User talk:Darldarl/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Deleted photo
The fact that you say the author is "unknown" does not mean is anonymous. On the other hand, according to the source http://www.oliverwieters.de/artikel-73.html that photo is part of a catalogue published in 1997 (that is what I understand, I do not speak German though). If this is the date when the photo was published for the first time then it cannot be in the public domain yet. Anna 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Kafka.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kafka.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Flickr uploader is obviously not the original copyright holder, so any license they claim to grant is invalid (and the {{Cc-by}} license also requires the author to be attributed, which has not been done). The image may be in the public domain because of age, but then you still need to show that to be the case. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that the first publication was anonymous? —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The photographer never disclosed his identity! The photo is more than 84 years old and has to be in the public domain at least because of age.--Darldarl 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that the first publication was anonymous? —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please cite an authoritative source for the claim that the photographer never disclosed his identity. The fact that you have not found out who the author is does not mean it was published anonymously, and if the author was not anonymous and died less than 70 years ago, the work is probably not in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw Image talk:Thomas Bernhard1.jpg and I think that you're not right. The flickr uploader has in his showcase pictures which he obviously hadn't produced by himself, hence cannot license by himself. And I am prone to think that Thomas Bernhard's one is one of these. Sadly, Flickr uploaders are even more careless about copyrights than these in Wikipedia/Commons. I suppose that the image will be deleted. Regards, →Spiritia 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I disagree with the deletion of this image because its licensing is OC BY: (CC-BY-SA) See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/13871926@N05/2389948606/sizes/l/
- See please http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Uwe_Kolbe.jpg - same case but different decision.
- The Flickr uploader is surely (not) the copyright holder. The fotographer seems to be not professional one (his name is unknown), may be he is an ANONYMOUS friend of Bernhard.
- Please, Spiritia, let me know your exact argumentation for ignoring all this. Best--Darldarl 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder, any license they claim to issue is invalid. Only the copyright holder can issue a valid license. Even if the photographer is anonymous, which would need to be clearly shown, the photograph was not old enough to be in the public domain in any case. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning
Image deletion warning | Your uploads Image:Elias Canetti's Signature.jpg, Image:Boell Sign.jpg, Image:Grass Signature.jpg, Image:Hesse Signature.jpg, Image:Thomas Mann's Signature.jpg have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. |
→Spiritia 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Move-to-Commons assistant
When you wish to transfer free images from other Wikimedia sites, you may choose to use the Move-to-Commons assistant (a.k.a. CommonsHelper). Given the language code and image filename this tool (almost) perfectly parses the original description page and creates for you the full Summary, Licensing and Original upload log, ready to be pasted into the description field of your current Commons upload. Moreover, very often the tool is able to correctly guess the proper category of the image. And of course it will save you some mistakes like self-attribution of works made by others and definitely looks prettier. You may see the difference here. Cheers, →Spiritia 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! This is importan to me. By the way, what do yo meen about following webpage: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0103/arendt.html . Source is owned by The Library of Congress and at the pagebottom it reads "All photographs courtesy Hannah Arendt Trust". Are this images free and what should be their license? I want to upload some of them to Commons but I am afraid of Virginia Woolf. TIA! --Darldarl (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Legal notice on the website reads : As a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and generally does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Researchers must make their own assessments of rights in light of their intended use.
- Usage of materials on Commons should be under a free license, and it is beyond that allowed by fair use. However, you are encouraged to contact representatives of cited copyright holder Hannah Arendt Trust and request from them to release some illustrative materials under the conditions of a Free Culture License. You may need to firstly consult the instructions in en:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Note that permissions "only for educational purposes" or "for Wikipedia" are not enough, copyright holders should be aware that they agree to release their materials for eventual commercial use and/or further modification. →Spiritia 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you look at this proposal and comment please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Elias Canetti's Signature
Elias Canetti was born in Bulgaria (Rustchuk). He settled and stayed in England until the 1970s, receiving British citizenship in 1952. For his last 20 years, he mostly lived in Zurich where he died in 1994. Please undelete Elias Canetti's signature because he never had been a Swiss citizen. --Darldarl (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deprecated License
It has been found that Image:LiliSchoenemanGoethesVerlobteS46.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Nikbot (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deprecated License
It has been found that Image:AugusteGraefinZuStolbergS45.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 08:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Lion_Feuchwanger_1933.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. |
Cecil (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Robert_Musil_1938.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. |
Cecil (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Stefan_Zweig.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Stefan_Zweig.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Cecil (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you have to notify the original uploader, not the users.--85.130.31.81 08:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are the uploader here, that makes it your responsibility. Local projects have different rules, they sometimes allow uploads without all the necessary information. That does not mean that those files can be transferred to Commons just because one of the projects accept them. The person who transfers an image has to check first if everything is ok, because (s)he is the one whose name is now below the upload. Just uploading an image without proper copyright and then shirking off the fault to another project with other rules does not work. You are the original uploader at Commons, so you are the one responsible that it fits to the rules at Commons. If the image misses information to proof its freedom then you uploaded an unfree file, not the uploader at another project. -- Cecil (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Erich Kaestner.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
|
-Daggerstab (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Ek 1907.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. |
Verehrter Darldarl, ich bedaure es sehr, aber diese Bilder von Erich Kästner können wir nicht so ohne weiteres übernehmen. Sie sind nicht alt genug, als dass wir sicher sein könnten, dass der Photograph bereits seit 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Und ohne den Nachweis einer anonymen Erstveröffentlichung vor über 70 Jahren sieht es ebenfalls nicht gut aus. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
HaCee
Lieber Darldarl,
dass der Artmann eine Kategorie für sich ist, würde ich zwar jederzeit unterschreiben, dass sie jedoch auf COM zu unserer beider Lebzeiten leidlich gefüllt würde halte ich für eher unwahrscheinlich (eine Kategorie sollte nicht deutlich weniger als ~10 Elemente enthalten; und Du kannst ja offensichtlich auch schon lesen und schreiben, was Dein Alter nach unten hin zu begrenzen scheint ... ;).
Dies schreibe ich insbesondere auch angesichts der beispielsweisen Gegebenheit, dass etwa das Wiener DIF (Donauinselfest) 2008 ~3 Mio Besucher hatte und ~2 (in Worten: zwei) davon ein paar Bildspenden der WP/COM abgaben. Also wird WP/COM wohl warten müssen, bis Rechteinhaber der Werke Artmanns oder Bildmaterials dazu "mehr als siebzig Jahre tot sind". Ist natürlich, realistisch besehen, auch keine Ewigkeit.
- "Setze Dich an das Ufer des Flusses und warte, bis die Leichen Deiner Feinde vorüber treiben"
hab' ich irgendwannmal irgendwo aufgeschnappt. Nu, dann wart'n'ma halt. ;) Wolfgang 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
SPAM.
Hi, I'm aware that Christmas greetings are more-or-less to be considered to be SPAM, but I can't help:
Here is one more, which is from me.
Although I might have [and might in the future] disagree with you, I'd like to ascertain you that I respect and love you. Believe it or not. [w.] 16:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)