User talk:Common Good/Archive 5

Question

Several of my uploads have been deleted due to copyright violation. My question is: is it allowed to upload a snapshot from a movie trailer? IGG8998

Movie trailer are generally copyrighted. There are only few exceptions: e.g. Big Buck Bunny (released under a CC-BY license) and File:Double indemnity screenshot 1.jpg (Template:PD-US-not renewed). Common Good (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Ocean's 11 (1960 film) movie trailer copyrighted? Could you check out? IGG8998

Copyright has been renewed 1988. You can check yourself: Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database. -- Common Good (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean it is copyrighted? IGG8998

Yes. -- Common Good (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

fyi

User:John Schanlaub has created some very fine images. I think we ought to remain grateful that they initially chose a free liscense -- even if he changed his mind.

Unfortunately I think I triggered his decision to try to claw back all his rights. A day or so ago I left a heads-up on this flickr page thanking him.

This thank you seems to have triggered his reversal.

Anyhow, since you had some recent involvement on his images, I thought I would give you a heads-up on Commons:Deletion requests/File:X14.jpg.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:restore for cleanup at Wikimedia Commons

 Done, files restored. Let me know when I can delete them again. --Taueres (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:San Miniato - la rocca.jpg restored. --Taueres (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Foto simona levi.png

Hello, Common Good

I've just noticed you deleted a file I uploaded to wikimedia. I took it from: http://la-ex.net/proyectos/oxcars-08. It was already deleted once and then restored. There is no copyright infringement whatsoever because it is a Free Culture event and they use CC licenses. I did provide the link to the license CC BY-SA 3.0. It is at the bottom of the page. What else do you need? Please restore. Regards --Pepa gotera (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

la-ex.net/proyectos/oxcars-08 is using a free license. But I did not find this image. la-ex.net/wp-content/img/2008/oxcars/031_oxcars.jpg is similar but with much smaller resolution. I restored the file for now. But we still need permissin for this high resolution image. -- Common Good (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Common Good. Thanx for restoring. So you still need permission from the author even if the image is CC? Regards --Pepa gotera (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is: Is this particular image CC? I did not find this image at la-ex.net/proyectos/oxcars-08 (the other file is much smaller).

There are three options:

• If this image is available somewhere with a clear CC license then we do not need any further permission. Please provide a link to that page and I will approve it.

If this image is not available at la-ex.net:

• then we need a written permission via email (See COM:OTRS).
• or we might use la-ex.net/wp-content/img/2008/oxcars/031_oxcars.jpg without any further permission.

-- Common Good (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

UKR photo

I hope it is OK now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ukrainians_Ukraine_english_version.jpg ... Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NATO phonetic alphabet

I had to remove the link to the sound File:NATOPhoneticAlphabet.ogg that you added to en:NATO phonetic alphabet because the original uploader Mirwin mispronounced six of the 36 words (total of 26 code words for letters and 10 numerals). He pronounced these words using the normal English pronunciation, but all agencies (FAA-NATO-ICAO-ITU-IMO etc.) agree that they have non-standard pronunciations: Oscar is pronounced OSS-CAH not Oscar; Quebec is KEH-BECK not Quebec; Victor is VIK-TAH not Victor; 3 is TREE not three; 4 is FOW-ER not four; and 5 is FIFE not five. The only non-standard pronunciation he correctly used was NIN-ER for 9. Unfortunately, Mirwin has passed away so someone else will have to correct the sound file before it can be used on Wikipedia. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just added a request. --Common Good (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think this picture is in public domain? IGG8998 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. See deletion request. -- Common Good (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for approving the images I uploaded and creating the Gloucester County College category - good thought! Allens (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry

Sexymax15 (talk)sorry my fault

Thanks

...for cleaning up after my typo. RalfHuels (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Swans

Thank you! I'll research further but I'm pretty sure they are the swans I'm looking for. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

robot versus human

You deleted File:GIs at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay’s Emergency Operations Center.jpg in favor of File:US Navy 100504-A-0285B-007 Senior Chief Culinary Specialist Patrick A. Campbell, the battle watch commander for the emergency operations center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.jpg.

