus of the image it can have independent copyright. Like I said, it really depends on the final product. The painting of a single coke can probably is a copyvio while the painting of a garden with a coke can here and there is not. Copyrights are complicated stuff. -- Cat chi? 12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what your saying is, it can't be just the trophy. Ok then I'm going to draw a field or something and the trophy is going to be on it. Or like flags of countries and then the trophy in the middle. That would be ok right? Because its not just focusing on the trophy the 1st theres a cricket field or the second there's the flags.--Thugchildz 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Throphy should be a very small fraction of the image so as not to be a "derivative of copyrighted work". There isn't a straight answer to this and I am not trying to confuse or mislead you - its just that copyrights are highly complicated matters. Why is it is that you are using a throphy? -- Cat chi? 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I worked really hard on the cricket world cup article on en.wiki to bring it up to FA and it doesn't look good now that there's no picture of the trophy.--Thugchildz 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can upload the throphy cup photo to en.wiki under a fair-use license. I assumed you were working on a wiki that didn't allow fair-use. -- Cat chi? 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Simonizer 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Few of the images were not deleted. Is there a specific reason? -- Cat chi? 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Images that I think that can be a PD-old or {{PD-Brazil-media}} ones but I missed to check it more accurate and to remove the {{Delete}} from theirs descriptions. Lugusto • ※ 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I've deleted (and orphaned) a few more, substied nsd in another one and keept only two images. Thanks for your reminder. Lugusto • ※ 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. If you like, you may also help with money images from other countries. Currently I am working on getting all bill/coin images listed for deletion.
- Category:Bills & Category:Coins -> Commons:Deletion_requests/Money_of_various_countries
- -- Cat chi? 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask who is the copyright holder of Austro-Hungarian money? Maybe Emperor Franz Joseph? Please watch your deletion request. I don't know how can a photo of a coin be copyright violation. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Timur lenk (talk • contribs)
- Hello, you are welcome to voice your opinion on the deletion discussion page. I am mass nominating practically every money image on wikipedia. A good number will be deleted, some will be kept. This is an overall cleanup on an area most over-looked. -- Cat chi? 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just a little bit misleading that you state everywhere "XY currency is copyrighted". In many cases this is not true. Or is it the way of copyright protection on wikicommons that a deletion tag is put everywhere and who wishes can defend? (I know, presumtion of innocence is not a convenient way to judge.) So with the same momentum you could remove the tag from obviously not copyrighted images. Timur lenk 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An image tagged for deletion doesn't necessarily end up getting deleted. It is just a process and I welcome you to participate in it.
- On commons, unless proven otherwise images are assumed to be copyrighted.
- For example, United States Copyright Law dictates that any work is copyrighted for 70 additional years after authors death. If an image was created in year 1900 and author died in 1950 that means copyright of that would expire in 2020. And in the case of money more rigorous copyrights probably apply.
- -- Cat chi? 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. The copyright holder of banknotes and coins is the institute (usually bank) issuing it, not the designer/engraver/printer. And the right to copy a banknote (i.e. falsificate) should not be mistaken with copyright. That's why central bank laws specify the ways of publication of paper money images with technical data (e.g. image resolution) not with expirity dates. Only very few banks (including the Bank of England, Bank of Canada, Central Bank of Turkey) hold explicitly copyrights of banknotes.
- Many of the images have copyright tags on them.
- What is the policy on images of coins? I'd like to know your opinion. Timur lenk 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no specific policy on coins and bills but we do have a general "free license" policy. In a nutshell we question if an image can be recreated, mass produced, or altered without copyright issues.
- Each countries money should be processed on a case by case basis. Unless the bank states otherwise, we assume the images are copyrighted.
- -- Cat chi? 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, even if a coin is copyrighted, it means that other coins should not have the same design. Making an image (scan or photo) is not the violation of a coin copyright. If the publication of image of a coin is illegal, it should be explicitly forbidden (like taking photos of strategic buildings - not because of their copyrighted design but their military importance). Timur lenk 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright law doesn't work like that. If you take a photo of a 3D object, you are violating the copyright of the creator of the 3D object. -- Cat chi? 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I do not know, what advance of your action: I am mass nominating practically every money image on wikipedia. A good number will be deleted, some will be kept should have. In the case of the Albanian bills it's only destructive or let's say a kind of sabotage, because you did not read the pages, whre verry clear is shown with a quotation of the albanian law, that albanian money generally is not copyrighted.
It is the same with the money of every state, which do not exist any more, like Austria-Hungary. I guess you are verry incompetent in copyright questions and you have fun disturbing only serious contributions. --Decius 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally not copyrighted? You are welcome to bring your arguments to the deletion nomination page. Yelling at me will not solve anything. Have a nice day. -- Cat chi? 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a case of personal stupidity, because you have not nioticed at all the text about permission:
(from the last bill I have uploaded, which is not deleted yet)
How can we discuss anything at the computer screen, if you do not read? --Decius 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take your case to the deletion nomination page. As an administrator I have the access to delete the images, there is a reason why they are nominated and not deleted on the spot.
- I also ask you to adjust your tone. Personal attacks will only get you blocked.
- -- Cat chi? 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of Canadian dollar pictures [5] left at least two references on en: invalid: [6]. Pavel Vozenilek 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I wonder whether the copyright care didn't go absurd this time).
- Most of the images deleted here were originally from the English Wikipedia, so I will re-upload there and add/restore the info. -- Editor at Large • talk 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mari1.JPG){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log%26type%3Ddelete%26page%3DImage:World_Cup_Trophy.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif){kind=link}