I have suggested, in multiple places, that when real life human volunteers, and mindless robots, have both uploaded the same image, we should favor the images that were uploaded by real human volunteers -- like myself. Uploading images is hard work. I suggest it is bad for the project to keep the image uploaded by a robot, whose feeling can't be hurt, and not keep the image uploaded by a real human being whose feelings can be hurt.

Further, categorizing images can be hard work as well. Robot uploaded images are generally very poorly integrated into our categorization system. I suggest this is a good reason to keep the human uploaded image. I suggest that the categorization, so end-users can find the images they want, is more important than the initial upload.

I'd be very surprised if I hadn't added more useful categories to the image you deleted than have been added to the image you kept.

If two images are essentially identical, differing only in the attached descriptions, either the one with the good descriptions should be kept, or the descriptions merged.

If two images differ in having different descriptions, and one is of inferior resolution, it is relatively simple matter to upload the superior resolution to the image with the superior description.

For these reasons I request you restore this image. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't the current policy to not delete the description of deleted images, but to change it to redirect to the kept image? Isn't this recommended, even if there are no wikilinks or inter-wiki-links to the image, because the deletion can screw up links to the image from non-WMF sites? Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

2011-12-04 Mucronella bresadolae (Quél.) Corner 187670.jpg

I don't know, what I should do now. The user Sava Krstic (sava) has deleted the photo at mushroomobserver.org. If you take a look at the home of the website you could see the activity log "Image destroyed by sava: Image #187670". --Ak ccm (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Sava Krstic deleted this image because he misidentified the species (Mucronella bresadolae). There is a very similar image showing Ramariopsis kunzei. -- Common Good (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he deleted this image. When in doubt please delete it at Commons. --Ak ccm (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

thnx

hi ty for the gloucester!

Question about Possible Copyright Violation

I found this photo, File:Jeune homme à la mitre van mol.jpg on here on Commons, my question is is it a copyright violation because the Place where the image is found is image on Flickr. And on the copyright license it states "All Rights Reserved" I also found the same image on the Louvre Art Gallery's website. Even though the painter that painted died in 1650. And on the painting's page on the Louvre's website it states © Musée du Louvre/A. Dequier - M. Bard Which doesn't match the name of the person who uploaded it on Flickr though the person on Flickr might have uploaded their own picture on there. But anyways the current photo on here (Commons) is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Version and CC-BY-SA 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0 Generic. Which doesn't match the one on Flickr or the Art Gallery's website. So is it a possible Copyright violation? Thanks. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the uploader is not the author. Using {{self|whatever}} is wrong. The painting itself is clearly {{PD-old-100}}. We can use this photograph because {{PD-Art}} applies if we remove the border. (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). I have tagged the file accordingly (PD-Art + {{Non-free frame}}). -- Common Good (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Dittgen - Rainy Day, MenT@i - ハッピィケンキュウジョ, NTX 13 - Etheral Presence, DJ Toxik Waste - The Law Of The Underworld, Outsider - I Believe and Nybraz...

Hi,

Can I have some explanations for the delete of File:Garath DJ - Cospiracy (Original Mix).ogg, File:Charles Dittgen - Rainy Day.ogg, File:MenT@i - ハッピィケンキュウジョ.ogg, File:NTX 13 - Etheral Presence.ogg, File:DJ Toxik Waste - The Law Of The Underworld.ogg, File:Outsider - I Believe.ogg and File:Nybraz - Stalker.ogg? I have added a link to the pages of Jamendo that indicate that these tracks are under Creative Commons licence ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]). So what is wrong? Is it because you have received complains? If this is the case, the licence of these tracks should be changed on Jamendo. ftiercel (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Those files are licensed under a license (cc-by-nc-nd) that does not permit commercial use or the creation of derivative works. Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository, which means that commercial use and the creation of derivative work must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. -- Common Good (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn! OK. ftiercel (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator's barnstar

		The Administrator's barnstar
		I hereby award Common Good this barnstar for high activity as Administrator on Commons in 2011. Very good work! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)